4. ^^/ji : Tif^y^/^^^
NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. MESKILL
TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
HEARINGS
BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
NOMINATION OF
THOMAS J. MESKILL, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, SECOND CIRCUIT
JANUARY 23 AND 24 AND MARCH 5 AND 6, 1975
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
FRANKLIN PIERCE LAW CENTP'?
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Ql^^ r'-n^c'T MAR 2 7 i9 75
Boston Public Library
Boston, MA 02116
NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. MESKILL
TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
HEARINGS
BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NIXETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
NOMINATION OF
THOMAS J. MESKILL, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE UNITED
STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, SECOND CIRCUIT
JANUARY 23 AND 24 AND MARCH 5 AND 6, 1975
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-704 WASHINGTON : 1975
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN L. McCLBLLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California
JAMES G. ABOUREZK, South Dakota
Subcommittee
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN L. MoCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
(n)
CONTENTS
Thxjrsday, January 23, 1975
Testimony of : Pae©
Philip W. Noel, Governer of Rhode Island 16
William R. Cotter, U.S. Representative from Connecticut 25
Ron'ild A. Sarasin, U.S. Representative from Connecticut 26
Stewart B. McKinney, U.S. Representative from Connecticut 27
Lawrence E. Walsh, president-elect, American Bar Association 29
Arn(tld Bauman, chairman. Committee on the Judiciary, Association
of the Bar of the City of New York, accompanied by Sheldon Elsen
and Bernard Nussbaum 63
Bert Hopkins, dean emeritus. University of Connecticut School of
Law 74
John Doyle, former legislative liaison to Governor Meskill 77
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., U.S. Senator from Connecticut 88
Dan Lufkin, former Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Pro-
tection Agency 116
Edward T. Coll, national director. The Revitalization Corps, Hart-
ford, Conn 120
Friday, January 24, 1975
Testimony of :
Lee Novick, chairw^oman, Connecticut Women's Political Caucus 132
John D. Labelle, State's attorney, State of Connecticut 135
Carmine R. Lavieri, attorney, Winsted, Conn 138
Gerald F. Stevens, house minority leader, Connecticut House of Rep-
resentatives 139
Leon RisCassi, attorney, Hartford, Conn 143
Charlotte Kitowski, West Hartford, Conn 146
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., U.S. Senator from Connecticut 175
Thomas J. Meskill, former Governor of Connecticut, nominee 176
Wednesday, March 5, 1975
Testimony of :
Lawrence E. Walsh, president-elect, American Bar Association, and
Edward M. Shaw 373
George L. Gunther, State senator, Connecticut General Assembly 398
Lowell P. Weicker, U.S. Senator from Connecticut 453
Thomas J. Meskill, former Governor of Connecticut, nominee 460
Thursday, March 6, 1975
Testimony of:
Thomas J. Meskill, former Governor of Connecticut, nominee 471
Peter Dorsey, U.S. attorney for the State of Connecticut 523
Stewart A. Smith, former administrative assistant to Governor
Meskill 525
John A. Doyle, former legislative liaison to Governor Meskill 529
Gerald R. Osgood, former resident of Connecticut 539
(m)
IV
MATlJKIAi: SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
January 23, 1975
Jitter, dated January 20, 1975, to Chairman Eastland, from Senators Hart, Pa^e
Tunney, and Burdick 1
Final report without appendixes of the Subcommittee on Leasing of the
Connecticut Assembly's Joint Committee on Appropriations 2
Prepared statement of Governor Philip Noel of Rhode Island 17
Letter, dated September 17, 1974, to Chairman Eastland, from Stewart B.
McKinney, U.S. Representative from Connecticut 27
Prepared statement of Lawrence E. Walsh, president-elect, American Bar
Association, January 23, 1975 30
Case of Caldwell v. Meskill, decided January 24, 1973 34
Federal Judges Found Not Qualified by American Bar Association, list
submitted by Senator Roman L. Hruska 47
Letter, dated January 23, 1975, to Chairman Eastland, from Bert Hopkins,
dean emeritus, University of Connecticut School of Law 76
Interview with John Doyle on December 16, 1974, re Governor Meskill
meeting with State Senator Gunther, submitted by Mr. Doyle 78
Telegram, dated December 16, 1974, to Senator Weicker, from Lawrence
E. Walsh, submitted by Senator Weicker 90
Interview of State Senator Gunther at Leasing Public Hearing, Decem-
ber 13, 1974, submitted by Senator Weicker 96
Affidavit, dated January 22, 1975, by Patrick C. Nolan, New Britain, Conn.,
submitted by Edward T. Coll 121
Letter, dated January 17, 1975, to Chairman Eastland, from George F.
Sherwood, Glastonbury, Conn 124
Letter, dated January 21, 1975, to Chairman Eastland, from Nathan Levy,
Jr., professor of law 125
January 24, 1975
Letter, dated January 23, 1975, to Chairman Eastland, from Christopher J.
Dodd, U.S. Representative from Connecticut 127
Letter, dated January 23, 1975, to Chairman Eastland, from Toby Moflfett,
U.S. Representative from Connecticut 128
Letter, dated January 21, 1975, with enclosures, to Chairman Eastland,
from G. L. Gunther, Connecticut State senator 128
Material submitted by Charlotte Kitowski, West Hartford, Conn 147
Federal Judges Found Not Qualified by American Bar Association, table
submitted by Senator Roman L. Hruska 162
Letter, dated January 22, 1975, with enclosures, to Chairman Eastland,
from Boyd Hinds, codirector EducatIon/Instrucci6n, Inc 163
List of 10 cases submitted by Governor Meskill 191
March 5, 1975
Appendix to the report of the Subcommittee on Leasing of the Connecticut
General Assembly's 1974 Joint Committee on Appropriations 195
Report of the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of
the City of New York on the Nomination of Thomas J. Meskill, dated
March 3, 1975 237
Article by Greg Chilson, "Leasing Report Lacks Facts," submitted by Sena-
tor Scott of Pennsylvania 383
Letter, dated February 20, 1975. to Lawrence E. Walsh, from Robert" C.
Leuba, addition to exhibit 3 of American Bar Association report 395
Affidavit, dated March 3, 1975, by Albert R. Connelly, submitted by Law-
rence E. Walsh 396
Connecticut Leasing Practices Hearing, September 7, 1972, submitted by
Connecticut State Senator Gunther 406
V
March 6, 1975
Newsstory, dated June 1, 1972, "Proposed Lease Is Criticized," submitted P^se
by Senator Burdick 476
Letter, dated June 27, 1972, from Toby Moffett, to Governor Meskill, and
reply, dated July 12, 1972, from Governor Meskill 483
Text of petitions by residents of Connecticut submitted to Senator Bur-
dick 495
Letter, dated December 25, 1974, to Chairman Eastland, from Toby Moffett,
Member-elect, U.S. House of Representatives 496
Letter, dated February 7, 1975, to Lawrence E. Walsh, from Edward J.
Kozlowski 496
Letter, dated February 25, 1975, to Chairman Eastland, from Mrs. Evelyn
F. Prince 537
Letter, dated September 26, 1974, to Senator Ribicoff, from Karen De-
Crow 538
NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. MESKILL
TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1975
U. S. Senate,
SuBCOMMrrrEE of the
Committee of the Jtjdiciart,
Washington^ D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:37 a.m., in room
2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Quentin N. Burdick
presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick, McClellan, Tunney, Scott of Pennsyl-
vania, and Hruska.
Also present : Francis C. Rosenberger of the committee staff.
Also present: Staff members representing Senators: Dennis C.
Thelen [Senator McClellan], Burton Wides [Senator Hart], Thomas
Sussman [Senator Kennedy], J. William Heckman, Jr. [Senator
Bayh], William J. Weller [Senator Burdick], Jane L. Frank [Sena-
tor Tunney], Dennis Unkovic [Senator Scott of Pennsylvania], C. W.
(Quincy) Rodgers [Senator Mathias].
Senator Burdick. Before calling our first witness, on behalf of this
ad hoc subcommittee, I wish to announce that the subcommittee has
received a request from several members of the Judiciary Committee
that the cochairman and counsel of the Connecticut Legislature's Leas-
ing Investigative Subcommittee be called as witnesses at this hearing.
[The request referred to follows :]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C, January 20, 1975.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Chairman, Comittee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mb. Chairman : A confirmation hearing on the nomination of Thomas J.
Meskill to be a Judge of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit has been
scheduled for January 23, 1975.
Because the date of the hearing will be prior to the issuance of a written report
by the Leasing Investigation Subcommittee of the Connecticut Legislature, we
request that the Committee invite the following witnesses in order to assure that
an adequate investigation of this matter is made prior to the Committee's acting
on the nomination.
State Senator Joseph Leiberman, New Haven, Connecticut, Co-Chairman of the
Subcommittee ;
State Representative Richard Dice, Cheshire, Connecticut, Co-Chairman of
the Subcommittee ;
Mr. William Shure, Hartford, Connecticut, Counsel to the Subcommittee;
(1)
state Senator George Gunther, Stratford, Connecticut ; and,
Mr. John Doyle, Hartford, Connecticut, Former Aide to Governor Meskill.
Each of the foregoing will be able to supply to the Committee verification of
factual information given to the Connecticut Legislature Subcommittee as that
information bears upon the actions of Governor Meskill while serving as Gover-
nor of the State of Connecticut.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
Philip A. Hakt,
John V. Tunnet,
QUENTIN N. BUEDICK,
U.S. Senators.
Senator Burdick. It appears that the presence of those witnesses was
requested because this hearing on the nomination of Governor Meskill
is scheduled prior to the Connecticut Legislature's subcommittee's
completing the report on its assigned task. This ad hoe subcommittee
is aware of the fact that under the date of January 7, 1975, the Con-
necticut Legislature's subcommittee issued a report discussing various
phases of its investigation and in that report that subcommittee stated
that on or about February 1, 1975, it would issue an appendix to its re-
port which would contain factual information bearing upon some
54 specific leases which it had examined.
It appears to this ad hoc subcommittee that if further hearings on
this nomination were to be held after February 1, 1975, that it would
then be unnecessary to call the cochairmen and counsel of the Con-
necticut Legislature's subcommittee as witnesses. Therefore I wish to
announce that this ad hoc subcommittee intends to receive testimony
from those witnesses who are presently available and then to recess
these proceedings to a date after February 1, 1975, the exact date to
be announced by this ad hoc subcommittee.
[The final report without appendixes of the Subcommittee on Leas-
ing of the Connecticut General Assembly's Joint Committee on Ap-
propriations, referred to, follows :]
Final Repokt Withottt Appendixes of the Subcommittee on Leasing of the
Connecticut General Assembly's Joint Committee on Appropriations
background and procedure
In May, 1974, a committee was established to examine into leasing practices
by the State of Connecticut. Technically, it is a sub-committee of the 1973-1974
General Assembly Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations. The sub-com-
mittee was established by a unanimous vote of the Appropriations Committee,
a copy of which resolution is attached hereto, and was funded with a .$35,000.00
allocation from the Management Committee of the General Assembly having
initially requested a minimum of $50,000.00 to finance the investigation.
The leasing sub-committee consists of six Appropriations Committee members,
three members from each political party. The three Republican members are:
Representative Richard C. Dice of Cheshire, Chairman of the House Committee
on Appropriations and Chairman of the sub-committee on leasing; Senator
Nicholas A. Lenge of West Hartford, Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations and Representative .Tohn ^lannix of Wilton, sponsor of the resolu-
tion creating the leasing sub-committee.
The three Democratic members are : Senator Joseph Lieberman of New Haven,
Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Vice-
Chairman of the leasing sub-committee; Representative John Groppo of Winsted,
Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Appropriations and
Representative Addo Bonetti of Torrington.
The action to create the leasing sub-committee was a culminating response to
a series of events and a number of circumstances including :
1. The long lack of progress in securing new premises for the Greater Hart-
ford Community College in the face of pressing need intensified with accredita-
tion problems.
2. Disclosure of a decision to lease the Phoenix Building, so-called, in Hart-
ford on apparently questionable terms when the property had been available for
purchase at an attractive price.
3. Review of just the limited available facts and the sequence of events pre-
ceding the Phoenix Building proposed lease indicated a less than favorable ar-
rangement for the State and possible favoritism to the lessors who were recent
purchasers of the premises.
4. Information gathered in the Summer of 1972 by the General Assembly
Standing Committee on State and Urban Development concerning a lease to the
State of a highway garage in Waterford by the Downes Construction Co.
5. Continuing rumors about questionable leasing practices, investigative re-
porting by News media in the State, sharply escalating dollar volume over the
past decade and the burgeoning number of special facility leases throughout the
State with prospects that the increasing trend would continue.
The Appropriations Committee was the logical place for the Legislative Branch
to initiate its response which it did through the spearheading of Representative
John Mannix.
The committee held initial organizational meetings during May of 1974, at
which time Attorney H. William Shure of New Haven, was appointed Chief
Counsel for the investigation. Shure in turn appointed as his full time Deputy,
Richard Altschuler of West Haven, who, while still a law student, had been
the chief investigator for the 1972 investigation of the Downes lease chaired by
Senator Lieberman. As a result of early endeavors of Representative Mannix, a
liaison for the committee had been established with State Auditors Leo Donohue
and Henry Becker, who thereafter assigned their principal auditor Bernard
Sherwill and associate auditor Leonard Yanchinsky to the sub-committee for the
duration of its investigation. The full time endeavors of Altschuler, Sherwill
and Yanchinsky, from early June until the date of this report, was the key to the
disclosures eventually made by the sub-committee.
Early in the investigation, the committee staff prepared a questionnaire, a
copy of which is attached hereto, for all lessors which required disclosure of
all parties to leases, including officei-s and stockholders of corporation.;, partners,
and beneficiaries of trusts. In addition, the staff prepared printouts of all leases
by lessors, by location, by agencies, by dollar amounts and by length of the
lease. With the information obtained in the questionnaires and in the printouts,
fifty-four leases of a total of approximately four hundred, were selected for
thorough investigation by the committee. These fifty-four were selected based
upon questionable responses in the questionnaire, substantial costs, long term
leases, multiple lessors, tips received by the subcommittee, known political in-
dividuals being involved and a decision to look into all highway garages. Leases
were limited to those entered into after 1960. Said fifty -four leases, while being
only approximately one-quarter of the leases in effect represent 46.6% of the total
dollar expenditure for leases per annum; to wit, $3,33.3,383.00 out of a total
.$7.1.^7,561.00.
The investigation began with staff interviews of landlords who were ques-
tioned regarding circumstances surrounding purchase of the demised premises,
how they become aware of the State's needs, contacts vdth political and state
officials and other pertinent information surrounding the negotiations and
eventual lease finalization. Former owners of the real estate in question, other
persons who endeavored to lease premises to the State to meet the needs in ques-
tion, and individuals involved in negotiations, including lawyers and real estate
agents were all interviewed. Records of Town Clerks, Building Inspectors, and
assessors were examined for whatever information was deemed pertinent. This
phase of the investigation encompassed about three and one-half months during
which time, Connecticut Department of Public Works files of the fifty-four leases
in question were examined in detail and .ibout two hundred persons were inter-
viewed, either in person or by telephone. Throughout the entire investigation, the
Department of Public Works cooperated fully in providing all information re-
quested of it.
In the next phase of the investigation, questions were prepared for persons
who were involved with the leases in question by virtue of State Civil Service
employment or appointed, elected or political positions. Interviews were con-
ducted of persons ranging from Governors and former Governors to clerical em-
ployees of various agencies and departments. These interviews were directed to
the circumstances under which the State chose leasing as the method by which
the need in question was to be met and thereafter, how the specific property was
chosen. In this aspect of the investigation, approximately one hundred persons
were interviewed directly though a few were questioned through telephone
contacts.
The second phase of the investigation was completed but many new questions
had arisen. The obtaining of answers to these would have required several
months more of investigation. Faced with the time deadlines set forth in the
resolution creating it and the pending expiration of the 1973-1974 legislature, a
decision was made to begin public hearings on November 25, 1974, and continue
for eleven hearing days through December 19, 1974. Eleven leases were chosen
to be examined at these public hearings as examples of the kinds of abuses and
deviations from the systems and established procedures of leasing disclosed
repetitively in varying degrees from the review of all leases with which problems
were found. This report contains an appendix* stating the investigation's results
as to all fifty-four leases examined, including those in which no problem with
regard to procedure, rent or adequacy of the facility was discovered.
The sub-committee hired Norman Benedict Associates, a highly respected and
recognized appraisal firm. Under the direction of Mr. Norman Benedict, his com-
pany inspected all fifty-four pieces of property and made studies and com-
parisons of rental rates in the market area to determine whether the State was
paying a fair rental for the facilities being provided. Mr. Benedict testified at the
public hearings concerning the eleven leases publicly aired. His complete report
on all fifty-four leases is attached to the appendix hereinbefore referred to.
The sub-committee's rules and guidelines are attached hereto.
FirTDINQS
During the early 1960s, leasing involved situations of limited use required
in a particular location or of a need of definite and short duration. Expenditure
levels ranged between one-half and three-quarters of a million dollars for these
leases. As State Government expanded and real estate needs became greater than
the dollars available from bonding, the leasing approach became the substitute.
During the period from 1962 until approximately 1970, annual leasing expendi-
tures increased by approximately one-half million dollars per year and in 1970,
ballooned to its present approximate seven and one-half million dollars per year.
Long term needs were being met by leases. Entire buildings designed and built
expressly and entirely to meet State needs on long term bases were being built
for the State by lessors and thereafter leased to the State, rather than the State
building for itself or purchasing from the developer. With the rapid growth
of the Interstate Highway System within the State, highway garages, partic-
ularly, were acquired in this manner with landlords being paid rentals far in
excess of those paid for comparable structures outside of State's use. Likewise
rapid expansion of the Community College system within the State resulted In
substantial leases being entered into for required facilities. Similar leases were
found to have been entered into for entire office buildings containing as much
as 100,000 square feet and within close proximity to the State Capitol, or close
to other State functions, motor vehicle offices. Department of Labor facilitieb.
and facilities for other agencies. In almost every instance wherein an entire
buildinET has been leased to the State and the building is primarily designed for
State use. the term of the lease is fifteen to twenty years, with options to pur-
chase at the end of such leases that would inure to the great benefit of the
landlord.
Rental rates were frequently found to be within the reasonable ran?e for
similar properties in the market area, but it is apparent that the State failed to
take advantage of its status as a "Triple A" tenant. Any prospective landlord,
armed with a fifteen or twenty year lease from the State of Connecticut, as-
sured of a non-vacancy factor for the entire period with a no risk of non-pay-
ment of rent is clearly in a position to acquire favorable financing of the build-
ing in question. Under these circumstances, the State should be benefiting with
low rentals, not normal rentals.
•Tt la antlclpatprt that the appendix referre'" to shall be ready for publication on or
about February 1, 1975.
More significant, however, is the situation wherein a landlord-developer builds
a building entirely for State use. Justification for leasing rather than purchase
or State construction is frequently that the State cannot hold as inexpensively
as the developer. In most instances, this is true. However, the State does not
benefit by the developer's savings, since the property is leased to the State at a
rental rate based upon the value of the building to the State, not the landlord-
developer. The State failed ever to require the landlord to verify the estimates
for construction which were relied upon for establishing the rental paid by
the State.
It was further discovered that in at least two instances, the State of Con-
necticut entered into lease commitments and leases with landlords who either
lacked ownership or legal interest in the property being so leased. In one par-
ticular instance, a building is being leased to the State of Connecticut with a
specific parking requirement, which requirement is being met by the landlord
by his obtaining, on a month-to-month basis, spaces from the local parking
authority. In other instances, leases have been entered into for major prop-
erty wherein the landlord has absolutely no legal interest in the property con-
templated. Neither the Leasing Department nor the Attorney General's OflSce
have established any procedure by which the status of legal title in the demised
premises is verified.
Most significant, however, was the development of executive branch proce-
dures for leasing, evolving through usage and eventually being standardized
and established by the Department of Public Works under the direction of Gov-
ernor John Dempsey in 1967. As these procedures were established, there fol-
lowed repeated and systematic abuses of them.
The 1967 leasing procedures provided that an agency in need of space, having
determined leasing to be the most desirable method of acquisition, would re-
quest of the Leasing Section of the Department of Public Works, its needs in
square footage and general geographical area. Such requests were based, un-
fortunately, upon factors that usually were unrelated to sound business or real
estate factors. Agencies usually turned to leasing because of failure to get bond-
ing allocations and frequently to avoid the delay involved with capital con-
struction. This gave the using agencies short term convenience and the tax-
payers of the State of Connecticut long term excessive expenditures.
By virtue of an agency lease request, Public Works theoretically had the re-
sponsibility of evaluating the need and commencing the search for a site. Once
the search was begun, any choice of location was ultimately subject to the ap-
proval of the using agency, and it had, what was essentially, veto power to dis-
approve any proposed site. The ultimate authority to approve and disapprove
a Public Works proposed site is one of the areas by which the system is fre-
quently circumvented and abused.
After a site decision, a lease proposal is received from the prospective land-
lord which is thereafter submitted to the Department of Finance and Control
for review and to the Attorney General's Office, apparently solely for review
with regard to form and not substance. Until 1972, the proposed lease was subject
to review by a Citizen's Advisory Committee, whose members were knowledge-
able or experts in most aspects of real estate use including banking, engineer-
ing, construction, architecture and the like. They served without pay and func-
tioned as reviewers in an efi'ort to save taxpayers' dollars. Due to the increase
in volume and the logistical problems of holding and attending meetings, this
committee's review became individualistic, with proposals and approvals or
disapprovals circulated by mail. Although members of the Citizen's Advisory
Committee informed the leasing sub-committee that they remained in constant
contact with each other, some other persons came to the conclusion that it was
a mere "rubber stamp" for Department of Public Works' proposals and it was,
therefore, disbanded by legislation in compliance with a recommendation of the
"Etherington Report".
The leasing sub-committee finds that, to the contrary, the Citizen's Advisory
Committee had, in fact, disapproved several leases which resulted in renegotia-
tions with substantial savings to the State. The committee's approval was not
required. Yet, as a matter of practice, no lease was approved without the
afl5rmative vote of a majority of the members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee.
The abolition of the Advisory Committee had the effect of eliminating one more
protection for the State in negotiating leases.
6
The most serious abuse in the established procedural system was in site selec-
tion. The Department of Public Works was intended to be the first to deal with
the public, thereby to be able to enter a competitive market area and seek the
best available arrangement for the State. Likewise, all prospective landlords
were intended to have an equal opportunity to propose space for lease to the
State. In theory, the procedure was designed to create and establish the most
competitive setting possible for the State to seek leased premises.
Unfortunately, this competitive setting was, more often than not, utterly
destroyed by the actions of State employees, appointed or elected oflBcials, or
highly placed political persons. Through the actions of such individuals with
sufficient authority, knowledge and/or control of the leasing needs of the State,
particular prospective landlords were given advance information concerning
these needs. Usually this information given the prospective landlord was so
specific as to enable him to author a proposal which would fulfill the precise
needs of the agency and submit it to the Department of Public "Works within days
of the formal request from the using agency to Public Works. In some instances
the prospective landlord was actually assisted by the using agency in selecting a
site before Public Works was notified formally or informally of the need. Like-
wise, the Chief of the Leasing Division of Public Works was allowed such lati-
tude with regard to those leases where the requesting agency had technically
followed the established procedures, that he could select lessors on criteria
known only to him.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The State's leasing procedures are outmoded and inadequate and long term
leasing was not uniformly the most desirable method by which the State could
have met its real estate needs.
2. The leasing procedures were informally established, often violated and sub-
ject to wide-spread abuse, both within State Government and the political frame-
work in which government operates.
3. The State would have been far better served to have purchased or con-
structed facilities built exclusively for State use, rather than having assumed
lengthy and expensive leases on property with eventual options at excessively
high prices.
4. The Department of Public Works could not negotiate on an arm's length
basis because the prospective landlord already knew that his proposal met the
precise needs of the using agency and often that his site was the precise one
desired by such agency which had to approve the site.
5. The State of Connecticut ended up paying rents far in excess of those it
would have had to pay in a competitive setting, and far in excess of the relative
true value of the leased premises.
6. Other prospective landlords without political connections who followed the
proper and established procedures had little chance of leasing to the State no
matter how favorable their proposals might be, and
7. The State frequently ended up leasing premises that were let, not because
of desirability in meeting needs, and often with undesirable features, but rather
because of the particular landlord and his friendship and/or political connections.
BECOM MENDATIONS
Ca) A complete revision of the procedures by which the State of Connecticut
fulfills its real estate needs must be undertaken. To accomplish this, we recom-
mend a new operational entity be established and that it be staffed with in-house
experts and professionals in every facet of real estate and construction opera-
tions, including financiers, bankers, contractors, architects, engineers and other
persons of pertinent talents and training. In addition, this entity should have its
own legal staff experienced in real estate law with the sufficient authority to
participate in the negotiations of contracts regarding the purchase, lease and
construction of real property. Using agencies should be required to do nothing
more than notify the capital facilities entity as to real estate needs stating space
requirements and general geographic area sought. The capital facilities entity
should be the sole determining authority in fulfilling the requested real estate
need, choosing the method of acquisition, and being required to pursue that
method on the open, competitive market.
State employees outside this entity should be barred from discussing real
estate acquisition with any prospective landlord, seller or contractor, and the
newly created entity should be the sole agency authorized to deal on behalf of
the State with third parties for the acquisition or construction of real estate.
The newly created entity will compile and thereafter maintain a comprehensive
and complete inventory of all improved and unimproved real estate available to
the State either by virtue of ownership or leasehold interest. The inventory shall
be explored as the first source to meet the needs of a requesting agency.
With resiject to real estate uses designed uniquely for the State of Connecticut
and required for periods of time in excess of five years, it should be the goal of
the newly created entity to purchase, or possibly lease-purchase such facilities,
or to construct them on already existing State land. Leases for such facilities
should be avoided and resijrted to only when all other possibilities are eliminated.
In all instances where the State constructs or purchases property rather than
leasing, the State should enter into agreements with the local municipalities for
payments in Ueu of taxes.
In order for the newly created entity to comply with the foregoing, it shall be
essential that State agencies commence immediate long-range planning for real
estate needs. The fact that construction and purchase require more time and
availability of capital funds by bonding, each State agency should be required to
plan and establish its long-range capital needs, to be submitted to the newly
created entity for feasibility study, and coordination in the meeting of the
aggregate need.
In those instances where new construction is to be done on State land, or new
construction is to be done for sale to the State, and the entity has established
specific plans and specificaions for such construction, then the advertising and
sealed bid method of letting the contract should be applied. In all other instances,
however, the entity should not be restricted to such a procedure. Too many
variables exist from property to property for such a procedure to be applied and
to attempt to do so would most likely inure to the detriment of the State of
Connecticut.
Once such a special entity has been established, it shall be its further respon-
sibility to implement the procedure established for the acquisition of real estate
needed. The technical members should be responsible for seeing to it that vendors,
lessors and/or contractors strictly comply with all requirements, plans and
specifications agreed to. In addition, the legal advisor to the entity should have the
authority to determine the legal sufficiency of all contracts and/or leases both as
to sub.stance and as to form. In addition, such legal advisors should be responsible
for the enforcement of all of the terms of such agreements. The entity should be
further charged with, in the case of leasing, to seeing to it that landlords live up to
and meet all of the conditions of the lease.
Particular emphasis should be made with respect to tax escalation clauses. In
instances where leases contain such clauses, such leases should, in addition, relieve
the State of liability for increased taxes unless the landlord notifies the entity
attorney of any such pending increase within sufficient time to permit the State,
on behalf of such landlord, to contest such an increase when appropriate. The
said attorney should be responsible for deciding when such an appeal should be
taken, and for implementing same when deemed necessary.
Sub-committee recommends that a system analysis be conducted with regard to
the recommended operational entity to determine whether or not it should be a
separate State department, a division of the Department of Public Works, the
Department of Finance Control or some other appropriate State department.
(b) A system of program auditing should be established, the implementation
of which would guarantee legislative review of all programs within the State
Government. This program should be implemented through the State Auditor's
OflSce by expanding its authority and staff and should be coordinated with the
functions of the Legislative Program Review Committee.
(c) A Citizen's Advisory Committee should be re-established with the same
cross-section of membership as the former committee, having expanded powers
and duties. It should review all aspects of the entity's proposed actions, including
its decision on method of acquisition and whether, having chosen a particular
method, it is being carried out in a sound and expeditious business manner to
achieve for the State the best possible value for its expenditures. The committee
should have free access to all information available to and used by the entity
in recommending and rejecting the proposals.
Obviously, for a Citizen's Advisory Committee to fill the above functions would
require practically full time involvement of the members of the committee consists
8
of only one person with expertise in each applicable field. For this reason, it is
recommended that several persons from each field of expertise be appointed to the
committee and that a system of rotation be established so as to not overburden
any few persons. A monthly meeting of the committee should be held for general
discussion of real estate market conditions. Meetings .should be attended by the
professional staff of the newly created department. At such meetings, specific
problems can likewise be reviewed.
The Citizen's Advisory Committee should be compensated for travel and ex-
penses, but otherwise should be members of the community willing to contribute
their expertise for the public benefit.
(d) Legislation should be enacted to prevent unauthorized early disclosure of
State real estate needs to third parties. The newly created entity should be the
sole authorized agency permitted to deal with the public regarding the State's
real estate needs and how they are to be met. In some instances, advertising by
that entity for some period of time is recommended so that all persons are
given an equal opportunity to do business with the State without regard to
political affiliation, political contributions, or relationships with elected officials
or State employees in positions of infiuence.
Under no circumstances should persons within the requesting agency discuss
that agency's real estate needs or intents prior to formal notification to the
real estate acquisition entity and without that entity's authority and supervision.
It is recommended that should anyone without such authority disclose or discuss
information concerning real estate needs before it is made public by the new
entity, such person be subject to criminal prosecution. This subcommittee believes
such legislation would be a significant deterrent of such conduct which in the past
has clearly cost the State of Connecticut large sums of money, and in addition,
has denied many citizens of the State of Connecticut any opportunity to offer
real estate for sale or lease to the State.
(e) In order for the State of Connecticut to avoid long term leases for prop-
erty rented entirely to meet State needs, and in order to allow the State to
adequately plan its real estate needs and thereby acquire such property in the
most advantageous manner possible, it is necessary for the General Assembly
to take immediate action with regard to its own coordinated operations. As
indicated in the above conclusions, in almost every instance wherein the State
has met long term needs of large facilities through leasing, the State would have
been far better served had it constructed or purchased such facilities. To accom-
plish these methods of acquisition, in addition to the long-range planning of the
various State agencies, the General Assembly must better coordinate its budget,
appropriations and bonding procedures. Those committees within the General
Assembly must coordinate its endeavors so that the actions of each will not be
inhibited or precluded by the actions of the others. The General Assembly should
take immediate procedural action to place bonding under the authority of the
Joint Committee on Appropriations and, thereby, avoid the present procedural
impractical! ties.
It is also imperative that remedial action be taken to speed up the capital
projects procedure within State Government. Frequently, the sole justification
for entering into long and expensive leases was the speed with which such leases
could be entered into and thereby meet the needs of the using agencies. While the
agencies must endeavor to execute long-range planning for their real estate
requirements, so must the General Assembly endeavor to speed up the procedures
by which capital expenditures can be expedited, it having been determined that
that method of acquisition is most advantageous to the State.
(f) The General Assembly's election committee should take particular note
of the contents of this report in the course of its consideration for general
campaign finance reform.
(g) A permanent investigation commission should be created which should
have the duty and power to conduct investigations concerning execution and
enforcement of State laws, especially those involving organized crime and
racketeering, and conduct of public officials and public employees and of officers
and employees of public corporations and authorities. It should have general
power to investigate any matter concerning public peace, safety and justice.
Public officials either elected or appointed. State Legislators and Civil Service
employees earning more than $13,000.00 per year should be required to make full
financial di.selosure of their assets, liabilities and income to this commission
which shall be required to keep such information confidential, unless such
information becomes pertinent to the exercise of its investigative authority.
(h) This report discusses the general conclusions drawn from the sub-
committee's investigation and the appendix states in detail each of the fifty-four
leases studied by the sub-committee. Certain of the leases investigated require
specific recommendations with regard to their present status.
1. The highway garages located in Colchester, Waterford, Thomaston, Rocky
Hill and "Wiusted (Winchester) are all subject to the same abuses and all should
be re-examined by the State for re-evaluation in light of the disclosures uncovered
by this sub-committee. In each of the above garages, the State of Connecticut
is paying rents that can be only described as "excessive". In several instances,
the rate of rental is over double that paid by non-State lessors for comparable
facilities. In each instance, the landlords were either active politically or closely
associated with high-ranking political and State governmental authorities, which
positions enabled these individuals to obtain these highly lucrative leases to the
exclusion of any competition. In the instances of Waterford and Winsted, the
then prospective landlord was aided by the using agency in selecting the ultimate
site before the agency had even notified the Department of Public W^orks of its
need for such space. In the case of Winsted a bona fide prospective landlord was
intentionally deceived by the Department of Transportation when he was in-
formed that no decision regarding such a garage had been made at the same
precise time that sites were being examined and one ultimately selected by the
prospective landlord and Department of Transportation employees acting at the
direct instruction of the Commissioner of that Department. In the case of
Thomaston, the prospective landlord could not even arrange financing until a
leading political figure became his one-half partner, for which said political
leader paid no consideration and even failed to sign the mortgage note for the
permanent financing. This garage in Thomaston was constructed on the top of a
hill, and is inaccessible to State employees during winter storms, resulting in
storage of State vehicles on vacant land at the bottom of the hill. It is the
recommendation of the sub-committee that these garage leases be re-examined,
renegotiated, and, if necessary, broken on the basis of the improper activities
leading to the consummation of such leases, which in several instances could be
supported legally due to the improper collusion between the landlord and State
officials and employees. Should renegotiation be unsuccessful and the site desira-
ble, the State might consider resorting to its condemnation powers.
The State of Connecticut is presently paying $546,884.00 per year for the lease
of these garages. It is estimated by the sub-committee that were the rental.<a
properly computed and comparable to non-State users of similar properties the
State of Connecticut could save up to $250,000.00 per year.
2. Preliminary evidence indicates that the renovation cost estimates for 160
Pascone Place, Newington, submitted by the landlord were grossly over-stated
and that the rental cost was primarily determined by such estimates. Whereas
the landlord estimated his renovations at approximately Thirty Dollars a square
foot, those costs should more properly have been between Fifteen to Twenty Dol-
lars per square foot. It is recommended that this lease be renegotiated and a
rental value established w-hich more properly refiects the real value of the facility
and that if such a renegotiation is not successful that the State terminate the
lease based upon the prior collusion between the landlord and employees of the
Department of Transportation before the Department had even officially re-
quested such space and even before the landlord had any legal interest in the
property, either in the form of ownership or option to purchase. If the site is
desirable and renegotiation unsuccessful then the State should consider exer-
cising its condemnation powers in light of the cost estimates obtained by the com-
mittee. A special study of this property by the subcommittee comes to the con-
clusion that the total capital expenditure for the premises should not have
exceeded 1.2 million dollars rather than the 1.6 million dollars claimed by the
landlord. Had the State purchased the property and renovated it, its annual cost
for amortization would have been approximately $105,000.00 or approximately
$99,000.00 less per year than the rental presently being paid. This would amount
to a savings of approximately $2,000,000.00 over the twenty year term of the
lease, in addition to which, the State would not be subject to the $1,104,000.00
option price as provided in the lease at the end of said period to acquire outright
ownership.
3. The State should take some action with respect to the findings of the staff
of the Department of Motor Vehicles as embodied in a report from Orlando San-
tini to Commissioner Robert Leuba dated June 28, 1973, concerning the Motor
10
Vehicle Office at 1985 State Street, Hamden. While the rental rate for that
facility has been reported as fair, the property is unsuitable for its purposes
without changes being implemented, either through reversal of a test lane or
the opening of the Gene Street Exit.
4. During the course of the sub-committee's investigation, it came to its atten-
tion that certain diverse opinions exist concerning the Greater Waterbury
Higher Education Complex II project presently under construction. This multi-
million dollar, multi-phase construction project is being done under a construc-
tion manager arrangement whereby its manager is paid a substantial fee for
directing and supervising the construction. The former Commissioner of Public
Works, having carefully studied six proposals for said project, was transferred
to be Commissioner of Motor Vehicles as a result of a reorganization of the exec-
utive branch of the State Government. His successor, shortly thereafter, awarded
this project to the proponent that the former Commissioner had considered the
least desirable of the six presented. Due to the magnitude of this project and the
fees involved for the construction manager, the full and entire circumstances sur-
rounding the letting of this contract should be re-examined.
(i) A separate sub-committee of the Standing Joint Committee on Appropri-
ations for the 1975-1976 Legislature should be appointed in order to implement
this report and to recommend examination and investigation into other areas
such as service contracts, personal property contracts and the following :
(1) Community College Acquisition — Due to the uniqueness of the needs of
Community Colleges and the rapid expansion of their facilities' needs,
massive expenditures have been made by the State to provide required physical
facilities. Without exception, whether such facilities were obtained through
lease, purchase, construction, construction management or lease-back, questions
have arisen as to the procedures by which the property was obtained, the price
being paid and whether or not the State was being treated fairly. An entire
study of all higher education real estate acquisition should be made and con-
sideration should be given to whether or not this area of acquisition is de-
serving of separate procedures.
(2) Group Homes — In recent years the Department of Mental Health has
found it necessary to lease large homes to satisfy outreach needs. At the present
time, there are seventeen pending leases and five that have just been concluded.
Because of the time restrictions, this sub-committee was not able to make a
significant study of the procedures by which these homes are leased, however, we
are satisfied that there exists susceptibility to abuse. For this reason, it is
recommended that before this approach proceeds much further that a thorough
examination be made into it.
(3) Other Specific Leases — During the course of the sub-committee's investi-
gation and, for the most part during the course of its public hearings, members
of the general community and of State Government brought to the sub-commit-
tee's attention various apparent problems with regard to specific leases. Obvi-
ously, at that point in the sub-committee's Investigation, it lacked the time and
manpower to examine such leases. It is recommended that some provision be
made to permit follow-up investigation in those specific areas. In addition, the
sub-committee has become aware of leases in the process of negotiation which, in
some instances, involve landlords or locations which, during the course of the
investigation, were pointed out as potential problem areas.
(j) A subpoena for the financial records of the Riverview Realty Company
regarding its leases with the State of Connecticut was not complied with. The
Joint Committee on Appropriations of the General Assembly should authorize
and issue a new subpoena for said information.
PUBLICATION
This report, its attachments and its appendixes are being distributed to mem-
bers of the General Assembly's Standing Joint Committee on Appropriations,
to any other members of the General Assembly desiring it, the Press, the Chief
State's Attorney and State Attorneys for the Counties and to the United States
Attorney for the District of Connecticut.
Upon the completion of the transcripts of the sub-committee's public hearings,
the legal staff is instructed to review any possible conflicts of testimony and
to bring such conflicts to the attention of the sub-committee for purposes of deter-
mining whether or not any further action might be deemed advisable.
11
SUMMARY
The system of leasing utilized by the State of Connecticut since 1968, in theory
gives the State the opportunity to obtain real property by lease under competitive
circumstances and with an opportunity to all citizens to take part in offering
their property to the State. The system has broken down because the people
working it seized upon this means of real estate acquisition as a vehicle by
which political patronage, cronyism, personal spoils systems and friendship were
substituted as the real system. The sub-committee does not accept patronage as
a justifiable vehicle for all dealings with the State. The theory "it doesn't mat-
ter who gets the lease so long as the State pays a fair price," ignores the very
fundamental question of "how" that person gets the lease. If the system is totally
circumvented, if other legitimate proponents of leases are misled, denied equal
access to information, or led into already "locked up" deals, then the "how"
factor becomes more and more important. If precedent is set with respect to
high rentals for particular type facility, then who is allowed to be the next
beneficiary of this precedent becomes extremely important.
If the system is susceptible to the abuses of the people operating under it,
then the people must change and adjustments must be made to the system to
attempt to prevent future abuse. This sub-committee has examined the system
and found it being abused by the people who were in a position to do so. The
system needs change so that the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut will be
guaranteed that they are the primary beneficiaries of a policy that will give them
the best conceivable value for its tax dollars and still permit government to serve
effectively.
RicHAED A. Dice,
Chairman.
Joseph Liebeeman,
Vice Chairman.
Nicholas A. Lenge,
Addo E. Bonetti,
John G. Geoppo,
John F. Mannix.
State of Connecticut
JOINT committee EESOLUTION introduced BT EEP. MANNIX, 142D DISTRICT
APPBOPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FEBRUARY SESSION, A.D.
1974
Resolved ty the Joint Committee on Appropriations:
Whereas there is increased importance in acquiring real property by lease for
the state purposes ; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That this committee establish a subcommittee to study and investi-
gate state purchasing construction and leasing procedures and practices by the
Department of Public Works; from January 1, 1960, to the present. And be it
further
Resolved, That the committee shall consist of six members chosen as follows :
four members from the House of Representatives consisting of two members
of the Majority party, two members of the Minority party and two members from
the Senate, one from each party. And, be it further
Resolved, That any public hearing be held no sooner than November 15, 1974,
and no later than December 15, 1974, and that the subcommittee report its find-
ings to the Appropriations Committee no later than January 1, 1975. And be it
further
Resolved, That the Joint Committee on Appropriations request Legislative
Management to appropriate the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars for the pur-
pose of carrying out the study and hiring appropriate staff to do so.
Whereas, there is a need for additional time to complete the Public Hearings
phase of the investigation by the Sub-Committee of the Appropriations Committee
into the leasing practices of the State of Connecticut ; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Appropriations Committee herewith extend the Public
Hearings phase of the investigation into the leasing practices of the State of
Connecticut from Dec. 15, 1974 to Dee. 31, 1974.
47-704—75-
12
Rules of Procedure for the Special Subcommittee of the Joint
General Assembly Appropriations Committee
1. Investigations may be initiated by the sub-committee staff with the approval
of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman or at their direction.
2. Sub-committee hearings and meetings shall be conducted by the Chairman
or member designated by the Chairman, and all hearings shall be held in public.
3. The Chairman shall give each member written notice of the subject of
and scope of any hearings two (2) days prior to the time such hearing is to
begin. No hearings shall then be held if any member objects unless upon the
subsequent approval of the majority of the sub-committee.
4. The Chairman shall have authority to call meetings of the sub-committee
which authority he may delegate to any other member. Members shall have at
least twenty-four (24) hours notice of any meeting of the sub-committee.
Should a majority of the members request the Chairman in writing to call a
meeting of the sub-committee and should the Chairman fail to call such meeting
within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter, such majority may call a meeting
by filing a written notice with the Chief Coinisel who shall promptly notify each
of the sub-committee. If the Chairman is not present at any such meeting, and
has not designated another member to conduct the meeting, the Vice-chairman
shall preside. If the Vice-Chairman is not present at any such meeting, the
remaining members present shall select a member to preside.
5. A quorum for the transaction of sub-committee business shall consist of a
majority of the sub-committee members. Unless otherwise specified in these rules,
decisions of the sub-committee shall be by a majority of votes cast. For the
purpose of hearing witnesses, taking testimony, and receiving evidence, a quorum
will consist of one member.
6. No person shall be allowed to be present during a staff interview except
members and employees of the sub-committee, the witness and his counsel, stenog-
raphers, or interpreters of the sub-committee. Other persons whose presence is
requested or consented to by the majority of the members of the sub-committee
present may be admitted to such interviews.
7. It shall be the duty of the Chief Counsel to keep, or cause to be kept, a record
of all sub-committee proceedings, including the record of votes on any matter on
which a record vote is taken and of all quorum calls together with all motions,
points of order, parliamentary inquiries, rulings of the chair and appeals there-
from. The record shall show those members present at each meeting. Such record
shall be available to any member of the sub-committee upon request.
8. Subpoenaes for attendance of witnesses shall be issued in accordance with
the provision of Section 2-46 of the Connecticut General Statutes and may be
served by any indifferent person designated by such Chairman or Vice-Chairman.
9. Each subpoena shall be accompanied by a copy of the sub-committee resolu-
tion authorizing the investigation with respect to which the witness is summoned
to testify or to produce papers, a copy of Section 2-A6 of the Connecticut General
Statutes, a copy of the sub-committee rules and a copy of the sub-committee
guidelines.
10. Witnesses shall be subpoenaed at a reasonably sufficient time in advance
of any hearing in order to give the witness an opportunity to prepare for the
hearing, employ counsel, should he so desire, and/or produce documents, books,
records, memoranda, and papers called for by a subpoena duces tecum. The sub-
committee shall determine, in each particular instance, what period of time
constitutes reasonable notice.
11. All witnesses at hearings shall give all testimony under oath or aflirmation
which shall be administered by the Chairman or a member of the sub-committee.
12. The time and order of interrogation of witnesses appearing before the sub-
committee shall be fixed by the Chairman. Interrogation of witnesses at sub-com-
mittee hearings shall be conducted by sub-committee members and authorized
sub-committee staff personnel only.
13. An objection raised by a witness or his counsel to procedures or to the
admissibility of testimony and evidence shall be ruled upon by the Chairman or
presiding member and such rulings shall be the rulings of the sub-committee,
unless a disagreement thereon is expressed by a majority of the sub-committee
present. In the case of a tie, the rule of the chair will prevail.
14. Any witness desiring to make a prepared or written statement for the
records of the proceedings shall file a copy of such statement with the counsel of
-gv— i'^T~T*
13
the sub-committee twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the hearings at which
the statement is to be presented, unless the Chairman waives the requirement.
All such statements or portions thereof so received which are relevant and
germane to the subject of investigation may, at the conclusion of the testimony
of the witness and with the approval of a majority of the sub-committee members,
be inserted in the official transcript of the proceedings.
15. A witness may make a statement, which shall be brief and relevant to the
subject matter of examination, at the beginning and conclusion of his testimony.
Each such statement shall not exceed five (5) minutes unless an extension of
time is authorized by the Chairman. However, statements which take the form
of personal attacks by the witness upon the motives of the sub-committee, the
personal character of any members of the General Assembly or of the sub-
committee staff, and intemperate statements, are not deemed to be relevant or
germane, shall not be made, and may be stricken from the record of the
proceedings.
16. All witnesses at hearings shall have the right to be accompanied by counsel.
Any witness who desires counsel but who is unable to secure counsel may inform
the sub-committee at least twenty -four (24) hours in advance of his appear-
ance of his inability to retain counsel and the sub-committee will endeavor to
secure voluntary counsel for the witness. However, failure to secure counsel
will not excuse the witness from appearing.
17. Counsel retained by any witness and accompanying such witness shall be
permitted to be present during the testimony of such witness at any hearing.
The sole and exclusive prerogative of the counsel shall be to advise such witness
while he is testifying of his legal rights and constitutional rights. Provided, how-
ever, that any State officer or employee being interrogated by the staff, or testi-
fying before the sub-committee and electing to have his personal counsel pres-
ent shall not be permitted to select such counsel from the employees or officers
of any State agency.
18. A witness shall not be excused from testifying in the event his counsel is
not present or is ejected for contumacy or disorderly conduct ; nor shall counsel
for the witness coach the witness, answer for the witness, or put words in the
witness' mouth. The failure of any witness to secure counsel shall not excuse
such witness from attendance in response to subpoena.
19. At the conclusion of the interrogation of his client, counsel shall be per-
mitted to make such reasonable and pertinent requests upon the sub-committee,
including access to the testimony of other witnesses or presentation of other
evidence, as he shall deem necessary to protect his client's rights. These re-
quests shall be ruled upon by the sub-committee members present
20. Counsel for the witnesses shall conduct himself in a professional, ethical,
and proper manner. His failure to do so shall, upon a finding to that effect by a
majority of the sub-committee members present, subject such counsel to disci-
plinary action which may include warning, censure or removal of counsel from
the hearing room.
21. There shall be no direct or cross-examination by counsel appearing for a
witness. However, the counsel may submit in writing any questions he wishes
propounded to his client or to any other witness. With the consent of the ma-
jority of the members present, such question or questions shall be put to the wit-
ness by the Chairman, by another member or by counsel of the sub-committee,
either in the original form or in modified language. The decision of the sub-com-
mittee as to the admissibility of questions submitted by counsel for a witness,
as well as their form, shall be final.
22. Any person who is in any way involved in an investigation in hearings may
submit to the Chairman questions in writing for the cross-examination of the
witnesses. Their formulation and admissibility shall be decided by the com-
mittee in accordance with rule 21.
23. Any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically identified, and
who believes that testimony or other evidence presented at a public hearing, or
comment made by the sub-committee member or counsel, tends to defame him or
otherwise adversely affect his reputation, may (a) request to appear personally
before the sub-committee to testify on his ov?n behalf, or, in the alternative, (b)
filed a sworn statement of facts relevant to the testimony, or other evidence or
comment complained of. Such request and such statement shall be submitted to
the sub-committee for its consideration and action.
14
24. No testimony taken or material presented in a staff interview, or any sum-
mary or excerpt thereof, shall be made available to other than the sub-committee
members and sub-committee staff and no such material or testimony shall be
made public or presented at a hearing, either in whole or in part, unless author-
ized by a majority of the sub-committee members or as otherwise provided for
in these rules. Nothing contained herein shall, however, be construed to conflict
with Paragraph 10 of the sub-committee Guidelines requiring publication of all
sub-committee documents at the conclusion of the sub-committee's hearings and
subsequent to the completion of its report and recommendations.
25. No evidence or testimony, or any summary or excerpt thereof given In
staff interview which the sub-committee determines may tend to defame, de-
grade, or incriminate any person shall be released, or presented at a hearing
unless such person shall have been afforded the opportunity to testify or file
a statement in rebuttal, and any pertinent evidence or testimony given by such
person, or on his behalf, is made a part of the transcript, summary, or excerpt
prior to the public release of such portion of the testimony.
26. A complete and accurate verbatim record shall be made of all testimony at
all sub-committee hearings.
27. A witness shall, upon request, be given a reasonable opportunity before any
transcipt is made public to inspect in the office of the sub-committee the tran-
script of his testimony to determine whether it was correctly transcril)ed and may
be accompanied by his counsel during such inspection. If the witness so desires,
the sub-committee will furnish him a copy of his testimony at his or her ex-
pense unless said witness shall satisfy a majority of the sub-committee of his or
her indigency, in which case such transcript will be made available at the sub-
committee's expense. Each witness, upon the completion of his or her testimony,
shall be asked by sub-committee counsel whether he or she wishes to so examine
said transcript and, answering in the aflSrmative, shall do so within five (5)
days of being notified of its availability.
28. Any corrections in the transcription of the testimony of the witness which
the vdtness desires to make shall be submitted in writing to the sub-committee
within five (5) days of the transcript being made available to such witness.
However, changes shall only be made for the purpose of making minor gram-
matical corrections and editing, and not for the purpose of changing the sub-
stance of the testimony. Any questions arising with respect to such editing shall
be decided by the Chairman.
29. A copy of the testimony given by the witness in staff interview and sub-
sequently quoted or made part of the record in a hearing shall be made avail-
able to any witness at his expense, if he so requests unless said witness shall
satisfy a majority of the sub-committee of his or her indigency, in which ease
such transcript will be made available at the sub-committee's expense. Any wit-
ness shall be given a reasonable opportunity to inspect any such public testimony
in the sub-committee office.
30. No report of failure to testify in accordance with Sections 2-46 and 2^8
of the Connecticut General Statutes or contempt of the General Assembly shall
be forwarded by any member of the sub-committee unless and until the sub-
committee, has, upon notice to all its members, met and considered tlie alleged
failure to testify or contempt and by a majority of the sub-committee voted that
such report be made.
31. In preparing for or conducting the investigation and study authorized
and directed by the resolution creating this sub-committee, the sub-committee
shall act pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 2-46 of the Connecticut
General Statutes.
32. All information developed by or made known to any member of the sub-
committee staff shall be deemed to be confidential. No member of the sub-commit-
tee staff shall communicate to any person, other than a member of the sub-
committee or another member of the sub-committee staff, any information with
respect to any matter related to the activities of the sub-committee. All communi-
cations vdth the press and other persons, not on the sub-committee or sub-
committee staff in respect to confidential matters shall be made by the Chairman
and VIce-Chairman only. Official releases of information to the press on behalf
of the sub-committee shall be made only with the express consent of the Chair-
man and VIce-Chairman.
33. These rules may be modified, amended, or repealed by a decision of the
sub-committee, provided that a notice in writing of the proposed change has been
given to each member at least forty (40) hours prior to the respective action,
unlesa such notice Is waived by imanimous vote of the entire committee.
15
Guidelines of the Special Subcommittee of the Joint General Assembly
Appropriations Committee
The General Assembly Appropriations Committee having resolved that this
special sub-committee be formed to investigate and study State purchasing, con-
struction and leasing procedures and practices by the Department of Public
Works from January 1, 1960, to the present and that said sub-committee conduct
public hearings and report its findings to the Appropriations Committee, it is
specifically understood that in investigating the matters mentioned in said resolu-
tion, the sub-committee will observe its standing rules and, in addition, will be
required to conduct staff interviews of prospective witnesses, and special sub-
committee meetings.
In recognizing the fact that such interviews might produce uncorroborated evi-
dence of wrongdoing on the part of person or persons, that such interviews might
result in unsubstantiated accusations being made against person or persons and
that such interviews might result in evidence being taken not relevant or ger-
mane to the investigation, and further that such meetings shall be conducted
for the purpose of discussing the results of said interviews and to prevent the
improper dissemination of evidence that might deem to defame the personal
character of members of the sub-committee, personal attacks upon the motives
of the sub-committee, or an improper invasion of privacy, the following guide-
lines are adopted for the protection of all persons party to or subject of this
investigation :
(1) All interviews shall be conducted by the sub-committee's staff in private;
(2) A verbatim record shall be made of any such interviews if requested by
any witness and a copy of such transcript shall be made available to said wit-
ness upon his or her request, and at said witness' cost, unless said witness shall
prove to the satisfaction of a majority of the sub-committee that he or she is
indigent, in which case such transcript shall be made available at the sub-com-
mittee's cost ;
(3) Information obtained during such interviews shall remain the confidential
work product of the sub-committee during the course of its investigation and the
staff shall not be authorized to disclose any such information to any person or
persons other than staff members and/or members of the sub-committee without
the authority of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.
(4) The sub-committee respects and recognizes the right of a prospective wit-
ness who is interviewed by the staff of the sub-committee in advance of a hearing
as well as the right of a witness who appears before the sub-committee to be
accompanied by a lawyer of his own choosing to advise him concerning his
constitutional and legal rights as a witness ;
(5) The Chief Counsel shall be responsible for reporting to the sub-committee,
at its regular meetings, the progress of the staff investigation and shall provide
to the sub-committee a list of i)ersons, who, it is anticipated, will be interviewed
during the period prior to the next regular sub-committee meeting. Any member
of the sub-committee may attend a staff interview and may address questions
to the witness ;
(6) The sub-committee recognizes the right of all witnesses to be treated
courteously and properly and with a degree of decorum consistent with the nature
of the proceedings. The staff members are bound to abide by such standards of
conduct during the course of any staff interviews ;
(7) The sub-committee may, by majority vote, conduct meetings in private for
the purpose of reviewing evidence as obtained by the sub-committee staff ;
(8) The sub-committee, being desirous of conducting the investigation in a
professional and responsible manner may, when it deems it appropriate, with-
hold information obtained during the course of its investigation until such time
as hearings are conducted so that all information shall be disclosed in an orderly
manner and within proper perspective and context ;
(9) The sub-committee, when meeting in private, shall authorize the Chair-
man and Vice-Chairman to make public the result of ofiicial votes of the sub-
committee and that information deemed to be properly made public prior to the
sub-committee hearings ; and
(10) The sub-committee, at the completion of its final report, shall deliver
to the Appropriations Committee all testimony, documents and exhibits received
by the sub-committee during its investigation and all other records, communica-
tions, files and documents gathered or prepared relating to the investigation.
16
State of Connecticut General Assembly, Joint Committee on
Appropriatio n s
In coniunction with the Connecticut General Assembly's Joint Appropriations
Committee resolution to establish a Sub-Committee to investigate, among other
things, State leasing practices, certain information is needed to assist in this
Sub-Committee's investigation.
The Sub-Committee has been provided a list of persons and/or corporations
by the Connecticut State Department of Public Works which list purports to
contain the names of all Lessors of real property to the State. Your name ap-
pears on said list and by authority of the Connecticut General Statutes, Sec-
tion 2-46, you are being asked to provide the Sub-Committee, under oath, with
the information on the attached questionnaire.
It is requested that the enclosed questionnaire be returned to the undersigned
at the address indicated on the letterhead above.
H. William Shure,
Chief Counsel to the Special Sxihcommittee.
Note. — If additional space is needed to supply the information requested,
please use the reverse side of this Questionnaire.
questionnaire
i. List all real properties in which you have an interest which real property
is presently being leased to the State of Connecticut.
2. If you are an officer, director or stockholder of any corporation leasing
real property to the State of Connecticut, list the name of such corporation, its
officers, directors and stockholders and the real properties so leased.
3. If you are a partner of any partnership which leases real property to the
State of Connecticut, list the name of said partnership and the names of all
partners, limited, not limited or silent, and the address of real property so be-
ing leased by said partnership.
4. If you are a grantor, trustee and/or beneficiary of any trust leasing real
property to the State of Connecticut, list all names, grantors, trustees and/or
beneficiaries of such trusts and the addresses of real properties so leased.
5. If you are the sole owner or if you are an owner in joint tenancy or tenancy
in common with others leasing real property to the State of Connecticut, list
all of such real properties and any co or joint owner.
6. If you are acting as an agent on behalf of any person or persons, corpora-
tion, trust, or partnership which lease real property to the State of Connecticut,
then provide the information regarding such person or persons, corporation,
trust or partnership, as requested in 1 through 5 above.
7. List all participants involved with the acquisition, negotiation and execu-
tion of the lease or leases or real properties listed in 1 through 6 above, includ-
ing, but not limited to, attorneys, real estate brokers and agents, architects,
engineers and any persons in the employ of the State of Connecticut. Whether
or not any of such persons received professional fees for their participation in
such leases shall not be a determinative factor in whether they should be listed.
Senator Bttkdtck. The first witness this mornino; will be Hon.
Phil in Noel, Governor of the State of Rhode Island.
Welcome to the committee. Governor Noel.
TESTIMONY OF PHILIP W. NOEL, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
RHODE ISLAND
Governor Norx. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee.
My purpose in beino; here this morning is to testify on behalf of
Tom IVfeskill who has been nominated by the President of the United
States for an appointment to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for
17
the Second Circuit. I have prepared and presented my testimony in
writing, and in the interests of time, Mr. Chairman, I will refrain
from reading that testimony, but rather try to quickly summarize the
contents of that statement.
Senator Burdick. Your full statement will be made a part of the
record, without objection, and you may summarize.
[The prepared statement by Governor Noel follows:]
Testimony of Governor Philip W. Noel
Air. Chairman : The President of the United States has nominated for appoint-
ment to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a
distinguished American lawyer and statesman. Tom Meskill aspires to that
position. He is by profession, training, experience and human disposition, emi-
nently qualified. I am both privileged and honored ... to speak on his behalf
to your distinguished Committee.
Tom Meskill is a man of distinguished background. He was educated in our
Country's finest universities and by profession is a man of the law.
As a young lawyer, his contemporaries at the Bar saw him for a bright and
rewarding legal career. He had worked hard and prepared well for what was
certainly destined for him in his legal career : accomplishment and financial
reward. As often happens in the case of excellence . . . his talent and qualities
were recognized by those in his native State whose positions were such that
they saw in young Tom Meskill a man endowed with the good basic tools of
intelligence, honesty, courage, compassion and, above all, common sense . . . and
they call him into public service. At great personal sacrifice he responded to
the challenge of public service as was expected of him. Success and accomplish-
ment became his trademark. As Mayor of the great City of New Britain ; as
a member of the distinguished United States Congress and as Governor of his
beloved State of Connecticut for four years, he served his fellowman ; his State,
and his nation.
Tom Meskill is a graduate of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, with
a Bachelor of Science degree which he received in 1950. He served honorably
in the United States Air Force during the Korean Conflict and graduated from
Oflicers Candidate School in December of 1951. He has his law degree from the
University of Connecticut Law School and served as the Editor of the Law
Review in his senior year. He has studied further at the New York University
School of Law. As a member of the law firm of Meskill, Dorsey, Sledzik and
Walsh, he was admitted to practice before the Connecticut Bar; the Federal
Bar : the Florida Bar ; the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals and
the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a member of the American Bar
Association ; Florida Bar Association ; Connecticut Bar Association ; Hartford
County Bar Association ; New Britain Bar Association, and American Judica-
ture Society. In addition thereto, he served as Assistant Corporation Counsel
for New Britain, Connecticut, during the years 1960-1962 : as Corporation Coun-
sel for New Britain, 1965-1966, beyond the elected positions to which I have
already referred.
No man could ever command the respect and trust of so many ... so as to
be elected and re-elected to oflSces of such high trust without being possessed
of inherent qualities of excellence. Tom Meskill is a man of great excellence.
He is hone.st beyond even the slightest innuendo of suspicion ; intelligent, yet
humble and above all, possessed of the most precious of all human qualities . . .
good common sense.
Governor Meskill has devoted the majority of his young productive years to
public service. The President of the United States believes he can continue to be
of public service ... in a new role ... in our Federal Judiciary. I share that
belief. I do so, as most of you may know, not from a partisan stand or view . . .
because Governor Meskill and I are of different political beliefs . . . but because
I know Tom Meskill ... I know his ability and his credentials, and I know he
will add further distinction to an already distinguished Second Circuit Court.
There are those ... a small few . . . who are opposed to his nomination. An
American Bar Association Committee has reported that it is opposed to Mr.
Meskill's appointment. Their objection is based on the reason advanced that Mr.
Meskill has but limited trial court experience. Does this Committee of the Bar
18
Association overlook the far greater "trial" experience that Mr. Meskill has gained
and mastered in public ofBce and service dealing with the everyday trials, chal-
lenges and problems of American life and society? I can assure you, and the
American Bar Association, that the countless and often unexpected challenges that
I have encountered in public service have been far more demanding and exacting
than any that I faced when I worked in the trial courts. Does the American Bar
Association honestly believe that the trial lawyer cross-examining a cab driver in
an automobile acident case — or a wife in a divorce case — or the corporation lawyer
claiming a patent is bad — have to make any greater or demand judgments than a
United States Congressman ; the Mayor of a large Metropolitan City or the Gov-
ernor of the State of Connecticut? I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the lights that
burn late at night in some public oflBce building are seldom noticed and, when it's
all over, the objection is made that Tom Meskill hasn't had too much trial
experience. He has had better. He has had, and mastered the problems and experi-
ences of life, society, and its needs. To me, when a person masters these, he is then
. . . and only then . . . really qualified to judge the everyday problems and con-
flicts of society that end up in our courts.
As I hinted earlier, I speak from respect and admiration for Tom Meskill as well
as from personal similar experience. I am a lawyer by profession and I was con-
sidered a good trial lawyer. I also entered public service, and I have been honored
by the confidence of the people in my home city and my home state. The challenge
of crisis . . . decision and understanding . . . has been more demanding of me in
public service than ever in the trial court. I would certainly look with suspect upon
anyone who would in my years ahead object to my being considered for a judicial
appointment because I interrupted my legal practice to serve as a Mayor and
Governor ... at great financial sacrifice.
What causes me to be critical of the objection made by the Committee from
the American Bar Association is that Mr. Meskill is not being nominated to a
judicial position in a trial court . . . but instead ... to an appellate court. History
has proven beyond dispute that most of our greatest appellate court judges have
had very little, and in some cases no trial court experience at all. The role of an
appellate judge is to dedicate himself to a service of knowing and interpreting
the law. The late Justice Sutherland in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300
U.S. 379 at 404 referred to the appellate judicial function as being that of "in-
terpretation." What our judiciary needs and demands is intelligent . . . impartial
and honest men, dedicated to the philosophy that this nation, with all its prob-
lems, is still the greatest nation that God has ever permitted to exist on His
earth. Judge Cardozo perhaps said it best in "Growth of the Law", 59.
The most important thing about a man is his philosophy . . . this, if not
true for everyone is true at least for judges.
Judge Douglas wrote in "We the Judges", at page 25.5, that judges must
be more than lawyers, they must be statesmen as well.
Tom Meskill is a lawyer, well trained and versed in the law. He is a statesman
well trained and versed in the everyday problems and challenges of society. No
one can question his intelligence, character, love of America and the accomplish-
ment of his pulilic service ... to his citv . . . his State and to the Congress of
the United States.
I respectfully urge your favorable consideration of his nomination from the
President of the United States. He will be an excellent judge.
I am reminded that Judge Felix Frankfurter, who incidentally had only
limited trial court experience before joining our Supreme Court, and who in
writing of another great judge, also with limited trial court experience, said in
"Mr. Justice Holmes and the Constitution", 41 Harvard L. Rev. 127,
Not anointed priests, but men with proved grasp of affairs, who have de-
veloped resilience and spaciousness of mind through seasoned and diversified
experience in a work-a-day world, usually in public life, are the judges who
have wrought abidingly on the Supreme Court.
I commend to you, the confirmation of Tom MesMll.
Govprnor 'N'oel. Thank yon. Mr. Chairman.
I would like to point out to yon that I am not here in a partisan
capacity, because Governor Meskill and I differ in our political be-
liefs. And it has been rumored that we also differ somewhat in our
ideological beliefs. I am here to testify on his behalf because I had a
1^
great opportunity to come to know him as a man and as a public
servant during the last 2 years. I served with Governor Meskill as a
member of the New England Regional Commission, as a member of
the New England Governor's Conference, and as a member of the Na-
tional Governor's Conference and, coming from an adjoining State,
we have had many opportunities to discuss common problems and to
share some of our thinking in reference to ways to deal with the very
vexing problems that face State governments today. And I feel that
he is a great American, and eminently qualified to continue his public
service in this new capacity as a member of the circuit court of appeals.
He has the academic qualifications, he has the legal experience, but,
beyond those qualifications, he has a fantastic range of experience that
comes through years of dedicated public service, as a mayor of Bridge-
port, Conn., as a Congressman in the Congress of the United States,
and as the Governor for -i years of the great State of Connecticut.
And I submit, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that
it is that public service experience that qualifies him the most for the
position that you are considering.
I practiced law actively for 10 years before leaving the practice to
become a public servant. I was an active trial court lawyer and spent
most of my 10 years in the courtroom as a trial lawyer. I look back on
that experience and I look back on the 8 years of experience that I
have had as the mayor of a large city, and as the Governor of my
State, and I feel that the experiences and the knowledge that I have
gained in public service would more eminently qualify me for a judi-
cial position than would the 10 years that I spent in the courtroom as
a trial counsel.
I laiow that there is some opposition to Governor Meskill *s appoint-
ment. Some of it stems from some of the difficult decisions that he had
to make when he served in the executive branch of Government, and I
submit that in this day and age — and States do not have the luxury
of being able to engage in deficit spending — when Governors are try-
ing to meet human needs and match those needs with ever shrinking
resources, then some of the decisions you are called upon to make of
necessity create some objection in the minds of some.
I know that the bar association has said that the Governor does not
have adequate trial court experience, and as I point out in my testi-
mony, there are others who share my belief that trial court experience
does not necessarily qualify one, especially for a position on the ap-
pellate court.
I point out that in West Coast Hotel CompanT/ v. Parrish, 300
U.S. 379, at page 404, the late Justice Sutherland referred to the
appellate judicial function as being that of "interpretation."
Judge Douglas wrote in "We the Judges," at page 255, that Judges
must be more than lawyers, they must be statesmen as well.
And in my testimony, I point out that Judge Felix Frankfurter, who
incidentally had only limited trial court experience before joining our
Supreme Court, when writing about another great judge, also with
verv^ limited trial court experience, said in "Mr. Justice Holmes and
the Constitution," 41 Harvard Law Review 127,
Not anointed priests, but men with proved grasp of affairs, who have devel-
oped resilience and spaciousness of mind through seasoned and diversified ex-
20
perience in a work-a-day world, usually in public life, are the Judges who have
wrought abidingly on the Supreme Court.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
I commend to you the confirmation of Tom Meskill, and I stand ready
to amplify upon my testimony or answer any questions that you or
members of the committee may have.
Senator Burdick. Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. I have no questions at this time.
Senator Burdick. Senator Scott ?
Senator Scott. Governor, I note what you have said about some
famous and historically eminent judges who have had more limited
trial court experience than others. I would suggest this would be true,
for example, among those names who come readily to mind, Justices
Douglas, Minton, Frankfurter, Holmes; and on the circuit couit I
suppose the most brilliant judge who ever served there, certainly one
of the most brilliant, Judge Learned Hand, also came to the court
with very, very limited trial court experience.
What law schools do you have in the State of Rhode Island?
Governor Noel. We do not have room in that tiny State for law
schools.
Senator Scott. I was thinking that you might have one at Brown.
Governor Noel. For years we had a law school which was an exten-
sion of Northeast University. I attended Georgetown University Law
Center here in Washington. Many of our young people attend the
schools in Massachusetts, Boston University, Boston College, Harvard,
Suffolk University, Yale Law School. Those are the schools that
serve most of our aspiring young attorneys.
Senator Scott. I suppose you are familiar generally with the fact
that Governors who do have law schools within their States do not
always agree with the law schools or the faculty as to the appropria-
tions or the elevation of one department over another. And I suppose
that among the Governors in your Conference you have heard that,
have you not?
Governor Noel. Senator, in these times when our Constitution pro-
hibits us from deficit spending, a luxury that I note is available to
our President and the Congress, Governors do not agree with anybody
when it comes to appropriations. We just do not have enough money
to meet the needs of any department, whether it is in higher education,
whether it is in the welfare system, any of the great human needs, there
just is not enough dollars to spread around, so we have the same kinds
of conflict in my State with the University of Rhode Island, with
Rhode Island College, with Rhode Island Junior College, that we are
never able to give them the kind of resources that they want, nor the
kind of resources that we would like to be able to appropriate.
Senator Scott. And when you as Governor disagree with the activi-
ties of the colleges in your district, it is not entirely pleasing, I take
it, to the members of the faculties of those colleges affected if tliey find
that their functions are limited or truncated by the Government
decision ?
Governor Noel. No ; and that is the natural reaction, because they
are the advocates for higher learning, and they are in there fighting
to do what they think is right, and so there is always that kind of a
bitterness and a disagreement.
21
Senator Scott. I was just thinking of the reaction of a number of
faculties of the Connecticut School of Law, and we will bring out
later the numerous run-ins they had with the Governor. One suspects
that perhaps the opposition to Governor Meskill is based on the fact
that they tirst could not get all of the funds they wanted from the
Governor, and second they disagreed with the Governor's attitude
toward, among other things, the legal clinic, the clinic in the Law
School, and while you do not have a law school, it does not come as a
surprise to you, I take it, that members of the faculty of the school are
not always pleased with the Governor's decisions relating to schools ?
Governor Noel. A quick perusal of the Providence media would
show that I am in the same circumstance as former Governor Meskill
found himself in when I had to make those decisions for my State and,
of course, that would hold true for the Nation.
Senator Scott. I think that this committee ought to look into the
motivation here, among other things, and I wanted to have that little
colloquy with you.
Senator Burdick. Senator Tunney ?
Senator Tunney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Noel, it is a pleasure to have you with the committee, and
although I do not serve on this subcommittee, I deeply appreciate the
fact that the chairman would recognize me for questions.
Governor Noel, did you ever practice law with Governor Meskill ?
Have you ever been associated with him ?
Governor Noel. No; I never have.
Senator Tunney. Do you have from your personal knowledge any
understanding at all of his legal background ?
Governor Noel. Only the academic qualifications that are available
in written testimony submitted by others and by myself. I have knowl-
edge of his understanding of the law because of the close association
with him as a fellow Governor.
I had one occasion to go through Europe with Governor Meskill,
and it was one of those kinds of trips when I was with him, 10, 14
hours a day, and you have occasion to discuss many things, and we
discussed extensively the law, because at that time he was contemplat-
ing his retirement from public service and among other options the
possibility of returning to the practice of law. And I think I had an
ample opportunity to test his legal thinking and to see just what quali-
fications he did possess.
Senator Tunney, Are you a lawyer yourself ?
Governor Noel. Yes ; I am.
Senator Tunney. What has been your experience in the law ? Have
you had the opportunity to try many cases yourself?
Governor Noel. I was a trial attorney, Senator. I practiced for al-
most 10 years, started my own business when I graduated from
Georgetown Law School, and while I was at law school, I might say,
I worked in the U.S. Senate as a mail boy, used to deliver the Sena-
tors' mail.
I went back to Rhode Island and opened a one-man law office, and
when I left the practice to become the mayor of Warwick, which was
a full-time responsibility, at that time I had four other attorneys and
several clerks and secretaries working for me and I had a very exten-
sive practice.
22
During those 9 years I would sa}^ that I spent as much time in the
courtroom or perhaps more time in the courtroom than I did in the
office. I would say that I was a trial attorney foremost.
Senator Tunney. Did you have many cases on appeal ?
Governor Noel. Not in the U.S. circuit court of appeals. I had the
kind of an everyday practice where you represent working-class peo-
ple. I did not have those large corporate clients that bring you into
those forums, but I did do appellate work in the Rhode Island Su-
preme Court and some limited work in the U.S. district court of ap-
peals for that district.
Senator Tunney. From your experience as a trial lawyer, and from
your experiences as a lawyer in the office as well as in the courtroom,
you know, do you not, the importance of having judges both in the
courtroom as trial judges and in the appellate division who have had
experience with the law ?
Governor Noel. Yes; I do.
I think though, that any suggestion that trial experience is a quali-
fying factor is a misstatement. I tried successfully cases that I did not
know existed until the night before trial began, because we had coun-
sel to prepare the material and to prepare the trial brief, and we
would sit for a couple of hours with those that had done the prepara-
tion, and then go in as the advocate.
So the role of the trial counsel, although a very glamorous role, to
suggest that one's ability and experience as a trial lawyer qualifies
him for the bench I think is a gross overstatement. Some of the best
trial lawyers that I knew and worked with had the least knowledge
and depth of the law, and the people that were responsible for the
preparation of the trial briefs and the preparation of the case for
presentation before the court were the ones that had the most knowl-
edge of the law.
So I just think that it is a mistake to emphasize trial experience.
Senator TinsrisrEY. You do not think that trial experience is an im-
portant factor?
Governor Noel. I think it is very helpful if you are a trial judge
trying cases, because you have to make instant decisions on questions
of the admissioii of evidence, questions of law, so that trial experience
seems to me to be more important for someone who is going to be on
the trial bench than it does for someone who is going to be in an ap-
pellate court, because that is a more studious role, and you are not out
there where the action is.
Senator Ttjnney. Do you think that having had the opportunity to
try a case before an appellate court is important as a qualification for
an attorney who ma}'^ be elevated to the Appellate bench, or is that
unimportant, too ?
Governor Noel. No, I think it is a factor, because I think if some-
one has had the experience, then obviously he has been through the
exercise, if he wrote his own brief, which is seldom the case, of doing
the legal research necessary and then preparing a written arirunient,
and what you do before the appellate court really is what I did in my
testimony this morning, is submit your testimony in writing, and then
you sort of argue the overview and answer the questions of the appel-
late judges.
23
So that certcainly that kind of an experience would be, I submit, not
a must, but it would be something to be considered.
Senator Tunney. Appellate judges spend most of their time writing
opinions, do they not, when they are not listening to oral arguments'^
Governor Noel. I do not want to sound disrespectful, but I hope
that they spend most of their time reading the briefs and reading the
law and then the second-most major commitment of time would be
writing the decision. And then I think they spend the least amount of
time, attentive time, listening to argument, because the arguments
usually follow the briefs.
Senator Tunney. Right. Of course, we assume they do research
before they write their opinions, but the cerebral process of reading
the briefs, doing the research and writing the opinions is the job of
an appellate court judge ; is it not ?
Governor Noel. As I see it, yes, sir.
Senator Tunney. And therefore, having had experience as a trial
attorney, experience as an attorney, writing briefs for appeal would
be an important qualification ; would it not ?
Governor Noel. Yes, I think that is a qualification.
Senator Tunney. To serve on the appellate court ?
Governor Noel. I think that that is a qualification, but I also believe
firmly that if a man has a good basic education, and has an under-
standing of justice and how it should be dispatched, it does not take
much to learn how to read and research the law, and to analyze briefs
and to write opinions. I think that there are many, many people
qualified for appellate work and I think it is a real overstatement when
you try to build this kind of a case that says you have to find some
special person with some special capability. To me — maybe the law
came easy to me — but to me it does not seem like it would be such an
awesome understanding.
Senator Tunney. Do you know what the major case load of the
second circuit court consists of ?
Do you know what the kinds of cases are that come before that
circuit, Governor ?
Governor Noel. I have never reviewed their caseload. I have experi-
ence in our district, and I would assume that it is similar. In this day
and age, Senator, much of the caseload, although I cannot itemize this
testimony, much of the caseload deals with matters that would involve
the U.S. Constitution, and many of them, unfortunately, involve chal-
lenges to State and local government. And one of the great problems
that we have in this Nation is that we have judges sitting on those
courts who have never been a councilman, who have never been a
Congressman, who have never been a mayor, and who have never been
a Governor, and when those cases come before them they have begun,
I submit, to invade the administrative responsibility and make some
decisions that then impose great burdens on State and local govern-
ments.
And I think it is really important, especially in that range of cases,
to have a man that has been a Congressman, to have a man who has
been a Governor, the mayor of a city, to determine those cases. And
that portion of their caseload has been growing dramatically in the
last 10 years.
Now the rest, I do not know what other cases they would have.
24
Senator Ttinney. I speak from some personal knowledge, because
I am a member of the Bar of New York, and I practiced law in New
York City prior to the time I moved to California, The second circuit
has, as its major area of interest and caseload, commercial transactions,
patent law, admiralty law. antitrust cases, security cases, very highly
specialized areas of the law that require great legal scholarship. I
find it difficult in my own mind to make a conclusion that knowledge
of the law and experience in writing appellant briefs or doing legal
research is immaterial, or is a relatively unimportant factor, as a
qualification for being a circuit court judge on that second circuit.
Governor Noel. I hope you do not construe my testimony to have
been that. Certainly I think knowledge of the law and experience is a
factor to be considered.
But what I submit to you. Senator, and to the members of this com-
mittee, is that to limit your attention to those kinds of qualifications
would be a serious disservice, not only to Tom Meskill, but to the
Judiciary itself.
Senator Tunney. What I am suggesting is that a person can be an
outstanding politician, an outstanding Congressman, an outstanding
Governor, and not be qualified to be on the second circuit court of
appeals.
Governor Noel. That is possible. But I think it is hardly likely.
I am the Governor of the State of Rhode Island, and the people
have vested me with the responsibility for appointing the superior
court judges, for appointing the family court judges, and for appoint-
ing the district court judges.
Now, if the people of my State — and I got 78 percent of the A'ote
last time out — if they think I am qualified to appoint those judges,
I submit that I would have to have some kind of strong case going
should I ever happen to want to become a judge myself.
Senator Tunney. Is that not like saying that the President has the
power to appoint a science adviser and therefore he should be qualified
to build an atomic bomb ? Is that not the kind of argument you are
making?
Governor Noel. Not really. Tom Meskill is a graduate of an out-
standing legal institution. He practiced law. He was corporate counsel
to the city of Bridgeport. So that in addition to what I submit is a
wealth of experience he has gained through handling the most respon-
sible public office in the State of Connecticut for 4 years, in addition
to those experiences and qualifications, he does have some legal educa-
tion, some legal experience and background, and it is the combination
of all of those that motivates me to appear today to testify on his
behalf.
Now if he had not graduated from a law school, or if he had no
understanding or feeling for the law, I would not be here testifying
on his behalf.
Senator Burdtck. Thank you, Governor.
Governor Noel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. The next witness will be the Honorable William R.
Cotter, a Member of the House of Representatives.
25
TESTIMONY OP WILLIAM R. COTTER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PROM
CONNECTICUT
Mr. Cotter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee.
I appear before the subcommittee to speak in support of Governor
Meskill.
I want to state at the outset that as a nonlawyer I feel it would be
presumptuous for me to speak to the issue of the nominee's professional
qualifications. I feel that is the province of other witnesses and ulti-
mately your sound judgment.
I think the record should show that Governor Meskill and I have
been at odds politically and on a host of issues. I have, for instance,
been highly critical of his transportation policies, particularly the
construction of Interstate Highway 291 in the Hartford area.
Given the fact that a substantial number of my constituents are
likewise not pleased with his policies, I suppose the politically expedi-
ent thing for me to do would be to refrain from commenting on this
nomination.
Nevertheless I feel that the subcommittee should hear from those
who despite political and issue differences can still speak positively
about an individual.
I have known Tom Meskill since the late 1940's when we were both
students at Trinity College in Hartford. I recall him then as a very
bright, personable, and very determined young man. And though we
have pursued different paths since then, we have maintained contact
and I consider him a friend today.
Whenever we have differed politically or on issues there has never
been acrimony or personal recriminations. Tom Meskill is a man of
character, integrity, and understanding. From my own observation, he
has conducted himself as mayor of New Britain, as Congressman from
Connecticut's 6th District, and as Governor of Connecticut, in a princi-
pled, ethical, and honorable manner. And despite the demands of
public life, Tom Meskill has, with his lovely wife Mary, raised a
wonderful family.
Apart from his professional qualifications, which others will address,
I feel that Tom Meskill, the man, deserves confirmation. It seems to
me that Mr. Meskill's broad experience in government has equipped
him to be a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Few men his age
have attained so many and such great honors and in so short a period
of time.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and if you have any
questions I would be delighted to respond.
Senator Burdick. Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. I have no questions. I just want to express my
appreciation for your appearance here.
Mr. Cotter. Thank you, sir.
Senator Burdick. Senator McClellan ?
Senator McCleixan. I have no questions.
Senator Burdick. Senator Scott ?
26
Senator Scott. I have no questions. Thank you very much. ' ■"^'
Senator Burdick. Senator Tunney?
Senator TuNireT. I have no questions. Thank you very much.
Senator Burdick. Thank you, Congressman.
Our next witness will be Hon. Ronald Sarasin, a member of the
House of Representatives.
TESTIMONY OF RONALD A. SARASIN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CONNECTICUT
Mr. Sarasin. Good morning, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Ronald Sarasin, the U.S. Representative
from the 5th District of Connecticut.
I am pleased to appear before this committee to add my support to
the nomination of Hon. Thomas J. Meskill, former Governor of Con-
necticut, to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
I speak from a vantage as a friend, fellow attorney and political col-
league of Governor Meskill. In the many years I have known him per-
sonally and professionally, I have developed a great respect for his
intellect, his integrity, and most importantly, his devotion to the law.
I worked closely with Tom Meskill during my term as assistant
minority leader of the Connecticut House of Representatives and
know him to be a man of outstanding ability who was successful in
reestablishing fiscal integrity in our near-bankrupt State, a goal he
reached by balancing tough decisions with compassion.
Tom Meskill's entire background contributes to his qualifications to
serve in the judiciary. He is a self-made man who is sensitive to the
problems and aspirations of all citizens whatever their economic or
social status. Certainly our courts need people with this rich experience
and professionalism.
It IS this breadth of experience that is important in your considera-
tion of Tom Meskill. The high office of Governor of Connecticut is only
the latest in a long record of accomplishments and service in his com-
munity, in the U.S. Air Force, as chief legal officer and then as mayor
of this native city and as a Member of the U.S. House of Representa-.
tives. While in Congress, he was a member of the House Judiciary
Committee, in itself unique and valuable experience for a judge. You
have the record of his accomplishments before you and I'm sure you
cannot deny that it is impressive — not only from the evidence of pres-
tigious accomplishments but also the quality of service and plain hard
work.
I am aware of the point of view of the American Bar Association
that a judge on the circuit court of appeals must have a great deal of
trial experience. And I understand that the ABA has withheld its
endorsement of Governor Meskill on that basis.
^Vliile the American Bar Association does indeed serve a useful
purpose as another input to your consideration of judicial nomina-
tions, I am not pursuaded by its arguments in this instance. A judge on
the circuit court of appeals must be able to analyze the facts, evidence,
and law in each case, away from a highly charged or emotional court-
room atmosphere. The ability to determine the propriety of the appli-
cation of law to the facts and the adequacy of procedural safeguards in
each case is the paramount characteristic we should seek in a circuit
court of appeals judge. I believe Tom Meskill has tliis ability.
27
The ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing
is also deemed desirable. Tom ]\Ieskill certainly has proven his ability
to communicate. As you note, he was editor of the University of
Connecticut Law Review, not an easily obtainable recop:nition or easy
task as all fellow attorney's and law students will admit.
I am anion <r many who want to see more diversity and balance on
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. I do not want experienced and
qualified public servants like Tom Meskill disqualified because they
may not meet some arbitrary test of a private organization which is
not answerable or accountable to any electorate for their actions.
The appointment of judges by the President with confirmation by
the Senate must be preferred to any other Imown method. With few
exceptions, this system has given us a devoted, respected, and honest
Federal judiciary. I cannot accept the substitution of the judgment of
a private organization for that of the constitutional process.
This seat on the circuit court of appeals has been vacant for too
long. "We camiot continue to deny our citizens the service of a judge
particularly when it is common knowledge that there are backlogs in
the courts.
I, therefore, urge the confirmation of former Gov. Thomas Meskill
to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If there are any questions, I will be pleased to respond.
Senator Burdick. Thank you.
Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. I have no questions.
Senator Burdick. Senator McClellan ?
Senator INIcClellan. I have no questions.
Senator Burdick. Senator Tunney ?
Senator Tuxney. I have no questions.
Senator Burdick. Thank you. Congressman.
The next witness is the Honorable Stewart B. McKinney, a Member
of the House of Representatives.
TESTIMONY OF STEWAET B. McKINNEY, U.S. REPEESENTATIVE
FROM CONNECTICUT
Mr. ^McKiNXET. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me this
opportunity.
I am Stewart B. JMcKinney, U.S. Representative from the 4th Con-
gressional District of Connecticut. I will assume that my letter to this
subcommittee of September 17 is still on file, and so I will limit my
remarks.
Senator Burdick. It will be printed as part of the record.
[The letter referred to follows :]
House of Representatives,
Washington, B.C., September 17, 1974.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, B.C.
Dear Mk. Chairman : Let me take this opportunity to state my strong support
for the nomination of Thomas J. Meskill to be a Circuit Judge for the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
If confirmed by the Senate. Governor Meskill -^-^■Hd bring to the bench a
distinguished record of public service and dedication to the law which would
47-704 — 75 3
28
enhance the prestige of that Court, for which he is eminently well-qualified. Since
law school, where he served as Editor of the Law Review, he has dedicated his
career to making our system of laws work. As a state legislator, mayor and city
attorney, he gained practical experience with the effect of law on people at a
local level. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee for four years, he con-
fronted head-on the problems which confront our judicial system nationally and
responded in a manner which indicates his personal dedication to the ideal of
"equal justice under law." And finally, since 1971, he has been serving as
Governor of Connecticut, where he has daily confronted the problems of making
the law work, of guaranteeing justice to every citizen, and of bringing to every
issue an attitude of openness and integrity.
Such a record leads to the inescapable conclusion that Thomas J. Meskill is a
man of fairness, integrity, impartiality, intelligence, and experience — qualities
which I consider essential in a judge. If confirmed by the Senate, he would bring
to the bench a background of experience at many levels, a broad iinderstanding of
the problems of legal administration, and a profound sensitivity to the way the
law affects each and every citizen. In my opinion, he would make a superb judge
in the great tradition of the Second Circuit.
In closing, I would merely like to note that two of our greatest Chief Justices,
Charles Evans Hughes and Earl Warren, went directly to the bench from the
governor's chair. The Second Circuit would be equally well-served by the con-
firmation of Thomas J. Meskill as Circuit Judge for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Sincerely,
Stewart B. McKinney.
]\Ir. ]\IcKiNNEY. I think that Tom Meskill, ever since he went to law
school and was editor of the Law Keview, has dedicated his career to
the most important part of our laws, making them work. He has been
a state legislator, he has been a city attorney, he has been a congress-
man on the Judiciary Committee where he was confronted with the
length and breadth of the problems of the judicial system of our
country.
In addition to that, he has had one of the most difficult jobs in the
United States today, that of being a Go^-ernor. I sometimes think that
Governors, mayors, and university presidents, must have within their
system a desire for punishment. Without question, the job of being a
mayor or a Governor today, under the Constitutional limitations of a
State such as Connecticut, is one where a man is constantl}^ confronted
with judging the law, with judging priorities, and with judging the
limitations of his power, his ability to help within the limitations of
his budget and his constitution.
I personally feel inescapably that Tom Meskill is a man of fairness,
integrity, impartiality, sincere intelligence and experience. If con-
firmed by the Senate, I think he would bring to the Bench a back-
ground, a broad understanding of the problems at every level of legal
administration, a profound sensitivity to the ways laws affect people
and laws affect government.
I believe that this would make him a superb judge on the Court of
Appeals.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer. My Yale education ended at the
undergraduate level. But I have been the minority leader of this State
of Connecticut. I have been a Congressman now for two terms, starting
on the third. I have known Tom Meskill for all of this period. It is no
secret to you, since you sit in the Senate, that the Republican Party is a
f)arty of vast discrepancies and many, many philosophical back-
grounds. It is no secret in the State of Connecticut that Tom Meskill
and I certainly do not share too many philosophical areas of agree-
29
ment. But I have dealt witli Tom as a Congressman, I have dealt with
him as a Governor, and I have found his performance in all areas to
be knoAvledgeable, discerning, and wise. I myself would never want to
make the decisions that he has had to face as Governor of the State of
Connecticut over the last 4 years.
I remember when the Governor of California, Earl Warren, was
appointed to the Supreme Court. I read with great concern editorials
in the New York Times, Time magazine. Life magazine, stating that
Earl Warren would be a disaster on the Supreme Court of the United
States, that he was a conservative, that he was inexperienced, that he
did ]iot have a knowledge of the law. It is my opinion that Earl War-
ren was one of the greatest Supreme Court justices that we will see in
this country.
I would add that Charles Evans Hughes arrived at that same posi-
tion from a Governor's seat. It appears to me that there is no one better
qualified to judge the' effect of law, to judge the earnestness of the dif-
ferent cases and the priority of law than a man who has had to ad-
minister the law, to make it work, and make those decisions throughout
his political career. And in Governor Meskill's case, this has been a
long career.
I have served with a great many lawyers, well over 300, I believe,
in these two bodies. I do not feel that their law school education has
added more to their background than the work that they have been in-
volved in as a Senator or as a Congressman. I do not think that there
is anywhere that you can better evaluate the truth of the law than
making it, or administering it, or finding the priorities of it.
I think Tom Meskill is superbly qualified to be a Judge on the Ap-
peals Court.
Senator Burdick. Thank you.
Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Btjrdick. Senator McClellan ?
Senator JNIcClellax. I have no questions.
Senator Btjrdick. Senator Tunney ?
Senator Tunney. I have no questions.
Senator Burdick. Thank you for your contribution.
Our next witness is Lawrence E. Walsh, president-elect of the Amer-
ican Bar Association.
Welcome to the committee.
TESTIMONY OF LAWEENCE E. WALSH, PEESIDENT-ELECT,
THE AMERICAN BAE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, sir.
]Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the associa-
tion, I thank you for this second opportunity to appear before you,
and I should like to incorporate again in these hearings the testimony
already given by Mr. Sutro and Mr. Connelly on behalf of the Amer-
ican Bar Association last September.
Senator Burdick. It is a part of the printed record.
Mr. Waush. Thank you.
In appearing here today, it is the wish of the board of governors and
the officers of the association to express our solid support for the unan-
30
imous report of the American Bar Association's standing committee
on the Federal judiciary. We support it completely, and any sug-
gestion that this represents a narrow segment, or a provincial segment
of our profession, we would like to do our best to dispel.
It is with regret that the association takes a position against a per-
sonable and attractive public officer, public servant, and we do so only
as a part of our service to this committee which we have attempted to
render over the years.
We have never suggested that our judgment or our conclusion as to
the fitness of a person mider consideration should liave any controlling
effect. It is only as good as the reasons which support it. We have never
asked that it be any other way. We do not want it to be any other way,
and we therefore simply go to our reasons.
The question here is not as to the ultimate promise of an individual.
It seems to me that the principal question — and Mr. Chairman, if I
might, I would like simply to lile my statement ^ind try to summarize
it as much of this ground has already been covered.
Senator Buedick. It will be received.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows :]
American Bab Association Testimony by Lawrence E. Walsh, President-
elect, IN Opposition to the Nomination of Governor Thomas J. Meskill To
Be a Judge of the United States Court op Appeals of the Second Circuit
The American Bar Association respectfully requests this opportunity to incor-
porate in these hearings the testimony and exhibits presented by its witnesses at
hearings regarding Governor Meskill held on September 17, 1974. I should also
like at this time to expand upon the opposition to this nomination previously ex-
pressed for the American Bar Association. In doing this, I speak for the other
officers of the Association and for its Board of Governors in order to express the
solid support of the Association for the unanimous conclusion of its Standing
Committee on the Federal Judiciary — that Governor Meskill is not qualified to
hold this judicial office.
The first ground for opposition is that Governor Meskill is essentially untrained
for the exacting and important work of the Second Circuit. He has had substan-
tially no appellate experience. We understand that he has never argued an appeal
or written an appellate brief. We have accepted his own statement as to his trial
experience but in substance it demonstrates he has never tried a case of signifi-
cance. We have not been able to find any compensating professional achievement
to offset this lack of litigation experience.
The type of case presented to the Court of Appeals, particularly the Court
of Appeals of the Second Circuit, is frequently of the most difficult nature.
Complex commercial transactions, patent, admiralty, antitrust, and Securities
Act cases greatly preponderate over simpler types of accident cases. The cases
which Governor Meskill has tried and the simple bankruptcy matter in which
he participated would be unlikely to reach the Second Circuit. So far as we have
learned, he has never been responsible for the legal work on a matter of the
difficulty and complexity which reaches the Second Circuit.
Governor Meskill .has been good enough to call the Committee's attention
to certain of his activities as Governor — to veto memoranda which he has signed
and to certain litigation growing out of his activities as Governor. He suggests
that as Governor it was his responsibility to make the ultimate decision for
the executive branch of government in these matters which involved questions
of law. Quito properly he does not suggest that it was he who analyzed these
questions of law in the first instance or that he had the primary responsibility
for this analysis. He relied on the appropriate State departments and, we
assume, upon his ovra staff. Although the Association firmly believes that high
public office is a valuable experience in developing judgment as to the use of
governmental power and in the evaluation of conflicting points of view, it does
not believe that it is a substitute for an adequate grounding in the skills of
litigation or other professional skills necessary to the analysis and decision of
31
the type of case arising in the Second Circuit. These cases require the most
sophisticated legal analysis and this in turn requires fresh and extensive ex-
posure to the practice of law.
I know it is unnecessary to labor the importance of the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals to the New York metropolitan community and to the Nation. It is,
for all practical purposes, the court of last resort for the most important com-
mercial and financial problems of one of the great financial centers of the world.
Even as to those very few cases which go to the Supreme Court, the Second
Circuit frequently supplies the last opportunity for a consideration of the more
technical questions of law and for the analysis of the complicated issues of fact
presented by major transactions. It is not a court in which the instincts and
judgments of a political scientist are of primary help. It is not a court in which
broad politico-legal questions proponderate over the refined and complicated
narrower questions requiring the skills of a sophisticated lawyer.
In addition to Governor Meskill's lack of training, possible questions have
been raised as to his judgment and propriety in allegedly condoning the use of
public office for political favors. The investigation by the Aiipropriations Com-
mittee of the Connecticut General Assembly into state leases during Governor
Meskill's administration has demonstrated certain reprehensible practices.
The Department of Public Works, instead of buying property for its own
use, took long-term leases on privately-owned property of persons recommended
by former Republican State Chairman J. Brian GafEney. The owners of these
properties were first given inside information as to the future needs of this
Department. With the advice of Department officials, these persons built or
rented facilities to be leased to the State without competitive bidding. Some
of these leases represented more than $1,000,000. Among the principal bene-
ficiaries of this policy were Mr. Gaffney's uncle and Mr. Gaffney's next door
neighbor.
The Sub-committee on Leasing of the Connecticut General Assembly's Joint
Committee on Appropriations reported (pp. 12-13) :
* * * This competitive setting was, more often than not, utterly
destroyed by the actions of State employees, appointed or elected officials,
or highly placed political persons. * * *
According to the Sub-committee the State of Connecticut, as a result, paid rents
far in excess of value and landlords without political connections had little
chance of success (Ibid. 13). The State ended up with undesirable leases because
of the political connections of the landlord (Ibid. 15). In several instances the
rental was over double that paid for comparable facilities (Ibid. 23-24). In
each case such leases were awarded without competition to landlords who were
active politically or closely associated with high ranking political and State
government authorities (Ibid. 23-24) .
State Senator George Gunther testified publicly and Tinder oath that he became
so disturbed by this practice that in May of 1972 he called on the Governor to
complain about the "rip-off" involved in one of these leases — the one to State
Chairman Gaffney's uncle. The Governor, according to Senator Gunther, de-
clined to take any action to change the practices and accused Senator Gunther
of trying to help the Democrats wash dirty linen. Senator Gunther testified
that he was only able to get an appointment with the Governor by threatening
to make his information public. He further testified that he was subject to
threats and intimidation by his town leader who said he was acting at the
direction of "people upstate," which to Senator Gunther meant Governor
Meskill or i\Ir. Gaffney.
According to the newspapers Governor Meskill first denied talking to Senator
Gunther about these leases. He later admitted talking to Gunther after it was
supposedly too late to stop the lease; he stated that Senator Gunther was not
specific in his complaint. The records show that his conversation with Senator
Gunther occurred after a letter of commitment had been signed but before the
lease was executed. Senator Gunther's testimony is corroborated by a letter
which he sent Governor Meskill less than two weeks after the meeting, in early
June 1972. Governor Meskill has not testified publicly regarding these charges.
Recently. Governor Meskill over the objection of the Connecticut State Bar
Association appointed Mr. Gaffney. the alleged central figure in these leasing
practices, to be a State Judge.
The Connecticut legislative sub-committee recommends that these leasing
practices of Governor Meskill's administration be hereafter made criminal
32
( Ibid. 21 ) . This suggests that whether or not the practices were unlawful when
Governor Meskill allegedly condoned them, they were sufficiently reprehensible
to be made crimes for the future.
Under these circumstances, the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
of the American Bar Association has reopened its investigation of Governor
Meskill. It has not yet been able to secure the minutes of the Hartford hear-
ings, but it will do so as soon as they are available.
The Connecticut Sub-committees report will be handed up at the hearing un-
less it has already been received by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. This
report does not attempt to draw conclusions as to the legality of the action of
any individual, including Governor Meskill. It states, however, that it is to be
followed by an appendix which will detail all of the known facts regarding the
fifty-four leases studied by the Sub-committee (Ibid. 23). This appendix is ex-
pected about February 1, 1975. When it becomes available, the Standing Com-
mittee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association intends to pro-
ceed with its investigation into the facts contained therein insofar as they relate
to Governor Meskill.
The Connecticut Sub-committee further reports that other complaints regard-
ing leasing practices were received which it lacked time to investigate. It recom-
mends a "follow-up" on these complaints. To the extent that such an investiga-
tion will bear upon the fitness of Governor Meskill. the American Bar Association
will follow up any information which can properly be given to it.
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York has already made its own
preliminary investigation as to these leasing practices and it also plans to con-
tinue this investigation. We shall of course imdertake to avoid duplication of
these investigations. It is obvious that waste and useless duplication cannot be
avoided unless we can wait the publication of the appendices to the Connecticut
Sub-committee's report.
In a public statement on the night before the Judiciary Committee of the
Senate last considered Governor Meskill's nomination, the Connecticut Sub-com-
mittee reserved the question of Governor Meskill's .judgment and propriety. The
judgeship for which Governor Meskill has been nominated is lifetime .Indgeship.
Once confirmed, he could only be removed by impeachment, an imwieldy and in-
efficient process. We have recently suffered the embarrassment of former Governor
Otto Kerner who was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
and continued to hold his office for a period of over two years after he had been
indicted and convicted of a Federal crime committed during his term as Governor.
This experience, if it were needed, demonstrates the unquestionable wisdom of
full investigation before confirmation where there are charges of impropriety. We
do not now suggest that Governor Meskill has been guilty of illegal conduct.
That is not the question. We earnestly urge that there are unanswered questions
relating to the Connecticut investigation and that these quesions should be
answered before there is any vote on confirmation. We urge this in fairness to the
Senate, to the Court, to the public, nnd to Governor Meskill himself.
We accordingly most respectfully request that these hearings be continued and
ad.iourned until March 1 to enable the interested bar associations to complete
their investigations of the facts contained in the appendices to the Connecticut
legislative report. We further request in the interim that the Federal Burenu
of Investigation be directed to conduct a meaningful investigation into these farts
so that this Cnnimittee may have the ndvantage of information received under
the sanction of Federal law rather than being forced to rely upon the work of
<-wo vnhinteer bar associations acting without the power of subpoena or sanction
of periury.
Mr. Walsh. The question hero is not the ultimate promise of an
individual. The question is. renlly. when is a man fit to become a
member of the Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit? To us. nnr-
ticularly those of us from New York, we reirard this ns one^ of the
jrreat courts of the world. Tt is second to the Supreme Court in hier-
archy, but in terms of the men who have served on this court, in terms
of its responsibilities to our community, in terms of its traditions, nnd
in terms of the work expected from it, we regard it as second to rioue.
Is this the place, then, where a man who has had an interesting
career in Congress and as a Governor, is this where he should start
his judicial career? That seems to be the underlying question here.
33
We have heard references made to Judge Hand, Learned Hand, who
-was a genius. He served fifteen years on a district court before he
went to the second circuit.
We have heard references made to Justice Holmes. He served for
many, many years in the courts of Massachusetts before he went to
the Supreme Court.
We have heard references made to Charles Evans Hughes, who
was one of the most distinguished lawyers to come from the Bar of
New York, a man of genius, a man of great professional skill before
he became Governor, and then on top of that he capped his career with
a governorship. Also, reference has been made to Chief Justice War-
ren. He too had his period of experience and work in the courts before
he became a Justice.
We have the greatest respect for the high public office which Gov-
ernor Meskill has held. We think that adds luster to a career. But we
do not regard it as a substitute for training in the nuts and bolts of
the legal profession. This court is called upon to reverse or to affirm
the judgment of one of the finest, or six of the finest, district courts
of the country, and particularly that of the Southern District of New
York where we have men who have worked for years as district judges.
Is this reversal or affirmance to be given by a man who has almost
never been in that courtroom, who does not have firsthand and by
instinct the reactions of a person who has been in the courtroom?
Now, there are exceptions which have been made where a man is a
distinguished scholar, where he has otherwise distinguished himself
in the profession itself. There should be flexibility, and a man like
Justice Frankfurter, for example, is an ornament to the bench.
But, where the principal suggestion as to qualification is simply
public office, his service in public office, not primarily concerned with
the work of the legal profession, then we question whether this is true,
and we must regretfully suggest that Governor Meskill is not quali-
fied for this high office. This is not the place to begin his judicial
career or even to resume his professional career.
Because of the testimony we have already given, I shall not go fur-
ther on this subject, unless this Committee would like to hear it. After
Mr. Sutro and Mr. Connelly testified, there was further testimony
given, nnd we now come to other questions which I think must be con-
sidered by this Committee in passing upon the fitness of the nominee
for confirmation.
The first ({uestion is his ability, and we have already discussed that,
and the absence of training and experience.
The second question is one of temperament, and then the third ques-
tion is of integrity.
On the question of temperament, subsequent witnesses, witnesses
who testified after Mr. Sutro and Mr. Connelly, raised a number of
points, showing, at least raising the question as to the temperament, the
judicial temperament of the man under consideration. For example, I
would only mention one because we are now concerned with an appel-
late court which in a most measured and studied fashion must shape
the law of our country and pass upon transactions of great complexity
and importance. I refer now to the case of Caldwell v. Meskill and ask
permission to add it to the record if it is not already here.
Senator Bubdick. Without objection, that will be received.
[The material referred to follows :]
34
J. Edward Caldwell et al. v. Thomas J. Meskill et al.
HOUSE, C. J., SHAPIEO, LOISELLE, MAC DONALD AND BOGDANSKI. JS.
The defendant governor, purporting to act under his constitutional power
(Conn. Const, art. 4, §16) to item veto appropriation measures, disapproved
§§1 and 2 of a bill passed by the General Assembly while conditionally approving
its remaining three sections. Essentially, the vetoed provisions directed the trans-
portation commissioner to ensure, through the use of public service tax funds,
the continuance of public motor vehicle transportation facilities, some of which
§ 1 of the bill found to be in jeopardy. The defendants claimed that, although no
specific amount had been appropriated in the bill to maintain those facilities,
the commissioner's unequivocal duty to maintain them constituted an implied ap-
propriation of funds in an amount sufiicient to carry out his duty and that the
implied appropriation was, under the constitution, a proper matter for an item
veto. Since, however, the vetoed portions of the bill were not items of appropria-
tion as defined in Patterson v. Dempsey, 152 Conn. 431, and since the duty im-
posed on the commissioner was not ministerial in nature, the expenditures being
limited to public service tax funds already available to him, the governor's partial
veto was invalid.
Sections 15 and 16 of article fourth of the state constitution provide that a
governor may disapprove a bill, approve a bill, or take no action on a bill and
thus allow it to become law. Here, the governor exercised none of those options
on the subject bill but rather attempted to act conditionally on sections 3, 4 and
5 of it. Because under article fourth, §§ 15 and 16 a governor's approval or disap-
proval of a bill has to be unconditional, the veto here was a nullity and had the
same effect as nonaction. Moreover, since the time for any appropriate action by
the governor had passed, the bill became law absent his signature and without
the necessity for further action by the legislature.
AEQUED DECEMBEB 7, 1972 — DECIDED JANUARY 24, 1973 ^
Action for a declaratory judgment determining the validity of a partial and
a conditional veto by the named defendant, brought to the Superior Court in
Hartford County and reserved by the court, Naruk, J., for the advice of this
court.
Joseph P. Fhjnn, for the named plaintiff et al., with whom were Thomas F.
Keyes. for the plaintiff city of New Haven, and John D. Mahaney, for the plaintiff
city of Waterbury.
Raymond, J. Cannon, assistant attorney general, with whom were Barney Lapp
and Clement J. Kichuk, assistant attorneys general, and, on the brief, Robert K.
Killian, attorney general, for the named defendant et al.
Francis J. McCarthy, with whom was Richard R. Stewart, for the intervening
defendants Ives et al.
House, C. J. This case concerns the validity and effect of a veto message deliv-
ered by the governor in which he disapproved two sections of the 1972 September
Special Session House Bill No. 8022 and its statement of purpose and provisonally
approved the three remaining sections of the bill. The plaintiffs, majority lenders
of the 1972 General Assembly, the president pro tempore, the speaker and the
cities of New Haven and Waterbury, instituted an action seeking a declaratory
judgment as to whether the veto was valid, and. if not, what was the effect of
the governor's action. The defendants are the governor, the secretary of the
state, the commissioner of transportation and the comptroller. The minority
leaders of the 1972 General Assembly were allowed to intervene as codefendants.
The Superior Court, on the request of and with the consent of all the parties
and the filins of a stipulation of facts, reserved the dispositive questions to this
court. This court granted a motion to expedite a hearing on the reservation.
House Bill No. 8022* was passed by the General Assembly on September 19,
1972, and was duly presented to the governor. The statement of purpose appended
1 T"or rpoords nnrt hripf«! spp Xo}. A.
= rTTonsp Bill Xn. R022. 1072 Sontpmber Spprlal Spsslon]
"Spptlon 1. The ecnoral asspmhly finds that oprtain snprlflc motor carrier transportation
fifllitips nnv hp rllspnntinnpd. fiisnipterl or ahanfloneri In whole or In nart anrl that the
dlscontlnnanoe. dismptlon or abandonment of siieh facilities will be detrimental to the
general welfare of the state, further that specific motor carrier facilities may not be
(Continued)
35
to the bill indicated a legislative intention that the public service tax fund be
used in the exercise of the transportation commissioner's powers under the pro-
visions of § 13b-3-l of the 1969 Supplement to the General Statutes and that the
formula for the distribution of highway town aid be amended to provide for an
increase in the grants to the towns. Section 1 of the bill contained a legislative find-
ing that the operation of certain transportation facilities was in jeopardy, and
that their operation was required by the general welfare of the state. Section 2,
inter alia, directed the commissioner of transportation to exercise the authority
granted in § 13b-34, as amended, of the General Statutes to ensure the operation
of transportation facilities, stipulated to some extent the form of agreements to
be made by the commissioner, and provided that expenditures incurred in carry-
ing out the provisions of the enactment "shall be charged to the resources of the
public service tax fund available to the commissioner for such purposes." The
governor disapproved of these two sections of the bill and the statement of
purpose.^
Sections 3 and 4 of the bill made an additional appropriation to the towns to
be spent in accordance with § 13a-lT5b of the General Statutes. Section 5 pro-
vided that the act should take effect on passage and terminate on July 1, 1973.
These three sections \\fre all appruved by the governor (see footnote 2, supra)
with the proviso, however, that if his veto of the first two sections were success-
fully challenged, then his action should "be considered a veto of the entire House
Bill No. 8022."
(Continued)
operated in the manner required by the general welfare of the state and further, that addi-
tional motor carrier facilities may be required in the interest of the public welfare.
"Sec. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 13b-35 of the 19G9 supplement to the
general statutes, as amended by section 12 of number 261 of the public acts of 1972, the
commissioner of transportation shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of section
13b-34 of said supplement, as amended, to ensure that motor carrier transportation facili-
ties shall be operated in the manner required by the general welfare of the state. Any
agreement entered into thereunder for payments by the state shall include express provi-
sions that no state funds received pursuant thereto shall be used for the benefit of stock-
holders or officers of the common carrier or be paid directly or indirectly to any of them,
shall include specific provisions with respect to the proposed uses of the state funds and
shall be for a period which does not extend beyond June 30, 1973. Expenditures by the
commissioner in the exercise of his powers under said section 13b-34 and this act shall
be charged to the resources of the public service tax fund available to the commissioner
for such purposes.
"Sec. 3. In addition to the funds made available to the towns under section 13a-175a of
the 19fi9 supplement to the general statutes for the purposes set forth therein, the addi-
tional sum of three million dollars shall be distributed pro rata for such purposes to the
towns on the basis of the ratio of the population of the town to the population of the state,
notwlthst.-inding the provisions of section 13a-175b of the 1971 supplement to the general
statutes. The most recent available federal decennial census shall be used to determine a
town's population.
"Sec. 4. There Is appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, from the resources
of the hlcliwav fund three million dollars for the purposes of section 3 of this act.
"Sec. 5. This act shall take effect from its passage and shall terminate July 1, 1973.
"Statement of Purpose : To clarify the legislative intent tliat the public service tax
fund be used in the exercise of the Commissioner of Transportation's powers under section
13b-34 of the 1969 supplement to the General Statutes, as amended, and to amend the
Hisrhwiv Town A\r\ distribution formula to provide for an increase in town grants."
3 "[To Honorable Glorln Schaffer, Secretary of the State]
"I return lierewith House Bill R022, 'An Act Concerning The Continuation of Motor
Carrier Transnortation Services and Increasing Highway Town Aid', with my signature,
dlsanprovlng, however, Sections 1 and 2.
"In the event that this line-item veto is successfully challenged, then, and in that event,
my action shall he considered a veto of the entire House Bill No. 8022.
"Since the early 1960's. several sessions of Connecticut's General Assembly have approved
legislation which encournees towns to form transit districts. The state government has
aereed to assist these districts by providing both the busses and the means necessary to
allow t'ie busses to operate on a break-even basis. Such an approach allows the govern-
ment closest to the problems of surface transportation, local government, to develop
methods of mass transit.
"Section 2 of HB 8022, on the other hand, frustrates the expressed desire of the General
Assemblv and the Executive to assist transit districts. This ineptly-drawn legislation
doesn't even accomplish the ends its sponsors intended. The bus Industry labor-management
nesotlatlons now In progress are concerned with a one-year contract. Yet this bill provides
funding for onlv a nine-month period.
"Further, and perhaps even more Incredible, although some political leaders said a special
legislative session was unnecessary, they then drafted this bill which will actually limit
the verv nnthority of the Commissioner of Trnnsnortation which they cited as making a
session unnecessary. Indeed, It Is verv doubtful that any solution other than an outrleht
takeover of t'ie biis companies by the State could be effected under Section 2 of this
legislation.
"HB 8022 was conceived in the heat of a political campaicrn. It is a hill which s-'b-
ordlnates the long-term public srood to a momentary political advantage. I cannot allow such
a sham to become law in our State."
36
The reserved questions,* distilled to their esseuce, are whether the governor
has the power to veto some sections of the bill and to leave others intact ; if not,
then what is the effect of his purported conditional veto of the entire bill ; and
whether the secretary of the state has the duty to record and certify the entire
bill.
I
Article fourth, § 15, of the constitution of Connecticut confers on the governor
the power to veto any bill passed by both houses of the General As:?embly but
confers no power to veto any bill except as an entirety. Patterson v. Dempsey,
152 Conn. 431, 436, 207 A.2d 739. Article fourth, § 16, confers a limited power of
partial veto in the case of appropriation bills. He may "disapprove of any item or
items of any bill making appropriations of money embracing distinct items while
at the same time approving the remainder of the bill." Whatever power the
governor has partially to veto any bill is derived solely from article fourth, § 16,
of the constitution. Patterson v. Dempsey, supra, 437-38 ; Bengzon v. Secretary of
Justice, 299 U.S. 410, 413, 57 S. Ct. 252, 81 L. Ed. 312.
Our decision of the reserved questions is governed substantially by the recent
holdings of this court in Patterson v. Dempsey, supra. In that case the court had
before it a factual situation similar in many respects to the present case. The
governor had vetoed several sections of a bill that included both items of appro-
priation and general legislation. The vetoed sections were portions of the general
legislation. Patterson v. Dempsey, supra, 438. We held that even though the in-
clusion of general legislation in a bill also making aDuroiiriations violated § 2-35 *
of the General Statutes, the governor nevertheless had no power on the grounds
of that violation to veto the general legislation since the prohibition was statutory
rather than constitutional in nature. In effect, the inclusion of both kinds of
legislation in the same bill constituted a pro tanto repeal by implication. "[0]ne
legislature cannot control the exercise of the powers of a succeeding legislature."
Patterson v. Dempsey. supra. 439.
A further issue crucial to the disposition of the present controversy was
decided in the Patterson case. The question was presented as to whether the
governor had the power to veto any item or items in a bill which made appro-
priations, or whether the power extended only to specific "items of appropria-
tions." The court held that an "item," to be subject to the power of partial veto,
must in itself be a specific item of appropriation. Patterson v. Dempsry, supra,
439-43. Although there is authority in other jurisdictions to the contrary.' we
see no reason to reverse the clear holding of the Patterson case. The court rec-
ognized that to some extent such a holding circumscribes the authority of the
governor, but "[i]f the governor were allowed to disapprove or veto parts of a
bill involving general legislation, he could, in the case of many if not most such
bills, by the exercise of that power, eliminate selected portions of a bill in such
a manner as to change its meaning and thereby, in effect, enact an entirely dif-
ferent bill. This would usurp the legislative function, which is committed to the
General Assembly alone. But such legislative action through the use nf the
veto power would be impossible if the veto power were restricted tn distinct
items of appropriation in a bill, whether that bill did. or did not, include other
* "B. Thp niipstlfins upon Ts-Viir-h nrlvirp Is dfsirpfl nrp .t foUo'v: •
"1. Unrtpr the facts as stlpnlntpd hpreln, does thp fiofpnr'nnt Thomnc .T. ^rp'-'cill notlnc in
his rapacity as Govprnor and Chipf Execntlre OfRcer of tlip StatP of Connpcticiit hnvp thp
powpr under the provision of Art'olp 4. Spf'tions 15 and 10 of tbo ronstitntiAn n*" fontip'^t'-
cnt, to veto Sections 1 and 2 and the Statement of Purpose of House Bill 8022 while
permitting Sections 3, 4 and ."5 to become law?
"2. If the answer to question 1 is No, does the defendant Thomas J. Meskill acting In his
capacity as Oovprnor and Chief Executive Officer of the State of Tonnectlcnt have thp powpr
to Provide that In thp pvent that this linp Item vpto Is supcessfnllv r-hnllenped. thpn and
In that pvpnt, his action he consldprcd a vPto of the entlrp House BiU '5022 ''
".I. If the answer to qupstions 1 and 2 Is No. is the defendant O'orin Sohifpy. aptlnsr In
her caT>aplty as Secretary of State, required to record the entire House Bill S022 and certify
samp as low''"
*"r<^eneral Statutes] Sec. 2-3.5. committke on appkoprtations. . . . Each appropriation
hill shall specify the particular purpc^e for which nnproiirlatlon is madp and '-■hall he Itpm-
tj'ed as far as practicable. No ceneral legislation shall be made a part of such appronriatlon
bill."
• See. e.cr.. Commonwenlth v. Ttarnetf, 109 Pa. ifil. 173. 4S A. 97R : fitnie ex rel. Turner v.
7o»c<7 Fitntp IJinhirnu Cnrnmiftn'on. 1 .9R N.W.2d 141 (Town). We notp In this context that
many states constitutionally prohibit thp intPrmlntrllnT of crpnpral Ips'lslatlon with itpTn<5 nf
appropriation. Tn thesp statps. prpsumahly, thP governor may veto anv section of a bill if
the hill ;il"o h^^ppcns to "pprnpriatp monpy : if thp spctlon In issue were not an itpm of
appropriation, it constitutionally had nn place in the hill.
37
items of general legislation." Patterson v. Dempsey, supra, 442 ; see also Opinion
oj the Justices, 58 Del. 475, 210 A.2d 852 ; In re Opinion of the Justices, 294 Mass.
616, 2 N.E.2d 789.
The court recognized in the Patterson case that the primary evil intended to
be curbed by the power of partial veto is the practice of log-rolling : Presented
vpith a bill containing many items of appropriation, the governor may accept the
essential and reject the frivolous. The governor in this context may thus control
the amount of expenditure, but not the purpose. How much is si)ent is concep-
tually different from how an amount is spent. Patterson v. Dempsey, supra, 441-
42 ; Benyzon v. Secretary of Justice, supra, 414-15.
II
If the vetoed sections of House Bill No. 8022 constitute distinct items of
appropriation, then, their veto by the governor was valid. If, however, the
sections are general legislation, the partial veto power was exceeded and further
consequences follow.
The term "item of appropriation" in the context of the partial veto power was
also construed in Patterson v. Dempsey, supra, 438: " 'An item of an appropria-
tion bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of
money, not some general provision of law which happens to be put into an
appropriation bill.' Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice, . . . [299 U.S. 410, 414, 57
S. Ct. 252, 81 L. Ed. 312]. 'An item in an appropriation bill is an indivisible sum
of money dedicated to a stated purpose.' Commonwealth v. Dodson, 176 Va.
281, 296, 11 S.E.2d 120." An item of appropriation is a "specific sum of money
for a specified purpose. . . . These two factors are the essentials of an item."
areen v. Rawls, 122 So. 2d 10, 16 (Fla.). The item must be "distinct." Wood v.
State Adminiatrative Board, 255 Mich. 220, 224, 238 N.W. 16. Language merely
imposing restrictions or conditions on the expenditure of money is not subject
to the veto power, since it is not in itself a "distinctly specified sum." Black &
White Taxicah Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 25 Ariz. 381, 218 P. 139 ; Opinion of the
Justices, 294 Mass. 616, 2 N.E.2d 789.
It is not seriously contended that the vetoed sections would operate expressly
to appropriate a stated sum of money. The defendants, however, press an argu-
ment that relies heavily on a line of cases beginning with State v. Stanb, 61
Conn. 553, 23 A. 924, in which this court has recognized the duty of state officials
to act pursuant to legislative mandates, regardless of specific appropriations.
An unequivocal direction to act was deemed to imply an appropriation from the
general fund sufficient to cover the cost of so acting. The specific holding in the
Stauh case was that mandamus might properly compel an official to perform
purely ministerial duties that were mandated by statute. The court there said
(p. 563) : "In the absence of a special appropriation the existence of a law
requiring the expenditure to be incurred is an appropriation of money for that
purpose, and the law imposes upon the comptroller the duty of settling and
adjusting demands against the state for such expenses." See also Dowe v. Egan,
133 Conn. 112, 48 A.2d 735 ; Cummings v. Looney, 89 Conn. 557, 95 A. 19 : New
Milford V. Litchfield County, 70 Conn. 435, 89 A. 796; Williams v. New Haven,
68 Conn. 263. 36 A. 61 ; Whitney v. New Haven, 58 Conn. 450. 20 A. 666. The
defendants' claim essentially is that § 2 of House Bill No. 8022 imposes a min-
isterial duty on the commissioner of transportation to proceed under § 13b-34
to ensure the continued operation of certain motor vehicle transportation facil-
ities, and that an obligation to pay the costs necessary for the performance of
that duty thus arises. Section 2, they claim, therefore contains an amplied ap-
propriation and as such is subject to the governor's power of partial veto. Even
assuming, without deciding, that the rule enunciated in the Stauh case is still
valid, we must conclude that the rule is not applicable in this case.
An analysis of § 2 compels this conclusion. First, the section provides that
the commmissioner of transportation, notwithstanding the provisions of § 13b-
35. as amended, "shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of section
13b-34 . . . t(j ensure that motor carrier transportation facilities shall be oper-
ated in the manner required by the general welfare of the state." (Emphasis
added.) Section 13h-34. as amended, in turn, granted several discretionary
powers to the commissioner. In order to promote or aid transportation facil-
ities, he conld contract with divers entities, but any payments would he suhiect
to the prior approval of the state bond commission. With similar approval he
38
could provide service and share in costs. He was given powers to implement
the discretionary power granted to him. For example, he could receive various
grants and acquire and dispose of interests in property. Of particular signifi-
cance is § 13b-34(e) : the commissioner "shall have the power to expend,
or to authorize the expenditure of, funds appropriated to him or to the depart-
ment hereunder."
It is apparent that § 13b-34 is general legislation dependent for its operation
on extrinsic funding. Section 16-338 of the General Statutes provides for such
funding. This section creates a fund "[t]o finance the performance of the powers
and duties of the commissioner under sections 13b-34 to 13b-36, inclusive." The
state bond commission has the power to authorize the issue of both general and
revenue bonds. With respect to the general bonds, "appropriation of all amounts
necessary for punctual payment of such principal and interest is hereby made."
The revenue bonds, generally, are on the other hand to be paid for by "moneys
in the public service tax fund." The latter fund is authorized by § 16-338(f).
It is to be separate and distinct from all other funds and moneys : it is to be
supported by public service taxes ; and its proceeds are to be used first to pay
obligations on the revenue bonds. Any excess may be used by the commissioner
of transportation on the approval of the state bond commission, and any further
excess is to be deposited in the general fund.
In the absence of further provisions, it could be argued rather tenuously that
these statutory provisions permit § 2 of House Bill No. 8022 to be subject to partial
veto as an "item of appropriation": <a) The section directs the commissioner to
exercise his discretion in a way likely to incur additional expenditures; (b) the
expenditures could be finanred by general bonds; (e) the general bonds are obli-
gations of the state for which general appropriations have been made, by virtue
of § 16-338; and, therefore, (d) the legislative mandate to act implies an appro-
priation, under the Staiih doctrine.
The final sentence of § 2 of House Bill No. 8022. however, destroys the validity
of such a claim : "Expenditures by the commissioner in the exercise of his powers
under said section 13b-34 and this act shall be charged to the resources of the
public service tax fund available to the commissioner for such purposes." The
inclusion of the word "available" clearly indicates that in making expenditures
the commissioner is in fact confined to drawing on resources already at his
disposal. There is no suggestion of any intention to make a new appropriation.
Even if there were such an implication, the public service tax fund was an existing
revolving fund not dependent on further appropriation and there is cogent au-
thority holding that even where actual increases in expenditures from revolving
funds were provided for by the legislature, such legislation is. nevertheless, not an
item of appropriation subject to the veto power. See Blach rf White Taonicah Co. v.
S^tnvdard Oil Co., 2.5 Ariz. 381. 218 P. 139; Onmmnnivpalth ear rel. Ball v. Pnwell,
249 Pa. 144. 94 A. 746; State v. Dammann, 220 Wis. 143. 264 N.W. 622.
We conclude that § 2 of House Bill No. 8022 is not "any item or items" of a
"bill making appropriations of money embracing distinct items."
The other sections of House Bill No. 8022 vetoed by the governor require but
brief comment. Section 1 of the bill and the statement of purpose appended to the
bill serve only to state legislative findings and to indicate the intent of the
General Assembly. They do not constitute operative legislation and. properly,
it has not been contended that they in any way constitute items making
appropriations.
It is concluded that since none of the sections of the bill vetoed by the gov-
ernor constitutes or contains items of appropriation thev were not subject to hi«
veto in the exercise of the powers vested in him by article fourth, § 16. of the
constitution of ronTiecticut. The partial veto is, therefore, invalid and the answer
to the first reserved question is "No."
Ill
The second ouestion reserved for our advice is whether the governor has "the
power to provide that in the event <^his line item veto is successfully challensred.
then and in thnt event, his action bo considered a veto of the entire House Bill
8022"
In his veto messnge. the governor provided that should his veto of the first ♦^wo
sections and the statement of purpose he successfully challenged, "then, and in
that event, mv action shall he considered a veto of the entire House Bin No.
8022." The effect of this portion of the veto message was to leave §§ 3. 4 and ^ of
39
the bill suspended in a sort of legal purgatory : if the partial veto should not be
"successfully challenged"' sometime in the future, then the contingently approved
sections would be law ; but if any future challenge were successful and the par-
tial veto held to be invalid, then the contingently approved sections would not
be law.
As we have noted, the governor derives his veto power from article fourth,
§§15 and 16, of the constitution. He constitutionally has three options on the
presentation of any bill : "If the governor shall approve a bill, he shall sign and
transmit it to the secretary of the state, but if he shall disapprove, he shall trans-
mit it to the secretary with his objections. ... In case the governor shall not
transmit the bill to the secretary, either with his approval or with his objections,
within five calendar days . . . [excluding Sundays and legal holidays] after the
same shall have been presented to him, it shall be a law at the expiration of that
period." The governor, thus, has three choices : he may disapprove a bill, in
which case it is returned to the legislature ; he may approve a bill, in which case
it becomes a law ; or he may do nothing, whereupon the bill becomes a law at the
expiration of the five-day period.
The governor's approval or disapproval, however, is effective only if his action
is unconditional and not qualified. "This approval . . . must be . . . without quali-
fication. Any attempt on his part to attach to his approval any qualification . . .
will either be entirely nugatory and ineffectual, and leave the approval absolute,
or it will completely nullify the approval and operate as a veto of the whole bill."
Liikens v. Kye, 156 Cal. 498, 503, 105 P. 593 ; see 50 Am. Jur. 108, Statutes, § 107.
By leaving his approval or disapproval of §§ 3, 4 and 5 dependent on the outcome
of any future challenge to the validity of his attempted veto of the remaining
sections and statement of purpose of the bill, the governor with finality neither
approved nor disapproved the measures within the five-day period specified by the
constitution. "It is of the first importance that the people should know to what
law they are subject." State v. South Noncalk, 77 Conn. 257, 261, 58 A. 759.
In State v. McCook, 109 Conn. 621, 147 A. 126, the court held that an act of
the legislature was void because it was not approved by the governor until
nineteen days after the final adjournment of the General Assembly. At that time
the constitution provided that if a bill was not returned by the governor to the
legislature within three clays, Sundays excepted, after it was presented to him
it should become law as if he had signed it "unless the General Assembly, by
their adjournment, prevents its return, in which case it shall not be a law."
Conn. Const., art. 4, § 12 (1818). While the case is not strictly in point, the ob-
servations of the court are pertinent. They noted that if the governor had the
power under the constitution to determine the time when such an act should
become effective as a law "grave public abuse might follow the possession and
use of this extraordinary power." State v. McCook, supra, 649. The court also
commented (p. 049) : "If the Governor can determine by his own will when Pub-
lic Acts shall become laws his will will override the long-exercised power of the
General Assembly" (to designate the day when Public Acts shall become laws).
Much more objectionable would be a strained construction of the present con-
stitutional provisions to permit the governor to determine that an act passed by
the General Assembly should be valid until some imdetermined time in the fu-
ture when on the possible happening of an event over which neither he nor the
legislature had any control the act should cease to be law.
If the governor's conditional veto of the three sections of the bill which he
tentatively approved were constitutionally permissible, the situation in effect
would be no different from one in which the governor instead of acting within
the constitutionally prescribed five days waited until the condition should even-
tuate and thereupon disapprove the legislation. The defendants, citing no au-
thority, stress the difficulty of the situation of the governor and his effort, in
good faith, to extricate himself and to explain his stand to the legislature and
the people. The difliculty of his position can be readily appreciated, but the con-
stitutionally prescribed time period may not be contravened. "Whatever . . .
[the constitution] prescribes, the General Assembly, and every officer or citizen
to whom the mandate is addressed, must do ; and whatever it prohibits, the Gen-
eral Assembly, and every officer and citizen, must refrain from doing ; and if
either attempt to do that which is prescribed, in any other manner than that pre-
scribed, or to do in any manner that which is prohibited, their action is repug-
nant to that supreme and paramount law, and invalid." Opinion of the Judges,
30 Conn. 591, 593.
40
Because the veto was conditioned on the happening at some uncertain time in
the future of a condition subsequent, which time could well be beyond the con-
stitutionally prescribed period, it must be concluded that the governor had no
constitutional power to disapprove the bill in that manner. The answer to the
second reserved question, therefore, is "No."
IV
The third and final reserved question concerns the present status of House
Bill No. 8022 : Does the secretary of the state now have the duty to record and
certify the entire bill as a law?
As we have already noted, the governor constitutionally had no power to veto
§§1 and 2 of the bill and its statement of purpose. In the similar Patter f^nn case,
we held that such a veto was "unconstitutional and void." Patterson v. Dempsey,
152 Conn. 4.31, 443, 207 A.2d 739. This decision is in accord with the overwhelm-
ing weight of authority holding that a veto exercised in excess of constitutional
authority is an ineflfective nullity. See Black & White Taxicah Co. v. Standard
Oil Co., 25 Ariz. 381, 218 P. 139; Lvkens v. Nye, supra, 595; State ex rel. Tnrner
V. Imca State Highway Commission. 186 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa) ; In re Opinion of
the Justices, 294 Mass. 616, 2 N.E.2d 789 ; Wood v. State Administrative Board,
255 Mich. 220, 238 N.W. 16. Under the provisions of the Connecticut constitution,
effective gubernatorial disapproval is required if a legislative enactment is not
to become a law. Conn. Const., 1965. art 4, §§ 15, 16 ; Patterson v. Dempsey, supra.
It follows that the governor's action in purporting to veto portions of House
Bill No. 8022 is void.
An untimely veto is also void. Morehouse v. Employers' Liatility Assurance
Corporation, 119 Conn. 416, 421. 177 A. 568; Siller v. Siller. 112 Conn. 145, 148. 151
A, 524 ; State v. McCook, 109 Conn. 621, 649. 147 A. 126. "We used the word void
in the sense that such Acts are of no legal effect, and not in the sense that they
are voidable." Preveslin v. Derby d Ansonia Developing Co., 112 Conn. 129, 133,
151 A. 518. It follows that the action of the governor in attempting to effect a
veto of the remaining sections of House Bill No. 8022 contingent on the uncer-
tain happening of a future event is likewise void.
We have already noted that the constitution grants three options to a governor :
effective approval, effective disapproval and no action. A void action is a nullity ;
the effect is the same as nonaction. Since the governor effectively vetoed none of
the sections of House Bill No. 8022, the bill became a law at the expiration of
the constitutional period and the secretary of the state should proceed
accordingly.
The defendants argue that since the legislature took no action after the
governor's veto message was announced, the present action was prematurely
brought. The contention might have had some merit if the governor's action was
merely voidable. But since the action of the governor was totally void, the legis-
lature was under no obligation to take further action. There is no reason to
reenact an existing law.
The answer to the third question, therefore, is "Yes."
In summary, the Superior Court is advised that the answers to the three
questions reserved for the advice of this court are : Question 1, "No" ; question
2, "No" : question 3, "Yes."
No costs will be taxed in this court in favor of any party.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, sir.
That is a case in which Governor Meskill -was confronted with an
act, a bill of the Connecticut General Assembly, which had both
substantive provisions and appropriations provisions in it. He wanted
to approve the appropriations and to veto the substantive part of
the bill.
Now, this is an understandable policy decision, but the question
is, how does a lawyer approach an understandable policy decision? In
this case, the Governor's approach, as T read this case, was to ignore
the holding of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, less than ten
years old.
41
I raise these points now in fairness to the Governor, so that he may
reply. This committee has given the Association that which it most
urgently asked for this morning, which is more time, and we are very
grateful for that. But now in fairness to the Governor, it seems to me
we should point out questions that have arisen so that he may also
have the benefit of this additional time, and in this case we now come
to where there is a unanimous reversal of what he did in the face of
a precedent less than ten years old.
Did he not know of the precedent, or did he defy it? Is this the
kind of head-on collision that we are to expect from a judge of the
second cir<'uit ?
This is not a refined question, this is not a subtle question. Here is a
controlling decision of the Supreme Court of the state being in a sense
defied by its Governor, and with the result that his act has to be
then undone, and the uncertainty which he created is a complete
waste and drain upon the state.
There are other matters that were referred to in the testimony of
State Senator Smith beginning at page 50 of the printed hearings
which I am not going to take the time now to review. But I suggest
that in the five or six matters there contained are the elements of ques-
tion as to temperament, whether a person gifted perliaps as a Gov-
ernor, is capable of intuitive quick decisions, which are necessary and
which had to do with his keeping' control of a large government, but
which are completely inconsistent with the type of deliberate, care-
fully reasoned decisions which are to be expected of an appellate court
of great importance.
I come now, most regretfully, to the third basic qualification with
which we are concerned, that of integrity, and here we would like to
make very clear that we are not making any charges, we are not at
this time expressing any final views.
I say all that we have asked for is further time to follow up on the
investigation on the Connecticut General Assembly.
In the state of Connecticut, I gather beginning last fall, a committee
of the General Assembly recently completed, a series of hearings going
to the question of leasing practices in that state. The report was filed
in its summary form along about January 7th. It is to be followed
by an Appendix which is to contain the details as to 54 state leases
which were considered by this investigatory committee. This Appendix
has been, as I understand it, promised for early February, and this
would be the basis of a further investigation by the Judiciary Com-
mittee of the American Bar Association, and we would hoj^e and
believe by the Association of the Bar of the city of New York which
is represented by Judge Bauman, who is here this morning.
The essence of concern found by this legislative committee was that
the state of Connecticut frequently, instead of buying property which
it needed for its state departments, would lease the property, and
although the original plan would be for the state to go out and either
get competitive bids or otherwise get its leases in the open market,
a practice developed prior to Governor Meskill's time, but continued
through his administration, whereby a favored lessor would be sought
out and told of the state's needs, and then invited to obtain the prop-
erty which the state would like to lease and become the lessor. In this
42
way, a favored person would have an opportimity to acquire property
desired by a state, and then lease it to the state to his advantage.
The Committee found, and I am simply repeating their findings,
that in some cases these leases cost the state double the going rate for
similar property. In other cases, they contain undesirable provisions
and were not as good as the state could have done in other ways.
Now, the question is whether or not the Governor was a victim of
this practice along with the other people in the state, or whether he
knew about it and condoned it. That seems to be a substantial question
here. This is not the case of a practice which evolved at the low levels
of a state department in a remote part of the state. This was a practice
indulged in by the top of the department, by department heads ap-
pointed by the Governor, and the person who seemed to have to coor-
dinate much of this activity was the Republican State Chairman him-
self, a man named Gaffney.
So, we are not talking about something in the shadows, we are talk-
ing about something so very central to the operation of the state gov-
ernment in Connecticut.
A member of the Governor's Party, the Deputy Minority Leader of
the Senate, has gone further and has said that he himself complained
to the Governor regarding these practices. He said that as to a par-
ticularly undesirable lease in 1972, in May he went to the liaison officer
in the Governor's office, the man charged with the responsibility of
communications between the Connecticut legislature and the Gover-
nor, and he told this liaison officer of this complaint and gave him the
particulars and asked to see the Governor so that something might be
done to block the execution of this lease. The legislator in question
had been given this information anonymously and he was proceeding
to get to the bottom of it. He was stalled in his request to see the Gov-
ernor. He did not see him for about two weeks. During this intervening
period, a letter of commitment was given for this lease in question, to
the uncle of the Eepublican State Chairman. Four days later Senator
Gunther did see the Governor and he says that he told him of his com-
plaint in this matter.
Senator Tunnet. Did he say that under oath ?
Mr. Walsh. He said that under oath and in public hearings ac-
cording to my information. Senator.
And thereafter, within ten days, he wrote the Governor expressing
the same complaint, and thereafter he released his letter because he
felt that nothing had been done about it.
So the question is whether this fourfold effort to communicate with
the Governor got through. That is at least one of the questions.
It is our understanding that Governor Meskill declined an oppor-
tunity to testify publicly on this matter and that again now we are
relying on statements in the press that he first denied meeting with
Senator Gunther, and then we understand after Senator Gunther's
public testimony he told the staff of the General Assembly's commit-
tee that he had, indeed, met with Senator Gunther, but Senator Gun-
ther had been so vague in his conversation that he had difficulty in
understanding what he was talking about.
Senator Gunther, on the other hand, said that the Governor seemed
to be fully familiar with the particulars of this lease.
43
So we say at this point we ask this committee to reserve its judg-
ment and permit us to carry on with the investigation, and if the date
for the adjourned hearings gives us sufficient time, we would like the
privilege of returning and reporting to this committee as to this
matter.
There is one more thing again, and this was developed in the exami-
nation by Senator Burdick of Governor Meskill in September on
page 31 of the printed hearings. Senator Burdick asked the Governor
about business transactions he had with a real estate broker in Con-
necticut.
After Mr. Meskill became Governor he was invited to participate
in the joint ownership of a commercial property, as one of six partici-
pants, by a real estate man named Mussman. It is our understanding —
and again, this is all subject to further investigation, and we do the
best we can with what we have at the moment — that the investment
was very small, less than $4,000 as I recall it, in property having a
value of over $200,000. Now, if each partner put in $4,000, it would
be barely 10 percent of the property's value. There was a large mort-
gage from the bank, I believe $165,000, and an additional second
mortgage by the former owner.
All I am saying is that these six partners who were favored in this
transaction, if that property threw off 10 percent a year as income,
would virtually recover their equity investment at the end of the first
year, and each year thereafter.
Mr. Mussman ran the property, and the other partners had no re-
sponsibility for getting lessees, for keeping the property filled. This
was all done by Mr. Mussman for them, and as I read the testimony,
the only implication seemed to me that they were all equal partners,
and Mr. Mussman had no additional compensation for this, but Mr.
Mussman did begin to do business with the State of Connecticut, and
he was the broker in a transaction where property which the State
could have obtained, I believe from the Traveller's Insurance Com-
pany, for $4.5 million, was subsequently obtained from third persons
by the State at $7.5 million, and, indeed, the transaction only avoided
fulfillment because the Attorney General refused to acquiesce in the
final stages of it.
So again we say that there is a matter here that clearly requires
further investigation. We regret the nature of the investigation. We
see no way to avoid it, either for this committee, or for our com-
mittee, or for the Association of the Bar.
It may be that some government agency with subpena power or
with t]ie sanction of Federal law could do a far more effective job
than we could do. We would welcome that. But m the absence of that,
we appreciate the time you have given us, and we will do the best we
can.
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Mr. Walsh, for the record, would you iijdicate .for
whom you are speaking here today ?
Mr. Walsh. The American Bar Association.
Senator Burdick. Is there a section of the American Bar Associa-
tion which is familiar with this ?
47-704—75-
44
Mr. Walsh. The Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary of the
American Bar Association is made up of 12 lawyers, one from each of
the Federal circuits, and a chairman. They conduct investigations at
the request of either the Deputy Attorney General or this committee
as to the professional competence, integrity, and temperament of per-
sons under consideration. They are unconcerned with the political and
philosophical views and this committee has been doing this since, I
guess. 1952 at least.
I might add that Mr. Bernard Segal, who was the chairman who
first developed the committee into its present scope of activity, would
be here with me today but for a funeral of a very close friend. He and I,
as former chairmen — he was chairman for, I believe, 6 or 8 years, and
I was chairman for 4 years — are privy to the reports o,f this commit-
tee. We botli completely concur in its conclusions.
The reason that I am here in addition to Mr. Sutro and Mr. Con-
nelly, who have been here earlier, is that this is the first case in which
we have opposed a nomination, I guess, since that of Judge Morrisey
back in the mid-1960's. And it was the wish of the officers and the
Board of Governors that this committee understand that this is not a
narrow segment, that we support the work of this committee, we sup-
port its conclusions.
I might add. Senators, as to my particular interest in this field,
that I served as Deputy Attorney General under President Eisen-
hower for 3 years. During that period I had primary responsibility for
the Attorney General and the President in making recommendations
for the filling of about 150 vacancies. As chairman of the Standing
Committee on Federal Judiciary I was probably concerned with the
filling of 200 more. In many cases there was more than one person
being considered so that the total this committee, to my knowledge,
and Mr. Segal's knowledge, has reviewed now runs into the thousands
of potential nominees.
With that background and with this concept of our duty, we take
this position.
Senator Burdick. When were you chairman of the standing com-
mittee ?
Mr. Walsh. I was chairman of the committee from August of 1968
to August of 1972. 1 was not active on it ,for the first 6 months of 1969
when I was in France participating in the Vietnam peace talks.
Senator Burdick. Your term as chairman ended in 1972?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir ; it did.
Senator Burdick. What is the procedure of this committee of 12 ?
Mr. Walsh. Each expresses his own individual view as to the fitness
of the person under consideration. The investigation starts with a
lengthy report by the circuit member who interviews about 30 lawyers
trying to get a cross-section in the community from which the nominee
comes.
This circuit member is primarily concerned with passing on to the
other members of the committee the substance of what he is told by
these people he interviews. This is not a matter in which he has any
deciding power himself, other than as one of the 12 members of the
committee, but he is responsible for gathering together the comments
of the professional colleagues of the person under consideration and
tlion he writes his report.
45
It is circulated to the other members, and then if it looks adverse, he
then talks with the person under consideration himself, the nominee.
All of this is with the approval of the Deputy Attorney General. The
nominee also supplies this committee with a lengthy questionnaire in
which he sets forth his training and experience, and in the case before
us we have not gotten into any issues of fact. We are accepting Gov-
ernor IMeskilPs own statements of experience and training and we are
not quarreling with him. It is simply a question of whether or not it
adds up to enough to start a judicial career at this very high level.
Senator Burdick. Does this committee of 12, the standing commit-
tee, take a vote ?
I\Ir, Walsh. Oh, yes, they do that. They take a vote.
Senator Burdick. When was that taken, and what was that vote ?
Mr. Walsh. That vote was unanimous. That vote was taken in the
middle of last year and it was unanimous that he was not qualified.
Senator Burdick. Does the American Bar Association or its house
of delegates or any adjunct take any action other than the committee
action ?
Mr. Walsh. No. The committee is authorized to act for the associa-
tion without any further action, but in this case, because of the unfor-
tunate confrontation we have in having to say someone is not qualified,
the Board asked me to come here to express its support for the com-
mittee, too. But the committee is the effective spokesman for the
association.
Senator Burdick. Then you are this morning speaking for the
American Bar Association as its president-elect ?
Mr. Walsh. As president-elect, with the authorization of both the
Board of Governors and the committee.
Senator Burdick. Did the Board of Governors act on this ?
Mr. Walsh. No, they did not. They were told of the situation and
they have been polled and consented to my appearing here today.
Senator Burdick. Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. We welcome you here.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hruska. Judge Walsh, we first had an acquaintance with
you in your days, or rather in your years of service as Deputy Attorney
General. What years were they ?
Mr. Walsh, that was 1958, 1959, 1960.
Senator Hruska. And it is my recollection that you served on the
Federal bench for a time?
Mr. Walsh. I served on the Federal bench before coming to Wash-
ington, Senator. I was district judge in the southern district of New
York from the middle of 1954 through 1957.
Senator Hruska. This standing committee on judicial selection, you
indicated the vote was unanimous. How was the vote conducted?
Mr. Walsh. If there is a matter of great urgency it will be conducted
by telephone and confirmed by mail ; otherwise it is done by mail. On
occasion, the committee will meet, to discuss a particular case.
Senator Hruska. And, of course, prior to the vote being taken, this
abstract prepared by the circuit representative is distributed among
the members of the entire committee, is that correct ?
Mr. Walsh. That is correct. Senator.
46
Senator Hruska, "What has been the experience of this committee ?
Yon mentioned the case of Mr. Morrissey.
Mr. Walsh. That was the last case in which this committee was in
the position of opposing a nomination before this Judiciary Com-
mittee of the Senate. During the intervening years there has been a
very general concord between the Deputy Attorney General, the
Attorney General, and this committee. Again, when we deal with the
Attorney General, we deal without any authority other than the rea-
sonableness of our position, and in each case, prior to this the Deputy
Attorney General and the Attorney General have acquiesced to the
views of this committee.
Senator Hruska. I am a little puzzled, Mr. Walsh. I recall that some
nine years ago we spent quite a little time here in the Judiciary Com-
mittee considering the nomination of Edward M. McEntee for the
first circuit, a lawyer from Rhode Island, and his nomination was
very, very severely contested. The American Bar Association was
represented by Albert Jenner of Chicago who was then chairman of
its committee on selection. And Mr. Jenner came to the Judiciary Com-
mittee with a bagful of papers, and we went at it, I think, a day or
two. Judge McEntee was reported favorably. He was confirmed by
the Senate. He was appointed by President Johnson on September 1,
1965, and he is still serving and they tell me that he is a pretty good
judge. Do you recall that ?
Mr. Walsh. I do not, Senator. I do not recall any nomination that
we have testified against since that of Judge Morrissey. I cannot re-
member the date of that, but my impression was the date was before
that of 1965.
Senator Hruska. I am confident that this was not an hallucination
on my part. It was in the committee room here immediately to my
left.
I presided part of the time over the proceedings. But if you have
no recollection, that is understandable because it was sometime after
you left.
Mr. Walsh. It was in between the time that I was Deputy Attorney
General and the time I became chairman of the committee, but it is
my impression from my discussions with both Mr. Jenner and Mr.
Segal that after the IMorrissey nomination — I wonder if that nomina-
tion had come up before that ?
Senator Hruska. The appointment of Judge McEntee was made
on September 1, 1965.
Mr. Walsh. Senator, I know the care with which you approach
these things, and I would accept your recollection. But I myself have
never heard of an instance after Morrissey.
Senator Hruska. I propose to ask the Department to furnish us with
an abstract, not only of that, Mr. Walsh, but also the case of Irving
Ben Cooper of New York. Do you remember him ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. That Avas earlier. That was during President
Kennedy's administration, and that was before the Morrissey case.
Senator Hruska. That is right.
Mr. Walsh. There were two others then. I think. Judge Luther
Bohannon, and Judge Fox in the Western District of Michigan.
Senator Hruska. We had hearings in this chamber on Irving Ben
Cooper and I recall well when he sat in the chair that you are now
47
occupying. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee sat next
to him on his left. Every hour of the time Judge Cooper was being
interrogated JNIanny Celler sat there and listened with great interest
to the proceedings. The Senate confirmed Judge Cooper and he is now
serving and they tell me he makes a pretty good judge.
Mr. Walsh. Well, Senator, the only question as to Judge Cooper,
as I remember it, was one of temperament and I would think I would
be fair in saying for the bar of Xew York that he has made every
effort to be a good judge.
Senator HntsKv. There were very extensive hearings. They are
printed. I heard all of the testimony on Judge Cooper and I presided
over part of the hearings.
Perhaps, IMr. Walsh, these cases were not during your tenure, and
not within your personal knowledge, but I have a list of a total of 18
Federal judges that were rated w^hen they were nominated as not
qualified by the American Bar Association from 1955 to 19G5 but who
were approved by this committee and confirmed by the Senate. They
were appointed by l^resident Johnson and President Kennedy and
President Eisenhower. I would propose to get from the Department
of Justice a little summary or synopsis on each of those. But for
present purposes I should like to offer this list for inclusion in the
record at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Without objection it will be received.
[The list referred to follows :]
FEDERAL JUDGES FOUND NOT QUALIFIED BY THE ABA
Appointed Rating
Appointed by President Jotinson:
Edward M. McEntee (First Circuit) i _ _ Sept. 1,1965 NQ
Charles A. Muecke (Arizona) .Oct. 1,1964 NQ
Sidney L. Christie (West Virginia, North 31 j South)... .,. May 1,1964 ■ NQ
Eugene A. Gordon (North Carolina, Middle) June 9,1964 NQ
Appointed by President Kennedy:
James R. Browning (Ninth Circuit) Sept. 18, 1S61 NQ
Roger D. Foley (Nevada). July 2,1962 NQ
Irving Ben Cooper (New York, Southern) Sept. 28, 1962 NQ
Ben Green (Ohio, North).. July 2,1962 NQ
Luther Bohannon (Oklahoma, North, East and West) Aug. 30, 1961 N(3
Louis Rosenberg (Pennsylvania, Western) July 12,1962 NQ
Sarah Hughes (Texas, Northern) Mar. 17,1962 » NQ
Appointed by President Eisenhower:
EmettC. Choate (Florida, Southern) July 20,1954 NQ
Ronald N. Davies (North Dakota) July 27,1955 NQ
Richard H. Level (New York, Southern) Mar. 8,1956 «NQ
David J. Wilson (Customs) July 26, 1954 ' NQ
Joseph P. Wilson (Pennsylvania, Western) July 14,1953 ' NQ
Cabel M. Wright (Delaware) July 27,1955 NQ
Herbert P. Sorg (Pennsylvania, Western) Aug. 1,1955 NQ
• Age.
Senator Hruska. Seven of them were appointed by President
Eisenhower.
Mr. Walsh. This I can say
Senator Hruska. The last of those were in 1955. Seven were ap-
pointed by President Kennedy in 1961 and 1962. Four were appointed
by President Johnson in 1964 and 1965.
Since January 1961), some 270 judges have appeared in these rooms
for confirmation hearings before this committee and not one of them
has been in that category from that time until now. Would you have
any comment on that, Mr. Walsh ?
48
Mr. Walsh. Well I just think that the working relationship be-
tween this committee and the Department of Justice has been one of
the fine things which I have been privileged to experience. I think it
has worked well. Ordinarily, there is a concurrence of view, and we
regret that we have had to come to a point of disagreement now, but we
do this witli respect and with regret.
Senator Hruska. I am a member of the American Bar Association.
Mr. Walsh. And we jho very proud of that, sir.
Senator Hruska. I have been a member for almost 40 years. I have
a very kind feeling toward the American Bar Association, but when
I heard the statement made, not by you but by others, that this was
the first nominee ,for the Federal judiciary— other than Francis X.
Morrisey, whose name was withdrawn by the sponsoring Senator —
who was held not qualified by the ABA, I could not resist the tempta-
tion to get at the facts and obtained this list from the Department. For
purposes of the record I am making a request of the Department to
provide a resume on each of these, the circumstances, to sharpen up
the dates, and so on.
Mr. Walsh. If I may, Senator, I would like to ask that our commit-
tee do the same. I know Mr. Segal, who was chairman during most of
this period, would like to comment himself on these names.
Senator Hruska. Yes, I am sure he would. And then there was a
laAvyer from Boston who was chairman for a while.
]\Ir. Walsh. Eobert Meserve.
Senator Hruska. Meserve. And he was succeeded by Albert
Jenner.
Mr. Walsh. And I think most of those names that you have precede
Mr. Jenner. I think Mr. Jenner began with the Morrisey nomination.
Senator Hruska. Well Mr. Jenner was here on Judge McEntee. He
was here in flesh and blood.
Mr. Walsh. All right.
We will get this, Senator.
Senator Hruska. The dates appear on this little exhibit, and we
will at a later time, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, submit
whatever the Department might have on these so that we can consider
it when we get into executive session.
Is it Mr. Segal's intention to testify ?
Mr. Walsh. I know that he would like to if it will not be encroach-
ing on the committee's time.
Senator Hruska. We could send the list to Mr. IMeserve, Mr. Segal,
and Mr. Jenner and see what comments they might have.
Mr. Walsh. That will cover the whole period ; yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. Information of this kind, of course, will come out
sooner or later by friend or foe. maybe both, and I offer it without
any motivation other than to get the .facts on the record.
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. One of the witnesses who was here, and you were
present in the room when he testified, said that he did not want ex-
perienced and qualified public servants like Tom INIeskill disqualified
because they may not meet some arbitrary test of a private organiza-
tion which is not accountable to any electorate for their actions. He
said:
49
I cannot accept the substitution of a private organization for that of the
Constitutional process.
I do not ask this question in a hostile way, but you were here when
the testimony was given
Mr. Walsh. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hruska. And I will give you the opportunity to comment
on it if 3^ou wish, sir.
Mr, Walsh. I appreciate the opportunity, Senator. We ourselves
would never want the day to come when our action was determinative
as to confirmation or nomination. We are an advisory group. We do
our best to present the facts openly and frankly and fairly to the
President and his agents and to the Senate through this committee.
That is our function.
If our reasoning is ever found to be wrong, or if our facts do not
support our reasons, then we invite your departure from our position.
But we have hoped that we might always be right and always be per-
suasive. Now that may not be the lot of any person, but we dp not ask
to be heeded in any arbitrary fashion, or in any fashion except as an
advocate whom we hope will always be persuasive to you.
Senator Hruska. Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this oppor-
tunity to say that having witnessed most of these occasions as a mem-
ber of the committee, I can subscribe to the ,f act that the American Bar
Association, whenever it has been requested for information or testi-
mony or for evidence of any kind, always steps forward and presents
their case and presents it as best they can. I have never taken that as
an effort to dictate or to veto appointments, but as an effort to get be-
fore the committee, and therefore before the Senate, those facts they
consider pertinent. To that extent I certainly want to testify on behalf
of the efforts of their very fine committee which has alwaj'S been
headed by very fine lawyers.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Senator.
Senator Hruska. I have no further questions at this time, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Senator McClellan ?
Senator ]\IcClellan, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only two
or three questions,
I liave had brief conversations with both the witness who is testify-
ing and also the nominee. And as yet I have reached no decision with
respect to Governor MeskilTs nomination. I was not able to be present
at the previous hearings, and I have not yet had the opportunity to
read the transcript of the evidence that has been presented. But if I
understand correctly, the American Bar Association is challenging
the wisdom of confirmation of this nominee on three grounds. First,
legal qualifications ; that is, professional. You regard him as not quali-
fied to fill the position on the Court of Appeals for which he has been
nominated. Am I right ?
jNIr, Walsh, You are correct, sir. Quite right.
Senator McClellan. Next, you question his judicial temperament.
Now, you have testified on that a little, and I am sorry tliat I did not
quite understand the reasons that you gave in support of it. But you
do challenge him on that score ; do you not ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. On the basis of facts adduced in the hearings
in September.
50
Senator McClellan. I will read that. I am not familiar with it at
the moment.
Last, you challenge his integrity.
Mr. Walsh. We ask for further investigation, Senator. We do not
yet challenge.
Senator McClellax. Well, all right. But you raise the question of
his integrity. You suggest that there is a question of integrity that
should be examined ?
JNIr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator ]\IcClellax. And that is something that will be determined
upon some further development; is that correct? Plus any further
testimony that might be taken in that regard.
Mr. Walsh. That is right, Senator.
Senator McClellax. N"ow, I will pass up the last two. the tempera-
ment issue and the integrity issue, because, as you say, you are not
prepared at this time to make the charge, or to sustain the charge of
a lack of integrity that would disqualify.
Mr. Walsh. Very good, sir.
Senator McClellan. You do feel that he is disqualified from the
standpoint of judicial temperament?
Mr. Walsh. Sir, on the basis of these five instances which I have
cited; yes, sir.
Senator McClellax. Are you satisfied yourself in your committee
that from the standpoint of his temperament, as you may have testi-
fied to, and whatever facts that you give in support of it, that he is
not temperamentally qualified or suited to serve in this position ?
Mr. Walsh. I regret to say that I do feel that his temperamicnt is
not fitting that of the appellate courts, or particularly the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit — not on the basis of the ABA com-
mittee report but on the basis of testimony given by Mr. Smith and
Mr. Sacks after Mr. Sutro and Mr. Connelly had completed their
testimony.
Senator McClellax. All right. I am only trying to clear it up so
that I know what the issues are when I get into them.
Now, I have listened to you with respect to his professional quali-
fications, and it seems that on the record he does not have a back-
ground comparable to those of some distinguished jurists that we have
all known, admired, and respected and, for that reason, you would
hesitate to recommend him. I think that very few would have a back-
ground equal to those of the distinguished jurists that you mentioned
by comparison. On the face of it, though, this nominee is a graduate of
a law school that I am sure has a good reputation. He practiced law
actively for at least 6 years, was associated with a fii^m, and possibly
also practiced law when he was mayor of a city, his home town.
What is the size of that city ? Does anyone have any idea ?
Governor Meskill. 90,000.
Senator McClellax. A city of 90,000 people.
After serving that city as mayor, he was elected to Congress for
two terms and served there. The people of liis State then elected him
Governor, and he served 4 years in that capacity.
Now, having the qualifications required to be licensed to practice
law in the courts, having actually practiced, and having had the ex-
51
periences that are certainly enabling and strengthening in my judg-
ment for anyone who is a lawyer, capable of being a lawyer, of
serving as a mayor of a city, two terms in the House of Representa-
tives. a^^d 4 years as Governor of one of our great States — in which
capacities he has been active and has been exposed daily in the per-
formance of his duties to the operation, the administration, and the
intoi-prctatioii of the la^-s of our country — if I have stated the facts
correctly, and I believe I have
Mr. Walsh. I think you have, sir.
Senator McClellan. I think that presents a prnna facie case of
legal qualification for the position. And I think that, since you chal-
lenge it, the American Bar Association challenges it, I think it must
assume the burden of now establishing some deficiency or some lack
of capacity in that area that would warrant this committee in reject-
ing him because of incompetence.
I say that now because we are into this, and I am going to try my
best to be fair. I have no personal feeling in the matter. But when the
American Bar Association — and I am not criticizing it; I think it
should try to serve in an advisory capacity as you suggest and should
be jealous of the judiciary to try to make certain that competent people
are appointed — but when one with a record such as Governor Meskill
has is nominated and the bar association challenges, I think the burden
then is yours. You must assume the burden of proof to establish to this
committee that he is not qualified.
On the subject of his judicial temperament, I will pass that by, but
I will read what you have pointed out. It is sometimes hard to know
exactly how a man will perform on the bench. We all have some disap-
pointments, but some surprises as well, I am sure, as we observe those
who are elevated to these distinguished positions. Some behave in the
manner that we anticipated: others go off on some other tangent that
we had not anticipated. There is no way to be certain about that. It is,
to be sure, a proper element of consideration in determining tlie suit-
ability of one to serve ; I make no question about that. But it is difficult
to be certain that one's prediction will come true.
Finally, we come to this question of integrity. On that I do not know
what will be developed. For that reason, on that issue I completely
reserve judgment and will weigh all the evidence as it becomes avail-
able. If there is associated with the Governor's record anything that
would impair his integrity for the task before him, we certainly want
to know it. and these facts should come out.
But on the issue you state now, the issue of his judicial qualifica-
tions. I do not think a case has been made against him, not enough to
convince me that he should not be confirmed because he has not been a
judge somewhere before, or practiced with some big law firm, or had a
great reputation — and I know those things are taken into account.
Mr. Walsit. Senator
Senator INIcClellan. It seems to me he has a pretty good reputation
among the people who know him. the people with whom he served,
and I would at the moment hold him qualified unless you can show
something else. But on the question of integrity, I await with inter-
est whatever testimony will be presented.
INIr. Walsh. Senator, we appreciate your analysis. On the question
of qualification I would only say that we have a A-irtually complete
52
lack of appellate experience and a most limited trial experience by his
own statement. Here is a man who is gifted with qualities that made
hmi an attractive political figure. Very early in his career he had to
make a choice between politics and law, and he obviously made a choice
that was a highly successful one; but we simply say it does not qualify
him for a judgeship.
But. Senator, we appreciate your comments.
Senator ^IgClellax. Very well. We mav have differences of opinion
about that, but I wanted to state verv frankly my position at the
moment. There may be something thatVould change my mind about
It but I would have to have some further proof about his lack of
ability and competence before I would vote against his confirmation
on that score.
Senator Burdick. Senator Tunney ?
Senator Tuxxey. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
To pick up where Senator McClellan left off, Mr. Walsh, I might
say that I think the analysis that Senator McClellan made of the case
IS an excellent one, and whether one would agree with his conclusions
or not. It IS very well stated. Senator McClellan has, I think, identified
the issues that we are dealing with.
With respect to the investigation that the bar is doing, both the
New York bar as well as the ABA, on the issue of integrity, can you
tell the committee when you feel that this investigation is going to be
concluded ?
Mr. Walsh. Well, Senator, if the appendix is as complete as we
hope it will be. we would hope that with both associations dividino;
the work we could, hopefully, finish it, at least have something worth
reporting, within a month. Now, obviously we are a volunteer organi-
zation with no subpena power and we miist get what information we
can from people who are willing to talk with us, and we could at least
report back within that time, if we have trouble in this respect, so that
this committee may then consider whether it wishes to use process to so
further, or we may report back that we feel it would not be worth
your going further.
Our observation to you is to be forthright and candid. We are not
trying to make a case one way or the other. And again, taking Senator
McClellan's analysis, we concur in the analysis and we hope that we
have made our points in all three areas.
Senator Tuxney. "WHien you say a month, you are talking about the
en d of February ?
Mr. Walstt. I would probably say the first week in March. I think
we would probably get this document in the first week of February,
and that would give us a month in which to work with it.
Senator Tuxxey. By document
Mr. Walsh. This would be the appendix of the Connecticut General
Assembly Committee report.
Senator Tt^xxey. Why is it that you have not completed this investi-
gation at this time?
Mr. Walsh. Well, up until now, we have not even had the minutes of
their hearings, and it seemed to me to avoid duplication, to avoid going
to the same person several times, and even more importantly, to avoid
any conflict with the Connecticut General Assembly's work, that it
would have been improper for us to start before they finished.
53
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York has attempted
to pursue this matter further since January 7, and I think that it is
important that we both not overlap each other, so that we do not
bother people unnecessarily and, more importantly, that we do not
disturb each other's lines of investigation. So we must, therefore, work
out divisions in the field.
Senator Tuxney. Mr. Walsh, my office rechecked the facts on when
the last judge was found unqualified by the ABA and was confirmed
by the Senate. The last such judge was Edward Mclntee of the first
circuit who was confirmed on August 31, 1965, and was finally ap-
pointed September 1, 1965. The Morrissey nomination occurred on
September 28, 1965, after IMcEntee had been confirmed.
Mr. Walsh, That does then reconcile Senator Hruska's i-ecol lection
with mine, and we are completely in accord.
Senator Tunney. Now, Mr. Walsh, there have been charges that
the ABA standards are too narrow or too parochial on judicial quali-
fications. As I understand your position on this nomination, it is that
there is no indication of significant achievement in the law of any kind.
Whether it is in trial practice or appellate work, either working for
the Government or in private practice, or in academia, working on the
law in a scholastic sense, the Bar feels that for a person to be (|ualified
to be a circuit court judge, there should be some indication that, at
least in some areas, there has been significant experience in the law.
Is that correct ? ,
Mr. Walsh. That is correct. If we had a case of a man who was a
distinguished legal scholar and we were contending that he should not
be confirmed because he had not had x years of trial experience, that
would be a completely different cjuestion.
We have here a case where there has been no demonstration of
professional, of outstanding professional, achievement in any field.
I mean, we respect greatly public office achievement, and if that can
be added to the professional work, it has the makings of a great judge.
But if it is offered as a substitute for any other, or for all, professional
activity, then we feel we have to report not qualified, and that is what
we have here.
I think that not only has there been no litigation experience by
Governor Meskill's own statement, which was significant, but no pro-
fessional work of outstanding quality of any sort.
As Governor, of course, he has had to deal with questions involving
the law where he is advised by other lawyers, the same as the head of
a large business enterprise might have. But this does not constitute
professional work as you know it from your own, and other lawyers
would know it from their own, experience. It is not a case where he
is responsible for legal analysis or the legal solution worked out.
Senator Tunney. One of the things that is sometimes referred to
as differentiating an appointment to the Supreme Court as contrasted
with the appellate court is that, in the case of the Supreme Court,
a judge is expected to exercise, in the decision of constitutional ques-
tions, a feeling or an understanding for the political and social proc-
esses of the country, and that he brings his own philosophic stand to
the work on the court. In the case of the circuit court a great degree
of legal scholarship is required because of stare decisis, and we know
54
that in the case of the Supreme Court, stare decisis is not always
followed. In fact, stare decisis is frequently ignored by justices, who
feel that the law as formerly stated by the Supreme Court no longer
should be applicable to the society.
Would you care to comment on this point made by some on the
differences between the qualifications of an appellate court judge, who
must be a scholar in the law and follow the stare decisis, as contrasted
to the Supreme Court Justice ?
Mr. Walsh. Senator, the Supreme Court is unique among all courts,
and because our Constitution is written in such general terms, its
own reading of the words of the Constitution must turn upon broad
philosophical views at times, and also I would suppose political in-
stincts in which public office experience w^ould be of great value.
I think this is true to a degree in any court, but in a circuit court of
appeals, which is governed by the broader views of the Supreme Court,
there is much less scope for such feeling. Humanism in a judge is al-
ways a necessary and desirable thing, but the real question of the
court of appeals is what does this record before me really mean, and
what is the evolving course of the precedents in these areas, and how
can they be reconciled with craftsmanship to achieve the broad ob-
jectives which the Supreme Court has laid out with fairness to the
parties and with a minimum of dislocation to the precedents w^hich
govern great communities, great commercial communities.
We have been privileged in the past for many years to have judges
who either had the apprenticeship of district court training or State
court training, or who have distinguished careers on the faculties of
law schools. We are very proud of law schools in our region, and we
have had Judge Clarke from Yale and Judge Milligan from Fordham,
and Judge Hayes from Columbia.
But all of these men distinguished themselves in the law before they
were put on the Court of Appeals for the second circuit. They were
not put there to start their effort in the profession. There are so many
avenues open for getting experience of this sort, either through the
State courts or through trial courts, or just by practicing, that it seems
regrettable to try to deal with this court when one of its members has
not had this training. This is going to have, I think, a serious effect on
all of those who come before it and upon the court itself. They have a
heavy volume and they move quickly. They are one of the courts which
is trying to preserve oral arguments as a tool of the profession. All of
this means that they must make up and save the time somewhere else,
that they have to come into court prepared, fully educated on all of
the elements before they start even hearing argument, and then they
would be in a position to put the finishing touches on their motions
after they had heard them, and this is a strong test for the best of
lawyers.
Senator Tunney. Mr. Walsh, are you familiar with how many
cases come before the second circuit in a year?
Mr. Walstt. I cannot give you the number, but I think it is either
the second or third highest volume circuit. Senator Burdick probably
knows this from his own work.
Senator Burdick. It is the third highest.
Senator Tunney. It is my understanding there were about 1,800
cases that came before thp rom-t last vear. Is that accurate ?
55
Mr. Walsh. That would seem-
Senator Burdick. It is betAveen 1,800 and 1,900.
Mr. Walsh. You have nine active judges, and they have the help
of, I would say, five or six senior judges.
Senator Tunney. Now, that means that each judge has well in ex-
cess of 100 cases, even assuming the seniors participate in the case load.
Mr. Walsh, Yes ; I would think well in excess of that and, of course,
if you must sit in panels of three, that means you must be prepared on
two cases that you do not write an oj^inion on for every one that you do
write. Some of these are disposed of summarily, but the Court of Ap-
peals has followed the practice of at least hearing everybody, giving
them a chance however brief.
Senator Tunney. As I understand your argument, you are saying
the person has to bring with him when he comes to the court, prior to
the time he ever takes a look at the case, a considerable understanding
of the law in those areas upon which the court must decide.
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Senator Tunney. If he does not have that background of experi-
ence, in a sense he or she would be floundering?
Mr. Walsh. I'm afraid so. Even if we had an ideal person appointed
to that Court, there will be areas in which he could not have been
prepared in advance. But if you had someone who has got all of these
areas in wliich to start his education, then it is seemingly an insuperable
job. People have said it takes 5 years or 10 years to perfect a judge.
But that is where you start with someone who is already at home in
the courts, and who has already dealt with legal questions day in and
day out for many years.
To start with someone to whom all of these areas are strange is, I
am afraid, going to have an impact on the work of the court.
Senator Tunney. Just one final point, Mr. Walsh.
I reviewed your written statement that you placed in the record,
and you said that you further request in the interim that the Federal
Bureau of Investigation be directed to conduct a meaningful investiga-
tion into these facts — I assume the subject of your own investigation —
so that this committee should have the advantage of information re-
ceived under the sanction of Federal law rather than be forced to rely
upon ihe work of two voluntaiy bar associations acting without the
power of subpena or sanction of perjury.
Has there not been — I would like to ask the chairman — an FBI
investigation of the nominee ?
Senator Burdick. I believe there has been a preliminary report from
the FBI which is confidential, of course. But I believe what the
witness is referring to is a special one, based on this leasing argument.
Mr. Walsh. That is correct, Senator. In every case the Attorney
General requests an FBI investigation of a potential nominee. This
is largely in the area of a community reputation survey, because
ordinarily there is no specific question to be raised and to be resolved.
It seems to us that now that the Connecticut General Assembly's Com-
mittee has reported and raised these questions we now have a very
distinct target of inquiry, and the FBI more effectively and much more
quickly could question those who should be questioned.
The Connecticut General Assembly's Subcommittee has made clear
that it did not regard as its function to determine the involvement
56
of individuals. It was out to investigate a practice, and it recom-
mended that this practice which lias been indulged in be made criminal
in the future. But obviously, as the members of the committee know,
in many inquiries before legislative bodies when you are trying to
resolve a problem for the country, or for a State, you do not have time
to go off on tangents to decide what an individual did or did not do.
It seems to us that the FBI could pick up these leads and do that
very quickly, and that is why we made that suggestion, Senator.
Senator Tunnet. You do not have, do you, any personal animosity
against Governor Meskill ?
Mr. Walsh. No, sir.
I met him for the first time this morning. I understand that per-
sonally he is most attractive, and it is with sincere regret I take the
position I do today.
Senator Tunney. Do you know whether any members of the
Qualifications Committee of the Bar have any personal animosity ?
Mr. Walsh. I am sure they do not. I do not think any of them knew
him before this investigation.
Senator Tuxney. Thank you very much.
Senator Btjrdick. Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. I have just one short question, if the Senator
from Pennsylvania will indulge me.
Do I recollect accurately, Mr. Walsh, that during your opening
statement you referred to these leasing practices in Connecticut ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. And that it may have been a practice inherited
from former administrations and former years ?
Mr. Walsh. That is our understanding, sir.
Senator Hruska. Have you made any inquiry as to whether other
investigations had been made within Connecticut by the legislature
or law enforcement ofncers of previous years' transgressions, such as
those that are suspected and alleged in the case of Mr. Meskill ?
Mr. Walsh. We did not, sir.
Senator Hruska. In the further inquiry into this, if you could
make inquiry into that I think it would be useful to find out how
those practices were regarded before, and if any charges were raised
what disposition was made of them.
Mr. Walsh. I agree with you, and we will do that, sir.
Senator Hruska. That would be helpful.
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. Thank you.
Senator Burdick. Senator Scott ?
Senator Scott. Judge Walsh, as you know, I have a very high regard
for you personally, and we have met many times and have disagreed
almost as often as we have met.
Mr. Walsh. Not quite, Senator, but probably we only meet when
we have trouble.
Senator Scott. I note that your priorities place the qualities of
creativity and originality rather low on the list as you enumerated
them. Is there any reason for that ?
Mr. Walsh I did not realize that I had placed creativity or origi-
nality low on the list, Senator. Those qualities, within the discipline of
57
legal analysis, are, as we all know, very valuable, as long as they are
in skilled hands.
Senator Scott. AVc have a list here of some 18 Federal judges sub-
sequently appointed who were opposed by the American Bar Associa-
tion. I note that one of those judges appointed by the late Senator
Kennedy was the same judge who President Johnson selected to ad-
minister the oath of office to him as President of the United States.
Mr. Walsh. I am unclear.
Senator Scott. Judge Sarah Hughes of the northern district of
Texas.
Mr. AValsh. The only reason for our opposition to Judge Hughes
was a matter of age. There was no suggestion whatsoever that
she lacked either legal training, qualifications, temperament or in-
tegrity. It was simply a matter that she was over 64 at the time that
she was appointed, and to come into the Federal system at that age
meant that she would not be eligible for retirement without serving,
I think, until 74 or 75, which as a matter of policy was called to the
attention of this committee as a basis for opposing confirmation.
Senator Scott. She did continue to serve for a number o,f years, did
she not ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes ; she did and there have been no complaints.
Senator Scott. Ajid no complaints.
I refer to your prepared statement as follows :
Although the Association firmly believes that high public office is a valuable
experience in developing judgment as to the use of governmental power and in
the evaluation of conflicting points of view, it does not believe that it is a substi-
tute for an adequate grounding in the skills of litigation or other professional
skills necessary for the analysis and decision of the type of case arising in the
Second Circuit.
Referring to those who hold high office, has the association ever
found a Governor qualified, in your recollection ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes ; Otto Kerner in the seventh circuit.
Senator Scott. Yes ; I thought we would get that answer. Then you
can make mistakes?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator Scott. And did.
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. And we hope we do not repeat them.
Senator Scott. Well, we want to be sure you do not, or that we do
not.
Has the association ever approved the majority leader or the minor-
ity leader of any State legislature that you can recall ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes ; Judge Travia in the eastern district of New York.
Senator Scott. Judge Travia. And has he served with distinction,
without any problem?
Mr. Walsh. He left the bench because he felt he was temperamen-
tally unhappy there.
Senator Scott. Unhappy ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes.
Senator Scott. He did not say that he left the bench because he was
temperamentally unqualified ; did he ?
Mr. Walsh. I think he reached that conclusion. We did not.
Senator Scott. He reached his own conclusion.
58
Now, you refer to two of our former colleagues, Judge Homer
Thornberry of Texas and Judge Oren Harris of Arkansas. Did not the
bar association find them qualified, notwithstanding the fact that each
of them had spent some 20 or 25 years in Congress and away from the
practice of law ?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. But I was not on the committee at that time. It
is my understanding that they had litigation and professional experi-
ence notwithstanding that long period away from the law.
Senator Scott. Judge Thornberry, in fact, was very prominently
mentioned for a vacancy on the Supreme Court at one time ; was he not ?
Mr. Walsh. He was. sir. He was.
Senator Scott. So the fact that they had been 20 or 25 years in Con-
gress and away from the practice of law then was not a bar in the
opinion of the American Bar Association ?
Mr. Walsh. That is right. As you well Imow from your own distin-
guished practice, when that experience has been achieved and those in-
stincts developed, public office adds to the stature of a potential nominee
and adds a great deal to the court, as I tried to indicate, in fairness to
Governor Meskill.
Senator Scott. Yet by your criteria, would it not be a fact that no
members of the Judiciary Committee would be qualified to be ap-
pointed to the bench ? I disqualify myself immediately on the grounds
of age, but aside from that ?
Mr. Walsh. Senator, I think any generalization such as that could
only get us into trouble.
Senator Scott. That is why I asked it.
Mr. Walsh. But I would doubt that we would have that response. I
would very much doubt that.
Senator Scott. You really think you could pass some of us on the
Judiciary Committee for a judgeship ?
Mr. Walsh. Well, if for any reason one of you were so inclined, why
we would regard this as a welcome challenge, and look into it with
great enthusiasm and cooperation.
Senator Scott. I appreciate that. In other words, you would not do it.
Now, as a matter of fact, the Attorney General, who is one of my
closest friends in Washington, has done a great job in the cabinet and
is going to be Ambassador to India, but he has been years away from
the practice of law. Could you find it in your law to recommend him for
a judgeship should that be his ambition ?
Mr. Walsh. I cannot speak as to his earlier experience, but I know
that ho lias been attorney general of Ohio I think for 6 or 8 years. I
would assume that he had some litigation, but I do not know. Senator.
I do not know the facts.
Senator Scott. "^ATint about those members of the Cabinet who are
lawyers ? Can you think of anj'- of them who would be qualified to be
a judge by your standards ?
Mr. Walsh. The ones I think of offhand are not lawyers, so I do
not know whom you had in mind.
Seantor Scott. I did not want to finger them mvself. I just felt that
they would not get by your rather rigid, in my judgment, standards.
Mr. Walsh. Senator, we try very hard not to be rigid.
Senator Scott. But you did in 18 cases fail to recommend, and yet
the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate overruled you; did
they not ?
59
Mr. Walsh. This is the record from Senator Hruska. I do not re-
call those cases. Some of I hem were before 1958 when I first came to
Washington; and so 1 cannot speak with certainty, sir. But I accept
the statement. Anything that Senator Hruska had I am sure would
be correct.
Senator Scott. 1 am sure that the statement is correct that seven
judges were named by President Eisenhower, seven by President
Kennedy and foui by President Johnson, if the record is correct.
You know of nothing in (Governor Meskill's character or personality
which would disqualify him for elevation to the bench, do you ?
Mr. Walsh. No. It seems to me that he is — ^that his public activities
are fine. The question that we raise is the adaptation of his qualities
to an appellate court and we raise the question of his training and
experience, the question of temperament. Senator, earlier in the hear-
ing when you were not hei'e there were a number of instances referred
to which we did not raise, but which others raised, which indicated
that he had qualities of impatience that are desirable in some offices,
but not in an appel late court.
Senator Scott. You referred to the Connecticut Subcommittee's re-
port, and although we had discussion on that in the last hearing, I do
not believe your witness testified on that ?
Mr. Walsh. No, sir, he did not. The report came after the last
testimony.
Senator Scott. But we were urged in the committee not to act in
haste because we were supposed to wait for this report.
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator Scott. As one of the arguments. Now, we meet months later,
and we are told the report still is not ready, but we will have it
February 1. Now, I do not know whether or not there is any motivation
behind this delay, not from you, of course, but from Connecticut. But
your testimony says this report does not attempt to draw conclusions
as to the legality of the action of any individual, including Governor
Meskill.
If you are condemning a practice which was a longstanding practice,
you are not condemning individuals or the legality of the practice,
why did you feel it necessary to include that ?
Mr. Walsh. It seems to me that this committee should know the
essence of the report so that you could see the value to our inquiry of
the appendix which is t o be forthcoming on these 54 leases, that it is
not something that we could disregard and brush aside and say we
will go ahead notwithstanding not having it. That is why I thought
I should summarize from the very report itself. I have not editorial-
ized on any of it.
Senator Scott. Would you agree that the decision to name such
judges and justices who did not have much, who had limited prior
legal experience, to name such justices as Douglas and Minton and
Frankfurter and Holmes and Learned Hand and others, would you
agree that that was in retrospect a series of wise selections?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir. In almost every one of those cases, as we noted
earlier I think while you were out, there was an apprenticeship on a
district court. Holmes served in the State court, and Frankfurter had
a brilliant academic background. Douglas had come up through the
SEC, had been a counsel to the Commission in its formative days, dealt
with the immense legal problems of the public utility holding com-
47-704 — 75 5
60
panies and the beginnings of our securities regulation. He was the
lawyer and the architect in those areas^ so we would have no question
about men like that.
We are not here confronted with a problem of a brilliant lawyer
who has had a limited litigation background. We are confronted, I am
afraid, with a distinguished public servant who has not been in the
law at all to speak of, in any significant fashion. His achievements
have been in other areas.
Senator Scott. Was that not true, for example, of Justice Minton ?
Mr. Walsh. I know that he came from the Senate, but my impres-
sion had been that he had been a lawyer in Indiana before he came
to the Senate.
Senator Scott. Many years before he served in the Senate, quite a
while.
Mr. Walsh. I do not know the facts on that.
Senator Scott. And had Justice Douglas been a judge, and if so,
was it not, to my vague recollection, that he was a justice of the peace,
or judge of a very minor court ?
Mr. Walsh. That was Justice Black, I think.
Senator Scott. That was Justice Black.
Mr. Walsh. Yes.
But Justice Douglas had come up through the administrative side
of regulation and had been through the litigation of all of these ad-
ministrative agencies.
Senator Scott. I thought I understood you to be arguing that for
the circuit court there were certain higher or special qualifications
that should be ascertained as against the district court. I heard a
former president of the American Bar Association argue exactly the
opposite to say, in fact, that this man is recommended for the district
court, I could not approve him, or would have a hesitation approving
him because he has not had experience of the day-to-day give-and-
take of the courtroom, but because he is intelligent and strikes me as a
man who knows something about the law. I would have far less dif-
ficulty in finding him qualified for the circuit court since there has been
an absence of the rather volatile give-and-take of trial work.
Do you accept that distinction ?
Mr. Walsh. I think the distinction as probably raised I do accept.
This would probably be Mr. Segal who regretfully could not be here
today because of a funeral ; otherwise he would be here with us. He has
always taken the position that the specialized experience of trial prac-
tice is less necessary where you have a distinguished lawyer under con-
sideration for an appellate court. But he has always insisted on some
counterbalancing distinction within the prof ession.
In other words, if we have a Frankfurter who had a distinguished
career on the faculty of Harvard Law School in a multi judge court,
why that was the kind of distinction that Mr. Segal would be trying
to make.
Senator Scott. This of course is where we diverge, because you give
the foremost weight to Harvard Law School.
Mr. Walsh. No.
Senator Scott. I give as much weight to the difficulties of being a
Governor. I think sometimes being a Governor is harder than being on
the faculty of Harvard.
61
Mr. Walsh. Senator, let me disabuse you of any prejudice. I worked
the better part of some years for Governor Dewey, as you know, as
counsel and assistant counsel.
Senator Scott. I know. I had the pleasure of knowing you there.
Mr. Walsh. I can think of no more difficult job except possibly being
mayor of a city. On the other hand, I know how much legal work Gov-
ernor Dewey did during that period, and I know how much Judge
Breitel and I did. So in terms of initiative judgment, the difficulties of
the day-to-day world and understanding human nature, those things, I
have great respect for the governorship. I just question it as a substitute
for either legal scholarship or litigation experience in itself.
As an addition to it, it may make the difference greatness and medi-
ocrity, but it is not a substitute for it, any more than I would pick the
chief executive officer of a great business and say that because of his
day-to-day problems and the difficult questions of judgment that he has
to make and the immense financial responsibilities that he takes that he
should go on the second circuit.
Senator Scott. As we know, there are an infinite variety of legal
practices, and an infinite variety of legal specialists. It seems to me that
the largest part of that enormous group of lawyers in this coimtry are
debarred from consideration by the ABA criteria, which this oversim-
plifies, and I know you want to respond, that seems to say that you will
approve much more readily those lawyers who have had active trial
court experience, or those lawyers who have had active law faculty
experience, from which you have probably excised, I do not know the
figure, but maybe 70 percent of the lawyers of this country from choice.
The second objection that I have is well known to you, is that I
doubt whether or not any private body should be privileged to exercise
the veto over a function to be exercised by the Congress ; namely, the
selection of judges. I would not think the American Medical Associa-
tion should pass on the Public Health Service other than when re-
quested having to do with specific itemized qualifications of some spe-
cialist who might know about an X-ray. that sort of thing.
I do not think that the Chamber of Commerce should have a veto
on the Secretary of Commerce or the AFT^CIO should have a veto
on the Secretary of Labor. And I wonder wliy in effect we have all
been confronted with what amounts to a virtual veto which the
American Bar Association has on the selection of lawyers for judges.
Your expertise is enormously helpful, but it certainly reached a
point with regards to the Supreme Court where you were disinvited
for whatever reason. If you are disinvited from passing on the
Supreme Court, why should you have what amounts to a virtual veto
on the circuit court and the district court ?
Mr. Walsh. If I may address all three questions, probably in
reverse order, first I would like again to make clear, as I already have
tried to, that we do not want a veto power. We have never wanted a
veto power, and we should not have a veto power.
The strength of our recommendation is no better than the reasons
and the facts on which it is based. We rely on persuasiveness.
Now, if indeed we have been persuasive with the Deputy Attorney
General and the Attorney General for a period of years, that is still
no more and no less than having the facts and having the arguments
to back them up in dealing with them.
62
Now, as to the Supreme Court, we were disinvited because we found
two people not qualified. This sometimes happens when people want
only one kind of advice, and that is the advice they agree with. We
did our best, and we made our report, and that is the reason for being
disinvited there. We think it is a great loss to the public, and that in
the future, that change, that disinviting, will be regretted.
However, this is a different story, and I would not take time to argue
it now.
As to the disenfranchising, or at least disqualifying as potential
judges, a large portion of the profession, again this is never done in
generalized or wholesale terms. Each person is looked at, and I can
assure you anyone who has been through the problem of opposing, even
with the Deputy Attorney General, a potential nominee, that no one
welcomes it, and no one invites it; and we hope in each case that we
are going to find a nominee that we can clear and say let us go.
But over a period of time, I think that a study could be made, and
maybe one should be made, of the problems of persons going on the
bench, particularly the first 5 years where they are strange to litiga-
tion. I have seen good, devoted men become sick and finally break
down and give up in an effort on the district court.
Now, I have had an opportunity to watch the appellate court that
closely, but a man I can think of, one who was one of the finest real
estate experts in New York who attempted to be a district judge, who
was not at home with the jury, who did not understand what was
going on in the cross examination, simple as that may seem, whose
ability to rule instinctively on questions of evidence just was not there.
Even though he worked three times as hard as many other judges,
he got into more trouble.
Now, I have gone further than I expected, and I would rather not
mention it, but it was a long time ago, and it happened to be a col-
league of mine with whom I was very friendly. This I think could
be proved out if anyone wanted to make a study, and again it is simply
that we present our reasons for your acceptance. We have no con-
tention beyond the fact that we have analyzed the facts as carefully
as we could, and that these reasons seem to have stood up and to have
been accepted over a period of years. They should also be reexamined.
I think that our committee, if it ever drifts into a position of acting
in a formalistic, mechanical manner, simply adding up the number
of cases a man has had and reaching a conclusion, that we would begin
to do then a disservice to this committee and to ourselves. Each man
has to be looked at individually. Having said all of that, we come out
with what we have here, because there was nothing in the professional
career of Governor Meskill that we could hang on to.
If that had been somewhat more extensive, then these public offices
which he has discharged would greatly add to it.
Senator Scott. Well, on that we disagree. But I said I had the
greatest respect for you. You are a most eminent lawyer. The choice
you have is not pleasant. We know that. And you have been a great
public servant. And I cherish my personal friendship with you, and
you understand my point of view.
Mr. Walsh. I do, sir, and I welcome your view.
Senator Scott. It is as strong as yours.
63
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir; and we respect it and I hope we will always
have this exchange and we will continue to. You try to continue to
educate us, and we will do our best, too.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
I am not going to ask you to name any of us to the court.
Mr. Walsh. We would not want to lose you, I can tell you that.
Senator Burdick. Do not rule us out. [Laughter.]
Mr. Walsh. No, sir.
We have great respect for this committee.
Senator Burdick. Mr. Walsh, to clarify one point, I believe your
testimony is that this is the first nominee smce Mr. Morrissey that you
had held against.
Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir.
Senator Burdick. You mentioned that Mr. Segal would have liked
to be here with us. Was he on the standing committee ?
Mr. Walsh. He was the chairman of the standing committee for
more years than anyone else, and he was the chairman at the time that
most of its methods of analysis were developed and he would have liked
to be here to share the expression of views.
Senator Burdick. Did he participate in this particular case ?
Mr. Walsh. He did participate in it, in the sense that all past chair-
men are privy to the investigation and he had an opportunity to express
his view and he then again, as late as last night, reaffirmed the view
which I am expressing today.
Senator Burdick. If he has requested to appear we will arrange for
it the next time we meet.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Burdick. Are there any other questions ?
Well, thank you Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Burdick. The committee will be in recess until 1 :45.
[Whereupon, at 12 :55 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 1 :45 p.m., this same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Burdick. The committee will come to order.
Judge Bauman.
TESTIMONY OF ARNOLD BATJMAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY, ASSOCIATION OP THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, ACCOMPANIED BY SHELDON ELSEN AND BERNARD
NTJSSBAUM
Judge Bauman. My name is Arnold Bauman and I am chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary of the Association of the Bar of the
City of New York.
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to present here today
the views of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York on the
nomination of former Gov. Thomas Meskill as a circuit judge of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Because the second
circuit acts as an appeals court for all the Federal courts in the State
of Xew York, our association has a keen interest in the quality of
judicial appointments for this very important court.
This committee has already conducted hearing^s on the appointment
and we reaffirm our position that Governor INIeskill lacks the profes-
sional qualifications to become a member of the second circuit. We will
focus primarily today on matters that have not previously been re-
viewed here, particularly matters arising from the investijration of
the Connecticut General Assembly into leasing practices within the
State of Connecticut. Our association has recently received access to
certain of the files and transcripts of that inquiry.
Before I go further, may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I intend not
to talk in generalities about the leasing situation, but more partic-
ularly than has happened so far.
Before we embark on the details we wish to state our conclusions,
which is that, apart from the issue of Governor ]\Ieskill's professional
qualifications, this appointment should not be considered until there
has been a thorough investigation of the questions raised by the leas-
ing inquiry. The investigations in Connecticut were addressed to sub-
jects pertinent to possible Connecticut legislative and administrative
action and those conducting them have specifically and properly dis-
claimed responsibility for an investigation relevant to Governor
Meskill's judicial qualifications. But the questions raised by these
investigations are serious, and have placed a cloud on the nomination.
Thus, whether or not one agrees with the American Bar Association's
position that the candidate should be disapproved on other grounds,
we believe that this committee should and will want to pursue these
new matters until at least the most important questions have been
satisfactorily answered.
At the same time we wish to reiterate that we concur with the
American Bar Association that a candidate for the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals must have demonstrated substantial professional
capacitv to deal with the highly important cases that come before that
court. We find nothing in Governor Meskill's background which would
indicate that he has experience with any Federal matters, except
one minor bankruptcy case. Nor has he distinguished himself in other
legal capacities. Our review of this candidate's professional back-
ground has led us to the conclusion that he has not demonstrated that
he is qualified to sit as a judge of the second circuit.
Beyond this, we have made a review of the 10 cases which Governor
IMeskill listed for the American Bar Association as the more signifi-
cant litigated matters wliich he has handled. None involved issues that
would ordinarily arise before the second circuit, or for that matter
the Federal trial courts. "With respect to one case. Torelli v. Oar-fi,^
which the candidate listed as a 1-day trial in superior court, Hartford,
in 19P)0. we contacted tlie lawyer who tried the case for the defendant,
the attorney being Anthony Monterosso, Esq. He informed us that
this case was tried by IVfr. Dorsey, Mr. Meskill's law partner, and not
by Governor Meskill. On Saturday. January 18, we asked Governor
ISifeskill by tolephono wlietlier lie remembered the case, which we iden-
tified for him specifically, and whether Mr. Monterosso was his
adversary.
65
When he said tliat Mr. Monte rosso was the adversary, we asked him
whether he had tried the case. He said that Mr. Dorsey, his partner,
had examined the witnesses but that he, Governor Meskill, had written
out the questions. It may be observed from the opinion in that case
that this was a simple 1-day trial in which the plaintiff, represented
by the INIeskill firm, claimed that she had bitten on hamburger con-
taining fragments of bone, and the court dismissed for a failure of
proof. The list prepared for the ABA by Governor Meskill did not
contain the explanation that his participation consisted of writing out
questions for his i^artner.
Another case. State v. (Voutier. was listed by Governor Meskill as
a 1-day trial in superior court, Hartford, in 1958. A check of the court
records shows that this was not a trial, but a guilty plea. When we
asked the Governor about this on January 18, he told us that he had
heard that inquiries were being made of the court clerk and that he,
after a check of his recollection, l)elieved that in fact the case had
been disposed of by a plea, not a trial. His trial experience was thus
even less than represented to the American Bar Association.
At the time of this i^reliminary talk of January 18, we requested
an opportunity to interview the Governor to discuss in detail with
him aspects of the leasing inquiry wliich had been brought to our at-
tention in meetings with the Connecticut joint committee's staff, and
also to review several other matters. The Governor at first refused.
After we had assured the Governor that the association was conduct-
ing an impartial investigation and that a vote of our judiciary com-
mittee was scheduled for Tuesday, January 21, the Governor still re-
fused to permit a personal interview but agreed to answer specific
questions at a telephone interview scheduled for 11 a.m. on Monday,
January 20.
When representatives of our committee called the Governor on Jan-
uary 20, he stated that he had changed his mind and refused to re-
spond to any questions.
Governor Meskill's silence leaves unanswered a host of questions.
The most significant relate to the Governor's role in leasing practices
in Connecticut. But questions have also arisen with respect to {a) an
order of a Federal district judge in Connecticut which held the Gov-
ernor's welfare commissioner in contempt of court and referred to
the latter's conduct as close to "obstreperous noncompliance with the
order of the courts," (&) the events leading to the closing of the Uni-
versity of Connecticut Law School Legal Clinic, and (c) other matters
which have been raised by earlier sessions of this inquiry and by mem-
bers of the legal profession.
We shall devote the balance of our discussion to the leasing issues.
As we have stated, there has recently been an investigation by a
subcommittee of the Connecticut General Assembly Joint Committee
on Appropriations into State leasing practices in Connecticut
during Governor Meskill 's administration. We have spoken with the
members of that subcommittee's staff and have been granted access
to certain transcripts and reports of interviews including interviews
with Governor Meskill. We have also spoken with persons who have
followed the subcommittee's hearings and have knowledge of certain
of the matters under investigation.
66
As a result of our inquiries the following information has come to
our attention which, unless otherwise indicated, w(' do not believe is
disputed.
One. In 1971, after the Governor was elected, Bernard Mussman, a
real estate broker whom the Governor knew from the New Britain
area, helped put together a group, which included the Governor, to
purchase a building on the Silas Deane Highway in Rocky Hill, Conn. ,
The Governor's investment^ — which apparently came about as the re- \
suit of a suggestion by a member of the group other than Mr. Muss-
man — was $5,000. Among the other indivi(hials who obtained an inter-
est in that building were Mr. Mussman and Paul Manafort, who
subsequently became commissioner of the ( 'onnecticut Department of
Public Works.
Two. After the Governor's election. Mr. Mussman. who for at least
10 years had not acted as a real estate broke i- in connection with leasing
transactions involving the State, did act as a broker in a number of
such transactions involving the State.
Three. One transaction involving Mr. Mnssnian occurred in 1973.
During that year the Travelers Life Insurance Co. offered to donate
a building in Hartford, Conn., called the Phoenix Building, to the
State as a facility for a community college, if the life insurance com-
pany could obtain a Federal income tax deduction. "Wlien Travelers
found that it could not obtain such a deduction, it offered to sell the
building and land to the State for approximately $4.5 million which
was about half the value carried on Travelers books. Before the State
determined whether to purchase the building, an option to purchase
the building and aproximately 15 acres foi- $4.5 million was obtained
by a Mr. Harry Gampel and a Mr. Alan Schaefer who eventually
purchased the land and building for that amount. Mr. Mussman re-
ceived a fee of approximately $20,000 from Gampel for bringing
Schaefer and Gampel together to purchase the Phoenix land and build-
ing. Subsequently, the building was renovated by Gampel and
Schaefer and it, along with only approximately 10 acres of the land,
was sold with the Governor's approval to the State for $7.3 million.
The purchase by the State occurred within approximately 1 year from
the date Gampel and Schaefer obtained their option to acquire the
Phoenix Building.
Four. In 1074, J. Brian Gaffnev. the Bepiiblican State chairman,
a close personal and political associate of (loverno/ ^fpskill from New
Britain, called the State commissioner of I ransportation, A. Earl
Wood, and stated that a constituent — who sul)se<]uently turned out to
be Frank Downes. Mr. Gaffnev's uncle — -was seeking an o]^portunity to
lease property to the State. Before he obtained his position as com-
missioner of transportation, Mr. Wood had been interviewed by Mr.
Gaffnev. Mr. Wood assigned a key official in his department, Howard
Dickinson, to accompany Mr. Downes' son. ,lohn E. Downes, to ex-
amine possible sites for a highway garage. This was the first time in
Dickinson's long career that he was asked to accompany a prospec-
tive lessor to search for a site to be purchased by the latter for lease
to the State. The normal procedure when a State agency wishes to
lease property is for that agency to notify the department of public
67
works to seek a site to lease nnd then the public works department
enters into negotiations with t he owner of the property.
In any event, in May 1971 Dickinson and John E. Downes agreed
that a certain site in Waterford, Conn., would be a good place for a
highway garage. On Octobei- L>7, 1071. the transportation department
formally requested the public works department to obtain a site for
a highway garage in Waterford. On November 3, 1971, the firm headed
by Frank Downes made a detailed lease proposal for a highway garage
in Waterford and proposed the site which Dickinson and John E.
Downes had previously discussed in May. On November 5, 1971, the
Downes company obtained an option to purchase the site from the
owner. The State accepted the site for a highway garage and a letter
of commitment was signed by the State on May 9, 1972, and by the
lessor on May 19, 1972.
A garage was thereafter constructed and a formal lease was exe-
cuted in September 1978. The lease provided for an annual rental of
$64,500 for 15 yeai-s, totaling $907,500, and an option by the State to
purchase for $407,000. The total amount invested by the lessor in the
land and building was api)roximately $400,000. The rental per square
foot for this property being paid by" the State is $5.43. We have been
informed that an appiaiser testified before the subcommittee on leas-
ing that comparable pi-operty rented to a ])rivate party would be priced
at approximately $2.5 pei" square foot. The subcommittee concluded
in its report that the i-ent being paid by the State on this facility "can
only be described as 'excessive'."
[The prepared si ;i lenient submitted by Judge Bauman continues
as follows :]
In late April or eail.v Ma.v 1972, State Senator George Gunther, a Republican
and Deputy Minoril.v Leader of the State Senate, received detailed information
regarding the proposed Downes lease from an anonymous source. He had several
conversations with Mr. Gaffney and Public Works Commissioner Edward Koz-
lowski in an effort to block the lease. According to Gunther, Gaffney told Gunther
that he was "committed." When his efforts to block the lease proved unsuccessful,
Senator Gunther, according to his testimony, related the details of the Downes
lease to John Doyle, the Governor's liaison man with the legislature, and re-
quested a meeting with the Governor.
After Gunther stated to Doyle tliat he would release to the public the details of
the Downes lease, Gunther was granted a meeting with the Governor. He met with
the Governor on May 23, 1!)72. Gunther has testified that, while he could not be
sure that he mentioned the Downes lease by name, it was Gunther's impression in
view of his previous conversation with Doyle that the Governor seemed aware of
the details of the Downes lease; tliat the Governor asked "What's wrong with
it?"; that Gunther responded by leealling to the Governor a conversation which
he had with Meskill in 11)70 al>out state leasing in which Meskill promised to clean
out the "back room" element of the state leasing program ; that Meskill asked
Gunther "What are you going to do?" ; that Gunther replied that if the lease
transaction were not stopped he would go to the public and the press and "lay it
right out on the deck" ; that the Governor responded by saying "'Wliat you going
to do . . . the Democrats dirty work!"; that Gunther said it was not "dirty
work" to expose the lease transaction ; and that, at this point, the Governor said
he would look into the lease. Gunther gave the foregoing testimony under oath.
Governor Meskill, in a private interview with representatives of the Leasing
Subcommittee on Decemlter 13, 1074, acknowledged that he had a conversation
with Senator Gunther on May 23, 1072, but denied there was any discussion of the
Downes lease, or any other lease, or that he made the remarks attributed to him
by Gunther. He stated that Gunther came into his office, was upset, said there was
6S
a problem in the Governor's administration, but did not want to be more specific
or name names. The Governor stated he told Gunther, "If you don't tell me v^hat
is wrong, what can I do about it." According to the Governor, Gunther gave no
specific response but just left the office.
One week later on June 1, 1972. Gunther wrote a two-page letter to the Gov-
ernor, which Gunther released to the press, specifically mentioning by name and
outlining the terms of the proposed Downes lease. In his letter Gunther demanded
that the transaction be halted and that there be a complete review of any oher
pending leases of this nature. Thus, at the latest by early June, the Governor was
aware that the propriety of the proposed Downes lease was in question. The
State nevertheless subsequently executed the lease at the rental described above.
We are informed that the Governor has taken the position that he knew of
nothing wrong with the Downes lease and that, in any event, by the time the
lease had come to his attention, the state had executed a commitment letter and
was legally obligated to proceed. Others have advised that a commitment letter
is not binding on the state, even in the absence of alleged collusive practices,
much less if they exist. The Subcommittee on Leasing in its report has recom-
mended that the Downes lease, among others, "be re-examined, renegotiated,
and, if necessary, broken on the basis of the improper activities leading to the
consummation of such leases, which in several instances could be supported
legally due to improper collusion between the landlord and state officials and
employees."
5. Subsequent to June 1, 1972 — the date of Senator Gunther's letter to Gov-
ernor Meskill — three letters of commitment and. thereafter, leases were entered
into by the state with another New Britain contractor. Angelo Tomasso. The
gross rental from the.se three leases is $408,500 a year. Tomasso is a friend of
Gaffney and Governor Meskill and was a major contributor to the Republican
Party. As was true of the Downes lease, with respect to one of the Tomasso
leases Dickin.son of the Transportation Department accompanied a representa-
tive of Riverview Realty (a firm owned by the Tomasso family) to insppot sites
in Winsted. Connecticut for a highway garage : a site was selected ; Tomasso
obtained an option to purchase the site from the owner; the Department of
Transportation requested that the Department of Public "Works to secure a site
for a highway garage In Winsted : Tomasso proposed his site ; it was accepted
and a lease was entered into between Tomasso and the state. Tomasso has
acknowledged that he called Gaffney about this lease while he was waiting for
this decision and demanded an answer. The Subcommittee on Leasing has con-
cluded that the rent paid by the state to Tomasso for the highway garage in
Winsted is "excessive" and the lease should be re-examined and. if necessary,
broken on the basis of improper activities leading to the consummation of the
lease.
Tomasso also leases to the State an office building in Newington. Connecticut
which is used as a Department of Transportation office. In late 1972, Commis-
sioner Wood and Dickinson inspected the building which at the time had been
vacant for several years and owned by an individual other than Tomasso. Wood
and Dickinson agreed it would make a good office for the Department of Trans-
portation. Thereafter, Tomasso purchased the building, renovated it, and, as
indicated, now leases it to the state. The Subcommittee on Leasing concluded
that the renovation cost estimates "submitted by the landlord were gros.sly over-
.stated" and that the rental was primarily determined by such estimates. The
Committee recommended that "this lea.se be renegotiated and a rental value
established which more properly reflects the real value of the facility". It also
stated that if such a renegotiation is not successful the state should "terminate
the lease based upon the prior collusion between the landlord and employees of
the Department of Transjwrtation before the Department had even officially re-
quested such space and even before the landlord had any legal interest in the
property either in the form of ownership or option to purchase".
Tomasso has refused to produce records as required by a subpoena issued by
the Leasing Sub-committee.
Governor Meskill was asked by the staff of the Leasing Subcommittee If he
were aware of the circumstances under which the Tomasso leases were entered
into, or whether he discussed those leases with anyone prior to the time they
were executed. The Governor replied in the negative.
69
Judge Bauman. I would like to interrupt the prepared statement
to say that it is necessary for me to point out, in dealing with Judge
Walsh's point, that an investigation to be carried on by the bar asso-
ciation seems to me impossible of successful completion. The reason is
pointed up by the fact that any organization without subpena power,
without the power to compel testimony, is bound to produce some-
thing that is incomplete and inconclusive. In the very situation we
talk about here, Mr. Tomasso refused to be interviewed by a State
legislative committee. Governor Meskill has refused to be interviewed
bj^ a representative of our committee. And it is for that reason that I
should like to put upon the record now that an investigation is re-
quired, but by one with the power to compel testimony.
May I continue briefly.
In relating the above facts to this committee we do not suggest that
they prove improper or illegal conduct on the part of Governor
Meskill. We do suggest, however, that this course of conduct requires
a full and thorough investigation of Governor Meskill's knowledge of
or participation, if any, in the purchase of the Phoenix Building and
the entering into of leases with Downes and Tomasso, and of his per-
sonal and financial relationships, if any, with the individuals involved.
Such an investigation mandates not only examining Governor Mes-
kill under oath, but each of the other persons involved — including,
at a minimum, J. Brian Gaffney, Bernard Mussman, Harry Gampel,
Alan Schaefer, Frank Downes, John Downes, Angelo Tomasso, A.
Earl Woods, Edward Kozlowski, Paul Manafort, John Doyle, Howard
Dickinson, and Senator George L. Gunther. And just as important it
requires obtaining from certain of these individuals including Gov-
ernor Meskill, financial and tax records to the extent they pertain to
the transactions in question and to the personal and financial relation-
ship, if any, between the various individuals.
An investigation focusing on Governor ]\Ieskill's possible knowl-
edge, participation, and relationships, as described above, has not to
date been conducted by any individual or body. The subcommittee
on leasing has not conducted such an investigation, for that was not
its function. Nor has it cleared or implicated Governor Meskill. As
that subcommittee stated in a letter to this association dated Janu-
ary 17, 1975 :
We * * * wish to emphasize ♦ • * that the subcommittee's sole function was
to investigate leasing procedures and practices and it was neither the duty of
the committee nor the function of the committee to investigate possible wrong-
doing by any individuals and the results of this subcommittee's investigation are,
in no way, intended to exonerate or indict any individual.
The American Bar Association has also not had an opportunity to
look into this matter.
It goes without saying that before this committee of the U.S. Senate
can vote to approve the nomination of Governor ISIeskill to sit for life
on one of the most important courts in our Federal judicial system it
must be completely satisfied as to his judgment and integrity. The facts
which have emerged to date render impossible such a determina-
tion by this committee or by the Senate in the absence of a full and
70
thorough investigation ; these facts, indeed, present a compelling case
for further investigation. We do not prejudge the results of such an
inquiry. We state only that if the bar and the public are to be satis-
fied that Governor Meskill meets the standards required for appoint-
ment to a court which is second only to the Supreme Court, that in-
quiry must be had.
As lawyers who regularly practice before the second circuit we
would much rather be here in support of, not in opposition to, an ap-
pointment. But we submit that all the evidence to date compels the
conclusion that the confirmation of this appointment at this time would
be a betrayal of the public trust in the system for appointment of
judges. The American people were justly proud of the recent perform-
ance by their courts and Congress. We submit that they recognize the
importance of keeping their courts strong and independent by ap-
pointed judges of the highest qualifications and integrity. They expect
the Senate to insure that these standards are met. This body can do
no less.
I am authorized to say that the statement I have just made is con-
curred in bv the president of the association, Cyrus Vance, and by the
following former presidents of the Association of the Bar of the City
of New Tork, each of whom has read it and has spoken authorizing his
approval : "VVliitney North Semour, Orrisor Marger, Francis Plimpton,
and Orville Shell."
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. "\^^lo authorized you to make this inquiry? For
whom are you speaking?
Judge Batjman, I am chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Nominations
are customarily screened by the committee on the judiciary. In each
case of such a screening, including this one, a subcommittee is ap-
pointed by the committee on the judiciary ; and then a subcommittee
by another committee with jurisdiction over that court, in this case
the committee on the Federal courts. Those two subcommittees work
together to make the investigation which is provided to the judiciary
committee which votes.
Senator Burdick. How many are on those subcommittees?
Judge Bauman. Mr. Elsen was chairman of the one on the judi-
ciary. Mr. Nussbaum was the chairman of the one on the Federal
courts. I should tell you a little about them. Mr. Elsen was assistant
U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, as was Mr.
Nussbaum, who was more i-ecently senior associate counsel for the
House Impoachmont Committee.
Senator Burdick. How many are on the subcommittee?
Mr. Elskn. There were five. Senator.
Senator Burdick. And what about your committee ?
Mr. Elsen. That was a joint committee.
Mr. Nussbaum. It was a joint subcommittee. The Federal courts
committee has about 20 members, and the judiciary committee has
about 20 members. Wo form the joint committee to work together, and
then we submitted our report to the members of the judiciaiy com-
mittee, whicli unanimously approved our report.
Senator Burdick. Was the subcommittee in unanimous agreement
too?
71
Mr. NussBAUM. The subcommittee was in unanimous agreement.
There are 10,000 members or so of the Association of the Bar of
the City of New York, many of whom practice before the Second
Circuit Court.
Senator Burdick. This has not come before a convention i
Judge Baiiman. First, may I say that the committee speaks for the
association by its bylaws in matters affecting the judiciary.
Second, with respect to this matter, in view of the result to which
we have come, I personally have been in frequent touch with Cyrus
Vance, president of the association.
Senator Burdick. Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. I presume that much of your information was
gleaned from the report of the Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee of the Connecticut Legislature, is that correct?
Judge Bauman. I am going to let the people who actually were up
there, who went to Hartford and looked at the records and spoke to
the people, answer on this.
Senator Hruska. Would you respond to that ?
Mr. NussBAUM. Yes sir. Our information came from speaking with
each member of the staff of the subcommitte on this, the subcommittee
of the appropriations committee. We were also granted access to cer-
tain transcripts and certain records of interviews which that subcom-
mittee and that staff conducted. We also spoke to people such as Sena-
tor Gunther who were familiar with the investigation conducted by
the subcommittee. That is basically, sir, where we got our information.
We attempted, of course, Senator, to speak with Governor Meskill
about this matter, but the Governor, as our statement indicates, did
not wish to speak to us concerning that matter.
Senator Hruska. What calendar period did this report of the sub-
committee cover ?
Mr. Nussbaum. Our subcommittee, or the Connecticut Subcommit-
tee on Leasing ?
Senator Hruska. The subcommittee of the Committee of the Con-
necticut Legislature, the leasing subcommittee.
Mr. Elsen. They were planning to report in two stages, Senator.
They have issued a report of a general nature, but the specifics upon
which this statement to the Senate is made today have not yet been
published or released.
Senator Hruska. You mean the appendix ?
Mr. Elsen. Yes : but we have had access to those files.
Senator Hruska. But as to the first part of the report, the narrative
part, of which we have been furnished a copy, do you know what
period of time that covered ? ^
Mr. Nussbaum. As I understand it. Senator, it covers primarily, if
not exclusively, the period during Governor Meskill's administration.
When we spoke with members of the staff of the subcommittee on
leasing, they did indicate to us, and we do indicate to you, that appar-
ently similar practices had gone on in prior administrations. They so
informed us of that fact. We believe that this investigation focused
primarily, if not exclusively, on the practices during Governor
Meskill's administration.
Senator Hruska. Included with the report is a resolution of the
February session of the legislature, the general assembly. Presumably
72
tliat is the resolution authorizing the subcommittee to go into this
matter. Are you familiar with that resolution ?
Mr. NussnAUM. No ; we are not familiar with the specific resolution
authorizing the subcommittee to conduct this investigation. We should
say, in looking at the subcommittee's report, that they did send ques-
tionnaires to various lessors, and apparently, according to that report,
they were looking into leases that were entered into after 1968, they
were looking into 54 leases apparently, and their appendix deals with
those 54 leases.
Senator Hruska. The second paragraph of this resolution reads:
Resolved, That this committee establish a subcommittee to study and investi-
gate State purchasing construction and leasing procedures and practices by the
Department of Public Works from January 11, 1960, to the present.
Do you know that the scope of the report covered that p6riod of
time ?
Judge Batjmax. Senator, may I respond by saying that I don't think
any of us are qualified to answer questions with respect to the Con-
necticut Legislative Committee or the scope of its investigation. I am
certain that members of that committee are available to this committee.
What we did, and what we have told you we have done, is merely ask
them for access to tlieir files of facts, which they made available. And
that is the basis of our report.
Senator Hrtjska. I am sure they are getting into files and facts, and
T want to know for what period of time, and whether they w^ent by the
mandate of the resolution, or if thej^ picked the wrong time; was
there an even-handed investigation into this, or did it have a special
mission of some kind ? I am sure they wouldn't be motivated by politi-
cal factors, they would want to get at the facts, isn't that the idea of
the subcommittee ?
Judge Bauman. 1 would assume so, sir, but I speak for the Asso-
ciation of the Bar. and I have no authority to speak for the Legisla-
ture of Connecticut.
Senator Hruska. I asked the same question of Judge Walsh. It
might be that there were some previous investigations and inquiries
into this practice, which apparently was a long established one, and
A'ery likely if it was as horrendous as now we are lead to believe it is,
very likely it would have seen the light of day before. And perhaps
there were previous inquiries w^hich inquired into it and either blessed
it or condemned it or maybe had some legislative action to correct
some of the possibilities of abuse, and that is why I ask these questions.
Judge Bauman. What you say. Senator, may be so. But I am not
aware of any individual who may have been involved in these prac-
tices— and I am not saying Governor Meskill has — I am unaware of
any such individual who has been nominated for a place on the Fed-
eral bench wliere these matters would have been discussed and evalu-
ated in terms of whether or not they aff'ect a person's qualifications for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Senator Hruska. Of course j^our knowledge would not be personal
and very detailed on it, but I presume the general assembly, which
acted on it and asked that this subcommittee study and investigate
73
these practices, for some reason or another used the date January 1960,
to the present, and then n. little bit later they extended that time from
December 15, for the purpose of filinjr their report.
Mr. Elsen. Senator, may I say that when the representatives of the
Association of the Bar of the City of New York went to Hartford, the
legitimacy of our inquiry was related solely to a question of a nominee
for a Federal appeals court which includes the State of New York.
Therefore the subject of our discussion, and the documents and files
made available to us, related to leases which in some way or other re-
lated to a particular individual, that is. Governor Meskill, whose nomi-
nation was before the Senate in a manner affectinor the Association of
the Bar. For us to have even inquired into these other practices would
have gone beyond the legitimacy of of our inquiry in which we were
being given access to confidential materials before they had been re-
leased. I am sure. Senator Hruska, that if you do consider this ger-
mane, that questions to that body could be asked by this body of the
Senate. But it would not have been right for us to have gone into that.
Senator Hruska. Except if there has been previous inquiries, and
the practice and procedure followed before had been given a blessing
of some kind, either by the legislature or by the courts or the attorney
general, it seems to me that that would be highly pertinent to your
inquiry. For all you know, these practices were approved and were all
right. Did you close your eyes to that possibility ?
Judge Bauman. No ; I do not think we closed our eyes to that possi-
bilii-y. But we also believed, I think it fair to say. Senator Hruska,
that if that had been the case, that if these practices had the Good
Housekeeping seal of approval, I would think that Governor Meskill
would have been the first to tell us about it.
Senator Hruska. Maybe so. But then you are inquiring, and when
you are inquiring you don't go after negative things, you go by affirma-
tive and positive evidence. I assume most lawyers do. I know a lot of
lawyers that do.
Judge Bauman. That is perfectly fair. And we attempted that in
this case. But at the bottom lies the fact that Governor Meskill re-
fuses to talk to us about it.
Mr. NussBAUM. Senator, I spoke to members of the subcommittee
on leasing and their staff with respect to this matter. We came to grips
with the issue as to whether these practices were approved, or whether
tliey were given, as someone said, the Good Housekeeping seal of ap-
proval. It is clear that these practices were not approved by any body
or any legislative committee previously.
We also discussed whether they had gone on previously. We were
told, to be fair, that there was an indication that they had gone on
prior to the administration of Governor Meskill. But the staff of that
committee never told us in any shape or form that these practices
were ever approved, and in fact their reports suggested the breaking
of leases, which were entered into under this practice, because of im-
proper activity.
Senator Hruska. Did you come across any legislative proposal to
modify or correct the type of procedures that were involved here ? For
example, in 1973, somewhere in the files, I thought I came across a
74
reference to some legislative proposals bearing on these leasing and
construction and acquisition programs. Do you recall any such things?
Mr. NussBAUM. Senator, there was a hearing held in 1972, we under-
stand, by a number of legislators, and this matter was considered at
that particular hearing. As we understand it, we have been informed
that no i-esolution one way or another came out of that legislative
hearing in 1972. The recommendations that we know about with respect
to this practice are contained in the report, of which the Senator has
a copy, of the subcommittee on leasing. There are a number of recom-
mendations there contained with respect to this practice. The Senator
has a copy of the report. I do not have to repeat them. We know of
no prior recommendations by any legislative body in Connecticut. That
is not to say that there were not any, we just do not know of any.
Senator Hruska. We can ask others who will testify later, but I do
have a distinct recollection that I read that there was some legislation
that was proposed and that it ripened into law signed by the Governor.
We can ask other witnesses about it so that we can get the facts.
Judge Bauman. Yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. These are all the questions I have.
The Chairman is otherwise occupied. Counsel tells us that the next
witness is Bert Hopkins, dean emeritus of the University of Connecti-
cut School of Law.
You may proceed to testify in your own fashion, Dean.
TESTIMONY OF BERT HOPKINS, DEAN EMERITUS OF THE UNiyER-
SITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. Hopkins. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the
committee on the nomination now pending.
I submitted a letter last fall to the chairman of tlu; committee which
I presume is still on file and available.
[The letter referred to, dated September 15, 1974, appears on page 78
of the printed hearings in 1974.]
I have not very much to say in supplement to that. But I would like
to repeat the substance of it.
I am now dean emeritus, and have been for 2 yeai^s, and consequently
I am in no position to speak on behalf of the law school.
It is because of my connection with the law school, however, that I
appear here today.
I was dean of the law school of the University of Connecticut during
Governor Meskill's attendance as a student there. 1 came to know him
very well both personally and as a member of my classes. Personally,
because he was a student leader, he was active on the Law Review, our
outstanding scholarly publication, and his contributi(ms to our general
academic life was a major one.
I remember his capacity for organization and leadership, qualities
which led to his distinguished career in Congi-ess and as Governor of
the State of Connecticut.
When Mr. Meskill became prominent in politics I followed his
career with much interest, as I do the careers of at least our outstand-
ing graduates, of which he was one.
Although I am not a member of his politicil pai-ty, nor was in any
way associated with his administration, I thoioiighlv approved of his
75
general contribution to the State of Connecticut while he was
Governor.
I stated in my letter, and I will repeat now, that it was especially in
the field of fiscal responsibility that I found his determination and
analytical ability put to good use. He came to the governorship in
very difficult times, and handled it, in my opinion, with a maximum
of judgment and discretion. But in doing so, particularly with respect
to the financial conditions of the State, there developed criticism, to
which some reference has been made in the hearing here today. Some
of my younger colleagues on the law faculty undertook to represent
to this committee that they believed that he was not qualified intellec-
tually or by training to be a Federal judge. This I found rather in-
explicable, because the represenetation in part was from the total
student body, and was published in a student newspaper. Now, this
includes, then, the opinions of first year law students as well as second
year law students and some members of the faculty. I think there
must have been some kind of a determined opposition in the law school
to one of its own outstanding and superior graduates.
I stated in my letter, and will state again my own opinion, my own
evaluation, that the motivation for that law school criticism was prob-
ably political. His legal scholarship and his ability as a student were
amply demonstrated, at least to my satisfaction, and I have been
associated with four State university law schools in a professional
capacity, and was 3 years dean of the University of Connecticut Law
School. His political career in both executive and legislative work was
most certainly a maturing experience, contributing to a judicial quali-
fication. There has been some discussion of that as well.
Some of the discussion this morning reminded me of one of our
senior citizens in Connecticut who followed a similar pattern and be-
came quite famous. You may have known Senator Raymond Baldwin
of Connecticut, who served in the U.S. Senate, and as Governor of the
State of Connecticut, and closed his career as the chief justice of the
Connecticut Supreme Court. He received the accolade, I believe, of
being our only public figure who served in all three of the coordinated
branches of Government. I mention Ray Baldwin because Governor
Meskill has served in the legislative branch, and he has served as
Governor, and I believe that this service speaks well by way of quali-
fication for a Federal judgeship.
I also mention in my letter my long acquaintance with a good num-
ber of the men who served on this court. That came about because
the deans of the law schools in the circuit were invited to the Second
Circuit Conferences, and year after year I attended those in Vermont
and in Hartford and White Plains in New York and New York City.
I came to know a good many of those judges.
As I stated in my letter, I do not believe that confirmation of Gov-
ernor Meskill, in tlie light of his personality and qualities, which I
much admire, will in any way dilute the very fine quality of that great
bench.
There is another point that came out in the discussion here not men-
tioned in my letter, but about which I would like to speak extempo-
raneously. Yes, of course, the second circuit has complicated and
somewhat unique cases. But I very much doubt that any competent
47-704—75-
76
lawyer, grounded in public affairs, would be disqualified to handle
those cases.
It occured to me, sir, tliat perhaps one of my aquaintences on that
bench, Judge Waterman from up country in Vermont, probably
brought to tliat court a very good quota of fresh air. He was certainly
not a specialist in Xew York practice when he went there, but I am
sure that he has the respect of all other members of that fine bench.
That is about all I have to say. I will be glad to answer any questions.
[A letter from Bert Hopkins, dated January 23, 1975, follows :]
West Hartford, Conn., January 23, 1915.
Hon. James Eastland,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Eastland: I hereby request permission to appear before the
Hearing being held at 10 :30 a.m. on Thursday, January 23, 1975, to support the
nomination of former Governor Thomas J. Mesliill of Connecticut to a seat on the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
I was Dean of the Law School faculty during Governor Meskill's attendance
there and came to know him well both personally and as a member of my classes.
He was outstanding in all respects as a member of our academic community
while making a major contribution on the Law Review.
When Mr. Meskill became prominent in politics I followed his career with in-
terest, though not a member of his Political Party. He has served the State well,
especially in the field of fiscal responsibility. In that endeavor he has sustained
criticism from some of my younger colleagues at the University who have joined
the Faculty since his graduation. In publicly questioning his qualifications for
the appointment I fear that those men have confused political preference with
qualification for Judicial ofBce.
From long acquaintance with a good number of the men who serve and who
have served on the Second Circuit bench it is my considered judgment that con-
firmation of Mr. Meskill's appointment will in no way dilute the outstanding
character and reputation of that great Court. I strongly urge his approval by
your Committee.
Very sincerely yours,
Bert Hopkins,
Dean Emeritus, University of Connecticut, School of Loao.
Senator Hruska. Did Judge Waterman have considerable trial ex-
perience before he went on the bench ?
Mr. Hopkins. Judge Waterman did. He had a law practice, a country
practice, in St. Johnsbury, Vt.
There are other acquaintances of mine on that bench that were not
mentioned in the rundown of the judges a while ago. I doubt that my
own law school dean, who is now in his 90's, Judge Swan, who served
on the bench, had much courtroom experience. He was an academic.
Judge Charles Clark, under whom I studied law at the Yale Law
School, I think had very little practice.
Among my present acquaintances on that bench is Judge William
Mulligan, who went from the deanship of the Fordham Law School to
that bench. And while I am sure he had some consultations, I do not
know that he was ever a trial lawyer.
There are a good number of occupations other than trying cases in
court which in my humble opinion are worthy of consideration in re-
gard to these appointments.
Senator Hruska. Thank you very much.
Our next witness will be John Doyle.
77
TESTIMONY OF JOHN DOYLE, FORMER LEGISLATIVE LIAISON TO
GOVERNOR MESKILL
Mr. Doyle. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I have no prepared
testimony. The reason I am here today, I suspect, is because I was
the Governor's legislative liaison in the period between January of
1971 and October of 1972. And during that time period one of my
principal responsibilities was maintaining contact with members of
the general assembly on behalf of the Governor's office.
I might say, just to begin, that I was a little disappointed that
tlie gentleman from New York who testified earlier this afternoon
seemed to give the impression that the number of people that he
recited at the end of his testimony as being additional to be inter-
viewed apparently were unavailable. No one called me. I was avail-
able. I don't concur in his comments, the New York Bar Association's
comments, that Senator Gunther advised the Governor on this ques-
tion of the leasing procedures. I think it is somewhat incredulous,
if I may use the term. Senator, that a Senator, Senator Gunther, would
first have found out about a lease in detail from some as yet anony-
mous source, would have repeated the details of that lease to me and
would have asked me over a 2-week period to arrange an interview
with the Governor, and would have finally, according to his testimony
that he has recited here this afternoon, threatened me with public
exposure, and then when he finally got to the Governor's office would
have forgot the details of the lease, or would have not even mentioned
the lessor. That seems to me to be something less than evidence. And
I believe that was the term the gentleman from New York used.
Now, I am not a lawyer. But I am here to tell you what I know
about that matter. And what I know about it is that I made regular
visits to the leadership officers of both parties on a daily basis. I con
strue that to be a discipline I should hew to very closely when I am
involved in legislative liaison. In May of 1972, which I believe was
the time when that matter was referred to by Senator Gunther, the
meeting, my principal job was to see that bilis passed by the general
assembly — and I remind you that the general assembly in 1972 ad-
journed in early May — that the great load of bills that the general
assembly passed was bunched up around the first or the middle of
May, and that my principal job was trying to get those bills reviewed
prior to presenting them to Governor Meskill for his judgment. I do
not recall, and I so told the attorney for the leasing subcommittee
of the general assembly, I do not recall Senator Gunther requesting
a meeting and detailing to me the arrangements of any lease. I repeat
that for your benefit and the committee's benefit here today. I am
not saying that Senator Gunther didn't ask for such a meeting, per-
haps he did. if he says he did, in the words of the leasing committee
attorney, Mr. Altschuler. I have no reason to disbelieve him, and he
would say it was probable. Mr. Altschuler, however, also asked me,
was it possible that Senator Gunther gave me the details of that
lease. And to that I answered, it was not probable, and I doubt if it
were possible.
Senator Gunther is a very colorful character in the State legislature.
He is a gentleman who would frequently come up to me as I made
78
my round of the senator's offices with bills oftentimes with an off-
color joke or remark, and oftentimes with a physical hug, and often-
times with a comment, perhaps, about a shapely young lady that may
be thereabouts in the capitol. And he would then proceed to complain
about any number of things, and there were any number of them, as
I recall, in 1972, probably the greatest of which I would recall was
the tenure of the then health commissioner, Dr. Foote, a gentleman
and a neuropathic physician whom Senator Gunther did not like. He
was constantly complaining about Gaffner, chairman of the Repub-
lican Party in the county, and a gentleman with whom I disagreed on
the way a party should be run.
I say that not to characterize Senator Gunther in a vacuum, but to
tell you why I believe that Senator Gunther would not have detailed
any leasing arrangement or detailed any complaint to me. That was
just not his modus operandi.
That is what I told the leasing committee investigator, Senator, and
that is what I am telling you here today. And I think that is the sum
and substance of what I have to say.
Senator Burdick. You don't deny that Senator Gunther tried to get
in to see the Governor, though ?
Mr. Doyle. Senator Gunther was liaison for the Republican mi-
nority, then minority in the State senate in the 1971 session. During
that time, being the liaison, he probably met on the order of two or
three times a week with the Governor during 1971. He did not serve
in a liaison capacity during 1972 ; he was replaced by another Senator,
Senator Louis Rome. But it is fair to say that Senator Gunther had
been in and out of the Governor's office for meetings with the Gov-
ernor a great deal during the first of the Meskill administration, 1971
and 1972. And he was not a stranger to the Governor's office.
Senator Hruska. I would rather go into this after the appendix is
available.
Will you be available in case we need you at that time?
Mr. Doyle. Yes ; if you want me to be available.
Senator Hruska. I would prefer to wait until after the appendix
is available.
Mr. Doyle. I have here, if you would like to see it, a copy of my
testimony — I didn't go before the full Leasing Subcommittee, I just
went before the attorney — and the transcript of that is available today.
Senator Hruska. We would like to have that. And if there are any
questions, I will ask them of you later. I prefer to do it that way.
[The material referred to follows :]
Interview With John Doyle on December 16, 1974 Re Governor Meskill's
Meeting With Senator Guntheb
(Tape F begins.)
Attorney Altschuler. All right. I think the basic reason that we have you here
you're probably familiar with . . . that Friday Dec. 3rd Senator Gunther pre-
sented some testimony and part of it according to him reflected a conversation
or conversations that he had held with you.
Doyle. Yes.
Altschuler. First of all I think we should start off with your name and your
current employment . . .
Doyle. What I'm doing and what I did do . . .
ALTSOHULBm. What did you did do back to just the point that we would be con-
cerned with . . . back in 1971.
79
Doyle. Rick, my name is John Doyle. I am now Executive Director of the
Conn. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care. From January of 1971 through
Sept. 30, 1973 I was legislative liason to Governor Meskill. In that capacity
there were a number of duties with respect to me. One was I tried to stay in
contact with all members of the General Assembly in both parties. I was re-
sponsible for processing pieces of legislation, both at the introduction stage
as the bills were going through and when the bills finally passed and were
presented to the other members decision. Between sessions I maintained liason
with Committee men, with members of the General Assembly if they had a prob-
lem or request of the Governor's Office, if they wanted to be present at a bill
signing or proclamation. Those were the kinds of things that I did. So for 2^
years, three sessions of the General Assembly— 1971, 1972, and 1973—1 was the
Governor's man in the General Assembly. That was my specific responsibility.
I was administrative assistant and while the other administrative assistants in
the office were concerned with departments, my job was the General Assembly.
Altschuleb. Okay. Then it would be safe to assume that if Sen. Gunther had
a problem, as he alludes to in the testimony, you would have been the problem
that he would have come to?
Doyle. Yes.
Altschuler. All right. Let's go into that specific . . .
Doyle. That's not to say that I am an exclusive or sole line into the Gover-
nors Office . . . knowing that legislators saw Tom out of the office or other times.
But that's just my way of telling you about it.
Altschuleb. Okay. Now first of all, are you familiar with what Sen. Gunther
testified to?
Doyle. Essentially I think I am. I've read the newspaper accounts and that's
been the essence of it. And Senator Gunther has said that he appraised me at
some date of the Downes lease and requested a meeting with the Governor . . .
And that he had that meeting . . . correct me if I'm wrong ... I think . . .
May 21st.
Altschuler. May 23rd.
Doyle. Well I was close.
Altschuleb. All right. Since this time have you talked to the Governor since
I . . .?
Doyle. I talked to the Governor last week a couple of times. One he asked
me if I had any recollections of a meeting between him and Senator Gunther
where Sen. Gunther layed this out. And this was before the Senator's testimony
on Friday. And I told him that I didn't. And most frequently when legislators
met with him . . . and I'll be very frank with you Rick ... I would not sit in
on a meeting unless it were concerned with a piece of legislation. Otherwise I
would spend my whole time in the Governor's Office and no time processing bills.
Something which I checked this morning is that the big bulge in the Governor's
Office in so far as legislation is concerned is right at the end of the Session
and immediately following. It takes about two weeks for a bill to clear the last
house of action before it liits the Governor's Office. Once it does, we're on a time
c-ei-tain. If memory serve me right, it's two weeks once the General Assembly
adjourns. And it was myself, my secretary in those days and one part-time
person, and I had to proces.s every bill that went through. I checked this morning
with Phil ( ? ) ami I used the wrong date. Phil is the Governor's file clerk. He
records bills in and out. And I checked with him to see what the bill load
was on the 21'^t. And you say that the meeting was the 2.Srd so I'm a little off
there. But there were some 20 odd bills even at that point left in the Office. And
chances were that I was scurrying around every which way. One of the check-
offs that we had on the bills in those days ... in the first two years . . . you
know the Republicans were a minority in both Houses ... in the 1970 and 1971
Sessions . . . and as a bill came to the Governor's Office one of the things our
process entailed was that I would go to .see the Republican Leader in the Senate
and House and I had a form that we attached to each bill. And the Republican
leader in the Senate or the House would sign off on the bill and would say
"Okay" or may be put some romnients . . . things which I might not have been
aware of . . . people's feelings about the bill . . . whether they were bad, good or
indifferent or whatever I onlj' mention that because it requires that I make
regular visits to the Leaders' Offices. And of course then Sen. Ives was in the
same office as Sen. Gunther. Consequently, I would lead a very regular path in
those days . . . even more regular than usual ... to the leadership offices because
80
I would have packages of bills. I think it's fair to say also that virtually all
the time that I went in there Senator Guuther would be in there. And he had
fairly regular comments to make about everything from the then health com-
missioners to Chairman Gaffney, whom he had disagreeemnts with on many mat-
ters. And it would be not uncommon for Sen. Gunther to say that he had some
feeling that Mr. Gaffney wasn't doing a good job as the Party Chairman. But
George's comments were . . . and I can't be specific . . . when you get to ask me
the question of "what Senator Gunther told me in detail?" ... I honestly can't
tell you because I don't remember. But almost every day I was there, Sen.
Gunther would have something to say. T can't remember any specific details.
Whereas if you were going to tell me your problem you'd probably say "John,
the problem is this" and you'd detail it. I can't remember Senator Gunther ever
telling me on any issue a detail. He'd come up to me and put his arm around me
and say ".lohn things are going terril)le you know John." And Sen. Gunther. if
you know him, is a very expressive and outgoing person. And you must under-
stand that anything he might have told me is in that context. I was probably
more worried about getting a bill signed than I was about what Senator Gunther
had to tell me.
Altschuleb. Is he the kind of gentleman that you could remember that would
. . . your sort of alluding to the fact that he complained about a lot of various
things . . . problems that he saw. Is he the kind of gentleman who would talk , . .
in other words you're saying he would give you specifies but he wouldn't . . . ?
DoTLE. No he wouldn't give me specifics. He's say . . . you know . . . that we
for instance . . . that Dr. Foote's tenure should be eliminated. ... He didn't like
Dr. Foote being Health Commissioner in those days. And that would be a recur-
ring thing. Everyday it would be something like "when is Dr. Foote going to be
replaced?" . . . with someone whom Senator Gunther felt was more able. There
was never any detailed discussion of why something should or should not be done
with Senator Gunther. And go ahead . . .
Altschuler. All right. So the question that you've answered before I a.sked it
is I mean . . . You cannot remember a specific meeting or contact with Senator
Gunther in which he gave you a piece of paper listing the . . . ?
Doyle. No I do not. And I don't find anything in my files on Senator Gunther
that . . . that . . .
Altschuleb. Do you ever remember him making a specific statement with re-
spect to the Downes lease? . . . even if he didn't give you a piece of paper?
Doyle. I don't remember Rick. But I don't want to mislead you and tell you
that he didn't. He might very well have, especially if it had anything at all to do
with Brian Gaffney. As I say, the Senator didn't like ... if George says that he
told me that thus and so happened he may very well have. I'm really not ques-
tioning it. What I would question is whether he gave me a detailed discussion of
anything. That's just not in the way of the man's character, at least as I found
him. He would not give me a detailed description. He'd always have a complaint
about any given number of topics. But he'd never substantiate them. And I must
say that when I went around to the oflBces . . . and I did with some regularity
... I used to discipline myself . . . and once a day if I could do it I made a trip
around to all House and Senate legislators offices . . . just to listen . . . just to
hear what was going on. At the end of the Session I was probably going nuts with
pieces of legislation . . . just from the sheer volume of work. And I was probably
more interested in having legislators review the legislation and give me input
on the bills than I was in hearing Sen. Gunther. But he might well have men-
tioned it.
Altschuler. Did he ever . . .
Doyle. I can't honestly tell you . . . and you haven't put me under oath . . .
but if you had I'd tell you exactly the same thing. I can't honestly say that he
did. So I don't want to say that. But yes he may very well have.
Altschuler. Let me ask you this ...
Doyle. But I can't imagine George Gunther ever gave me a detailed discussion
of anything, the Downes lease included. That's just not his modus operandi.
Altschuler. All right. Let me ask you this . . . Did he at any time ask you to
make an appointment with the Governor ?
Doyle. I'm sure he did. George used to be . . . Let me just take you back in time.
George was the liaison between the Senate Republicans and the Governor's office
in the 1971 Session. Each of the years that I was with the Governor's Office there
was always some member of the Republican legislative group from the House and
81
Senate who met with the Governor regularly on calendar items and bills. And
this was regularly through the Session. George was the person in 1971 from the
Senate. He met with the Governor many many times. I would guess on the
average of two to three times per week . . . just to go over the calendar . . . over
the bills . . . we did it early in the morning. So coming onto 1972 although
Senator Gunther was no longer the liaison because I think Senator Rome was in
those days, George had a history of coming into the Governor's Office with a great
deal of frequency. Now he probably in 1971 saw the Governor more than virtually
any other legislator, with the possible exception of and
Franny Collins, the two leaders. So I'm sure that I set up a meeting for him In
197- . . a number of meetings ... in 1972.
Altschuleb. But what I'm specifically asking you is ... Do you remember
talking to him about the Downes lease and do you remember from that setting . . .
Doyle. Setting up a meeting such as I've read he described in the paper? I
don't remember it but as I say . . .
Altschuleb. It's possible?
Doyle. Sure . . . Yes it is possible.
Altschuler. Okay.
Doyle. And the scenario . . .
Altschuleb. And are you saying it's not possible or it's not probable that he
gave you a detailed listing?
Doyle. I'm saying it's not probable that he did. And I would say that it would
be a relatively low degree of probability if he gave me any details . . . Because as
I say that just wasn't the way he ever described things to me.
Altschuleb. Let me ask you this. Is it possible or probable that he mentioned
specifically the Downes lease? And that when you set the appointment up with
the Governor you knew that it was about this particular lease?
Doyle. That's . . . that's . . . possible.
Altschuleb. All right. And if he had told you that would it have been your pro-
cedure to tell the Governor that Gunther is coming to talk to you about the
Downes lease? . . . Even if there weren't specifics mentioned?
Doyle. Well more likely what I would have done was told Ann Schnitsky, who
was the Governor's personal secretary, and whom I generally went through to
schedule things.
Altschuleb. How do you spell her name just for the record?
Doyle. SCHNITZKE. I would have said that Senator Gunther wants to
see the Governor. I was allowed ... I mean that w-as my responsibility ... to
try and make judgments on who could see the man. He has finite limits on his
time. And I would probably have just said that "Sen. Gunther wants to see the
Governor and can we squeeze him in this afternoon?" And she might have
said "oh well the schedule is ( ?) ". . .
Altschuleb. Do you normally brief the Governor on the people who are com-
ing and what they are going to talk about? I mean . . . wouldn't that be normal
procedure?
Doyle. Well it would be in some cases. With legislators that met him fairly
frequently . . . No. I mean he knows them better than I do.
Altschuleb. Well in this situation ... I mean I would consider it sort of a
hot potato more or less . . . and if Gunther was coming in storming wouldn't
it have been . . . ?
Doyle. It would have been if you take that out of context. Yes, if you say that
that was a hot potato that Sen. Gunther wanted to see the Governor about . . .
ah . . . let me just finish this up . . . The . . . With Senator Gunther I ... if
I said anything at all . . . You were asking if I wouldn't brief him on some-
thing that was a "hot potato"? If George didn't have a "hot potato" a day I prob-
ably would have. But as I say Sen. Gunther had literally a complaint a day
and when it concerned Brian Gaffney it got into the bigger business of the
Party and legislative stuff and how far. Gunther didn't particularly care for
Mr. Gaffney. If I said anything at all it would probably be something like well
"Tom Brian ... I mean . . . "George wants to see you. There's something
about Brian. I don't know what it is but he's complaining." I mean that is the
kind of offhanded comment that I would have given it. Now with a different
legislator of either party I might have handled it differently. But I know Senator
Gunther . . I knew him then ... I think that I probably had as close contact
vpith him as anyone in the Governor's Office. He's here a great deal in the
Capital as you know. And I tried to be around a great deal. That was my job.
82
But I wouldn't have given ... As I say I don't recall any specifics and I'm sure
that if I had briefed the Governor in detail on this thing I would remember it
Altsciiulee. All right. Now at this meeting . . . Did you bring Gunther into
that meeting?
Doyle. I probably brought him to the door . . . yes. I read that in the paper
that that's what Sen. Gunther indicated happened. Am I wrong?
Altschuler. Ah ... No ... I think that's . . .
Doyle. I think I read that. And that's typical, as I told you before, when
a legislator met with the Governor unless it was some piece of legislation that
I was really involved with and that I was researching it and say it was this
guy's bill, then I might be there. Otherwise, it just didn't pay for me to be in
on all those meetings or I would have been doing nothing else.
Altschuler. Did Governor Meskill talk to you shortly after this meeting to
tell you what he had said or . . .? Mention anything about it?
Doyle. No he didn't ... In fact the only thing that I got . . . and I didn't even
realize that I had this until one week ago . . . ah . . . was the letter that Senator
Gunther sent the Governor in early June about this matter. And there was a
note attached to that or scratched in at the top by he Governor's secretary which
said Governor Saw or John Doyle in File or something like . . . which meant that
I got it back and put it in the file and that was the end of it.
Altschuler. Could you pinpoint a time for this when you became aware of
the lease that was going to be entered into between Downes and the State of
Connecticut?
[Tape G begins.]
Doyle. Rick, you know at this point going back the answer I'm going to give
you may seem incredulous but I didn't really concern myself or care a great deal
about leases. I mean there were apparently things ... I haven't checked the news-
papers . . . but there are apparently things in the paper from what I've read in
June and July about leases and the Downes lease in particular. That's probably
how I would have picked it up. And it just would have been a peripheral thing.
I mean . . . understand now . . . I'm not trying to make the job ethic . . . but han-
dling all the legislation that comes through is a ? job And that's what I was con-
cerned about. And when I became aware of this problem . . . when I read about
it in the paper or when that letter came back that the Governor had seen from
Senator Gunther . . . and probably what I would have done is pust looked at it so
that I knew that the Senator was complaining about a lease and put it in the
file. I frankly . . . frankly I was interested in just looking here and seeing the
leasing procedures. I'm not familiar with them. I don't know how you get a lease
or what you do or who gets what first. I see there are fifteen steps. I mean . . .
I'm afraid that I'm not being much help to you but I'm ti-ying to give you my
perspective on this and the kinds of responsibilities I had and why I just wouldn't
. . . frankly wouldn't have been interested enough to worry about something like
this.
Altschuler. Okay. Do you remember the time in question — that it was around
May. Do you remember that meeting as opposed to any other meetings?
Doyle. No I honestly don't.
Altschuler. All right. Would you say that around May of 1971 that Gunther
was meeting regularly with the Governor?
Doyle. 1971?
Altschuler. 197
Doyle. This is 1972 you're talking about as I recall when the meeting . . .
Altschuler. 1972 . . . right . . .
Doyle. The reason I questioned ... in 1971 during the Session as I say
George was legislative liaison. He was in all the time. 1972 . . . my guess is that
they wouldn't have been meeting regularly but I'd be surprised if the record were
to show that he hadn't been in say more than 2-3 times ... at least 2-3 times
during the Session. Because we had a process whereby each of the Republican
legislators in both houses was invited in for meetings just to bring the Gov. up
to date on how they felt their districts . . . what their people wanted . . . the
constituents . . . and what not. But as I say it would not have been unusual for
George to have gone in just like anybody else.
Altschuler. All right.
Doyle. And there were legislators who had ad hoc problems. On occasion the
guy ... I can't remember any but I'm sure that if I look through I could find
them . . . where a guy ... a particular piece of legislation passed . . . maybe
83
that he had sponsored . . . and he wanted the Governor to be aware of how
vital it was . . . say to him or his district ... or whatever ... so he would
say "John look that bill is coming up in a couple of weeks or it will be there soon.
I want to see the Governor to tell him how I feel about it." This was both parties
incidentally.
Altschuleb. Let me ask you this question . . . and you're not under oath . . .
but what I'm asking . . .
Doyle. If I would be I would tell you the same thing. The only thing that is
annoying me about this whole thing . . . and I'm glad that the tape is on any-
ways ... is that there was some implication in the paper that I would have to
take a lie detector test because I would lie to protect my job. That was the in-
ference in any case. And I've got news for you, I've resigned my position three
weeks ago with the State. And I think that I have a good reputation in this
General Assembly with members of both houses. And I wouldn't lie for John
Doyle, Tom Meskill, George Gunther or anybody else.
Altschulek. All right. That didn't come from our Committee of course.
Doyle. I know it didn't. But it's . . . I'm glad it wasn't Friday night instead
of . . .
Altschuler. Let me ask you this though with respect to Gunther's allegation
that he gave you a detailed listing. I think what he's referring to as a detailed
listing is just the basic terms of the lease that he sent. I think he already gave
that to you to give to Meskill. Are you saying that you are positively certain
that you weren't given such a list or that it is not probable or
Doyle. It is not probable. I'm not saying it's absolutely certain that I didn't
get it. But it was George's way to operate ... to give someone a detailed de-
scription of the problem. And given the whole context of the Senator's feelings
about the State Chairman, a complaint about the State Chairman from Sen.
Gunther I could probably predict with some frequency with some . . .
Altschuler. So do I understand at this point that you were aware of the
fact that ... or at least aware of the allegation that there was a lease and it
had something to do with Chairman Gaffney?
Doyle. No . . . No . . . What I said was that I was aware that Sen. Gunther
and Sen. Gafifney had serious differences of opinion about how the Republican
Party should operate. So a complaint about Senator Gaffney . . . or . . . Mr.
Gaffney ... by Senator Gunther on any matter would not surprise me or would
not be anything but what I'd expect. And chances are, if I had my mind set to
get the bills reviewed so that I could get them to the Governor, that's what I
was thinking about. Not what Sen. Gunther had complained about. Now that
might have been a flaw in my operating procedure.
Altschuler. All right. Again when Gunther . . . and I don't think that we're
disputing the fact that Gunther probably talked to you about this. It's a question
of what he said.
Doyle. Yes.
Altschuler. Did he make it clear that it was at least in general terms about
a lease? Or could he have made a ?
Doyle. Yes sir. He could have very well. And I'm not disputing the fact at all
that he might well have. But what I am disputing is the detail of it. He prob-
ably said that . . , and this is bad because I'm hypothesizing and I really don't
know . . . but he might have said something like "John that Gaffney is at it
again. He's doing something here with a lease and boy it stinks." And that would
have been the sum and soul . . . the substance of what he told me.
AxTSCHtTLER. All right. Could he have also indicated that the lease had some-
thing to do with a relation of Gaffney ?
Doyle. He might very well have said that Mr. Downes was related . . . was
Brian uncle or whatever it is.
Altschuler. Okay.
DoTLE. He might very well have.
Altschuler. And what would be your response?
DoYLE. If it were a different legislator . . .
Altschuler. No. . . no . . .
DoYXE. Than Senator Gunther, I would probably just construe it to be an-
other . . . and I use the term advisedly . . . 'bitch' by the Senator about Brian
Gaffney.
Altschuler. Now what would make it different that you would in fact set up
a meeting with the Governor?
84
Doyle. Well probably the intensity of George's complaint about anything would
be the reason that I would set up the meeting with the Governor. I honestly
don't remember that business about him saying he went to the press . . . that
he would go to the press ... or something like that. That just doesn't ring at
all with me. Now Tom . . . the Governor had a process where he would meet
with any Republican Senator upon request . . . and the deal was that . . . the
arrangement was . . . that I was supposed to move hell and high water if I had
to get any Republican legislator . . . Senator ... in to see the Governor if they
requested it. Because the Governor felt that he should be accessible. So chances
are if the intensity of George's complaint ... if he was really rattling on about
something ... I would schedule it. I mean that would be my trigger. If that's
what you"re asking me. That would get me to go downstairs and say "Ann can
you fit George in for 10 minutes because he's got to see Tom about something . . .
about Brian ;" And that would probably be exactly the way I phrased it.
Altsciiuler. All right. If lie gave you a piece of paper . . . again I think that
when he's talking about the details of the lease I think he's just talking about
what the cost was per year etc. etc., would you have filed that somewhere?
Doyle. If he had given me something, I think that I probably would have
given it to Ann to give it to the Governor when the meeting was held. Or
would have handed it to the Governor maybe when George went in.
Altsciiuler. All right. So it's possible that he mentioned the le;ise . . .
Doyle. But Rick let me just remind you that my understanding of this busi-
ness its through the newspapers in the last few days . . . Okay . . . But there was
some indication as I read the newspaper articles that the Senator was some-
what unspecific with the Governor when he was talking with him ... at that
May 23rd meeting. That tends to sure up my own belief or feeling that he prob-
ably was even more unspecific with me. I mean after all I was only the liaison.
I had nothing to do with leasing or anything else. If George's whole reason for
doing this was so he could appraise the Governor, it would seem to me that he
would be even better prepared when talked to the Governor than when he talked
to me.
Altschuler. All right. Let me ask you this. You said that he characterized it
as a 'bitch', I believe?
Doyle. I characterized it as a 'bitch' ...
Altschuler. Anyways ... he complained quite often. Did he often ask for a
meeting with the Governor though?
Doyle. Honestly. No I don't recall that he did. My honest answer to that is I do
not recall that on complaints because many of the matters he's either met or
talked with the Governor about in the past. I can remember . . .
Altschuler. But I think that we sort of established that in 1972 he wasn't
meeting that frequently.
Doyle. No but the ongoing problems, like the incumbent Commissioner of
Health, that was a continuing bitch. And while I might hear about it with some
frequency talking to George he wouldn't request an opinion to talk to Tom be-
cause he already had on several occasions.
Altschuler. Okay.
Doyle. I'm only . . . I'm going . . . I'm wasting far too much of your time . . .
I'm trying to give you the feeling of how Senator Gunther and I related to one
another. And then why I would make a decision or not make a decision based on
what he told me.
Altschuler. All right, when you talked to the Governor in the last week or so,
what was that conversation generally about?
Doyle. Ah ... let me see if I can reconstruct it for you , . . my memory is better
in the last week than it is about two weeks ago . . . On Monday the Governor
asked me if I'd remembered such a meeting where Senator Gunther came in and
was very unspecific and I said to George "Look George" . . . where he said some-
thing to the effect that there was something wrong with Brian and this lease
or something. And the Governor asked if he could be specific. And I'm . . . and
this is what he said to me . . . and George said "Well no ...".. . and he was
all over the lot and there was no detailed discussion. And so the Governor asked
me ... he said "John do you remember such a meeting?" And I said "No, sir I
honestly dont. But I mi.i,'hr well have scheduled it for you. but chances are that
as I tell you I probably ducked out to get some work done while I . . ."
Altschuler. So according to the Governor. Gunther came in and said something
about a lease but didn't say what was wrong with it. He didn't have the details
85
in front of him tliat he suggested were there. So he said that there was something
wrong with a lease and he was a chronic complainer you say anyways. And he
was just complaining about the lease but lie didn't say what was wrong with it?
Doyle. I wasn't part of that meeting so I . . .
Altschuleb. But this is what the Governor told you this week?
Doyle. That's what the Governor mentioned.
Altschuleb. That was his recollection?
Doyle. That was his recollection . . . that ... he had said something about
Brian . . . something was wrong . . . and did I remember it? . . . because it was
so unspecific?
Altschuleb. And he talked about something with the lease but didn't give any
specifics?
Doyle. Specific details. I think he talked about the lease. He clearly . . . good
morning John ... he clearly talked about Senator . . . uh . . . Brian Gaffney and
what not. And I said Tom "I honestly just don't remember." ... I have no re-
collection of that ... I wasn't party to any such matter.
Altschuleb. Now did Governor Meskill say that he was sort of taken aback
that the talk was about a lease or had you briefed him that there was a lease
involved anyways? I'm talking about Gov. Meskill at the time two years ago . . .
Doyle. All right. Yes. . . .
Altschuleb. When Gunther came into the oflBce . . . did he indicate to you later
that gee you didn't tell me it was about this lease?
Doyle' No, I don't recall any. As I said the only thing that I can find is that
letter from Sen. Gunther dated June 1 that I got back in my file. If I set up a
meeting . . . understand this Rick ... if I set up a meeting, an ad hoc thing like
this. ... if I went in the morning and said Ann squeeze 15 minutes for George
Gunther this afternoon . . . there wouldn't be anything on paper ... I wouldn't
write to confirm it for instance where I would put a little note on the bottom
Meeting Took Place or something like that . . . The next day I would be on to
doing whatever was the next day and hopefully George would have his problem
cleared up.
Altschuleb. Okay ... So basically your meeting with Governor Meskill in
the last week or so . . . he was telling you more than you knew?
Doyle. Teh ....
Altschuleb. Rather than . . . (inaudible here)
Doyle. And he asked me point blank "Do you recall such a meeting?" I said
"Governor I honestly don't."
Altschuleb. All right. And Governor said . . . again just clarify it . . .
that there was some talk about Gaffney and the lease but Gunther was not
specific as to what was wrong with the lease, the terms of the lease, the details.?
Doyle. The Governor's comment to me Rick was that there was talk about
Gaffney and some allegations about Gaffney. I don't know if he used the term
lease. That's why I'm not. I just don't remember. He probably did. That's what
wa.s in the papers and that's what is being talked about. When he talked to me
last Monday I'm sure that's what he had on his mind. But the point is that's . . .
Altschuleb. But what I'm asking . . .
Doyle. That's the general. . . . Yes, that's a fairly accurate description of what
the Governor's comment to me was and he said "John do you remember?" And
I said " No, Governor. I'm sorry I don't I didn't sit in on that meeting."
Altschuleb. Okay. So Governor Meskill said to you last week . . . don't let
me put words in your mouth . . . tell nie what he said again.
Doyle. No I won't. The Governor asked me if I recalled a meeting at which
Geor.i,'e made allegations about Brian Gaffney and was very unspecific about
them. Unspecific to the point where the Governor said look I can't very well
respond to what you are saying unless you tell me what you mean . . . tell me
the details so I understand.
Altschi'ler. All right.
Doyle. And then the Governor stopped and said "John do you remember such
a meeting . . . did you sit in on it?'' As I did sit in .some times with legislators.
And what I told him is "No. Governor. I did not sit in. And I really don't recall
any such discussion."
Altschuleb. Okay. So it's safe to .say that they . . . that they talked about
something to do with Gaffney. You say that probably it was to do with a lease
but that no terms were discxissed of the lease and that the paper which Gimther
originally gave to you . . . ah . . .
86
DoTLE. No, I don't recall any paper at all. As I told you before. I mean that's
just. And it's very unlike George to have given me any kind of a paper detailing
a problem. It's just not the way Senator Gunther operates. More likely Senator
Gunther was physically expressive rather than verbally or in writing. He would
grab me around the shoulder and hug me and say "John you know. Brian is at it
again." ... or some such thing.
Altschuuer. So its probably or possible that they talked generally about that
lease but they didn't mention any specifies . . . you're fairly certain of that be-
cause of the way that Gunther operated ?
Doyle. Well you got me in a spot. Idon't . . .
Axtschulb:b. Well I'm asking you now ... is what Governor Meskill said.
Doyle. Yes . . . yes . . . that's right. That's what the Governor asked me. And
his question at the end of the rather brief discussion that we had by phone was
did I recall the specifics because he remembered some kind of a meeting but he
couldn't . . . but his recollection was that there were no details given, . . . and
I've been to meetings like that with the Governor where a legislator wants to
come in and talk about a problem but when they got there there was no detail . . .
and I felt somewhat embarrassed frankly that I had set it up. But I wasn't at
that thing so I really don't know.
Altschuler. Okay. But this is what Governor Meskill told you . , . that they
talked about a lease but in general . . . or . . .
Doyle. I don't recall the term 'lease' . . . what I recall of his question to me
was that George had some complaints about Brian Gaffney. And I wouldn't be
surprised if he mentioned the lease part of it. And did I recall . . . and was I
party to such a meeting?
Altschuler. But you wouldn't have been surprised because that would have
been normal of Gunther to mention in generality the lease? But you would have
been surprised if he had mentioned the specifics?
Doyle. I would be very surprised. That's right.
Altschuler. All right. But you wouldn't be surprised that he mentioned the
general lease and Gaffney because he was always complaining?
Doyle. If it had anything to do with Brian Gaffney . . . I . . .
Altschuler. He'd mention it. . . .
Doyle. Yes .... that's right.
Altschuler. All right. Let me ask just ask you one final question. You said
that you'd talked to the Governor over the phone?
Doyle. Right.
Altschuler. Now the reason that I'm asking you ... is obviously I saw you
coming out of the oflSce ... I don't want to . . .
Doyle. Monday?
Altschuler. I think it's when we were leaving Friday. When I set the
appointment.
Doyle. Right.
Altschuler. What did you talk about then?
Doyle. Well Friday when I got back ... I was out of the oflSce Friday after-
noon. Okay . . .
Altschuler. Out of the oflBce at the Hospital Commission?
Doyle. At the Hospital Commission . . . yes. As a matter of fact I was visit-
ing a recruiter down in New Haven. It behooves me to make some interest in
getting a job in the next few months. And when I got back to the oflBce my secre-
tary told me that you had called. And that apparently Sen. Gunther had been
quoted on one of the news stations or something or other . . and I called over
there to find out what was going on. At the time that I called the Governor was
meeting . . . John ... I think with you . . .
Mannix. Friday night?
Doyle. Friday afternoon . . . this would be about 4 :00 or 4 :30 p.m. or some-
thing like that.
Maj^nix. It would be later than that.
[Tape H begins.]
Doyi.e. So I called him and he said ... I didn't get through to him. So then I
called him later and I asked what was said this afternoon. And the Governor
said "Well George says that he related the detail of this thing to you." And I
said "Gee . . . you know ... I told you about that last Monday." And so then I
said "I'm going to come over. Do you mind?" He said "NO". So I came over and
... a number of us . . . and we just sat around and just chewed. ... It was a
chew session.
Altschuler. You never talked about this again . . . then?
«7
DOTLE. Well Friday afternoon. ... We did talk about the general discussion
that George had had that day. And I again reviewed with the Governor what
I had . . . "geez , . . you know I'm put in an impossible position," I said. And I
was frankly a little miffed about the business of the lie detector, which I under-
stood . . . and I said "You know I just don't remember.
And I hate to go in and say that the most honest answer I can give you is that
I don't remember the detail that George said he described. But I said . . . that's
the way he operated." And I think I said many of the things that I've just said
to you . . . that I would go up there . . . I'm sure the Governor did not realize
this but one of, as I told you before, one of the disciplines that I had for myself
was that I would make my grand tour every day. I would go around the House
and Senate oflSces even if I had nothing to talk about . . . just to listen . . . and
as I said you know . . . everytime I go up there George would be up there com-
plaining. I mean that was the kind of thing I discussed with the Governor.
ALTScnuLEE. All right. But basically the flow through went from Governor Mes-
kill to you in the last week or so? He didn't have that much of a recollection either
but you . . . ?
DoTLE. Well Monday morning it was. Friday afternoon I called him to find out
what it was all about. I didn't know why you were calling him then.
AxTSCHULER. Right . . . right . . .
Doyle. But I was in the oflSce 10 minutes and scooted over here to . . .
Altschuleb. So it's safe to say that regardless of what recollection Gov.
Meskill has you would have even less than that? And he basically was filling
you in on what he remembered? And to you ... it was . . .
DoTLE. On that meeting . . . yes.
Altschuleb. . . you couldn't remember?
Doyle. But I don't think, Rick, that Friday afternoon we really got back to
the meeting itself. Because he asked me that Monday and I was just describing
in general terms, as I've tried to do with you, by relationship with Sen. Gunther
and how diflBcult , . . and I guess I just wanted to talk with somebody ... I was
saying how . . . jesus . . . how diflicult it is for me to remember any specific
things George said because he regularly had complaints. He regularly had bitches,
especially about Brian.
Altschuleb. Again . . . Just to clarify it for the record . . . Back in 1972 to
your recollection he only met twice as opposed to .... ?
Doyle. No what I said is that I would be surprised if during the 1972 Session
George as a Republican legislator didn't meet at least two or three times with the
Governor because all legislator did.
Altschuleb. As opposed to . . .
Doyle. As opposed to 1971 when he met regularly ... I would guess 2-3 times
per week.
Altschuleb. All right. I don't know if there are any more questions but I would
like to turn off the machine. It has nothing to do with this. I have something
which I want to talk to you about.
Mannix. John, one question that I have and it's really : . . perhaps you don't
know the answer to it but maybe I can get a feeling from you . . . and I don't
know if Rick prefaced this interview with you to indicate that we're not here
to indict or clear anybody. It may be ... I have some personal . . . I'm talking
now as a Committee member ... I have some personal feelings, as I expressed
to the Governor on Friday. But a very important thing has developed here as to
whether the Governor was aware of what was going on. And the letter from Sen.
Gunther . . . supposed discussions with the Governor . . . alleged discussion
with the Governor . . . followed up with the letter. I guess Tobbey Moffit . . .
and I haven't read the new report . . . but he indicates that he sent a letter to the
Governor. Of course the investigation in November of 1972 into the Downes lease
and leasing in general. So the Governor was apparently fairly well aware of
something not 100% in leasing. The Governor has taken a position that he
sort of ... he did delegate to his Commissioners . . . Commissioner Hozlowski
and Manafort in this case ... to handle these leasing matters and to take care of
the procurement of space for the State. Were you aware . . . you personally dur-
ing your service in the State with the Governor . . . that there was a problem in
leasing? And when ... I assume . . . you were . . . and at what point did this
become evident to you?
Doyle. John I honestly can't say that I was. What I told Rick before was
that at the time in question — late May — as you knew I had responsibility for
all the bills that went through. And the heavy time in bills is just after you guys
88
went home. The General Assembly goes home early in May that year. I probably
had a barrage of bills coming in at the rate of 20-30 per day that had to be
handled within a set time frame by the State Constitution. Chances are I was
99% overwhelmed with trying to process those bills and get them to the Gov-
ernor— then with anything else I would have heard from anyone. Also, I think
it is fair to say, I tried to respond to a legislator by the way that I characterized
him. I think a given legislator might come to me whom I knew to be a very
serious and thoughtful person. And if he came to me with a problem I would
have probably taken notes and set up a meeting with the Governor. But that's
not George Gunther's modus operandi. And by that time I had a year and one
half experience or roughly that with George and he was a chronic complainer.
So this thing would not have stuck in my mind. He could complain on any day on
any given thing from oysters to the Health Dept. to Brian Gafifney — and espe-
cially Brian Gaffney. I honestly can't say, and you can characterize me as you
see fit after this, but I don't — you know — when the leasing thing went around —
even the letters from Moffitt — I probably would have been more or less oblivious
to it. I mean it wasn't my concern and I really had enough to worry about with
vetoes and supporting the Governor's vetoes in trailer sessions than I cared about
leasing.
Mannix. So in effect what you're saying is that it wasn't really your area of
influence and expertise and responsibility. So that you had enough problems to
handle without going into somebody else's area.
DoTLE. Well, challenges perhaps.
Mannix. Challenges — okay.
AxTSCHULER. Okay — I think that's it, John.
Senator Hruska. The next witness is Senator Weicker.
TESTIMONY OF LOWELL P. WEICKER, JE., U.S. SENATOR
FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Weicker, ISIr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear again before your committee and make a few observations,
which will be brief, prior to a continuation of the firsthand witnesses
that are scheduled to appear before your committee.
As a matter of form, and I don't know what the practices of this
committee are, but just so that there can be no confusion, I would
hope that the previous record established before this committee at the
earlier hearings in September will be made a part of the record of
this hearing.
Senator Hruska. Would you repeat that?
Senator Weickek. I request, and I don't know if it is necessary to
request, that the record established in the hearing of September 17
be made a part of these hearings.
Senator Hruska. Of course it will.
[The hearing referred to has been printed.]
Senator Weicker. Senator, let me say at the outset, so that there
would be no confusion as I proceed with my remarks, that I have
a great respect for the outstanding reputation of the members of
the Judiciary Committee insofar as their devotion to civil liberties
are concerned, and insofar as their furtherance and protection of those
liberties.
I don't think there is a committee of the Congress, and I say this
both for the Republicans and the Democrats, that has such an out-
standing array of persons who are dedicated to this area.
All that I ask is that these Senators weigh the facts, the facts as
they are presented in this appropriate f orum^and I emphasize appro-
priate forum because unfortunately there has been a record, and it
89
has not been a good record, of people making a judgment in the shad-
ows relative to Governor ]\Ieskill.
I was delighted to hear the dean of the law school from which the
Governor graduated testify as to the Governor's academic proficiency.
I was delighted to see Mr. Doyle appear face to face and respond
to some questions which will be raised relative to the testimony that
he was supposed to have given and which testimony was supposed
to have been derogatory to the Governor. It is clear that that wasn't
the case, and now you know firsthand it isn't the case.
I am not here to commend Tom Meskill again to you. I think my
previous statements in the earlier hearings stand today as indeed they
were spoken then. And I don't think his outstanding qualifications
need repetition.
But what I think we have to do is take a careful look at the track
record from the beginning of the hearings on this nomination to
when I appeared before you.
I attended the first hearings; I attended them almost in their en-
tirety. And I recall well those proceedings. I remember those who
testified on behalf of the Governor. I recall the formal statement by
Albert Connelly of the ABA in opposition to the Governor. I remem-
ber the testimony of certain citizens and groups from the State of
Connecticut who disagree with the Governor and his policies. And
I also remember the introduction of newspaper clippings derogatory
to the Governor.
But I don't remember at these hearings — or let's put it this way, at
the opportunity afforded by these hearings — any improprieties, any
illegalities attributed to the Governor. I don't recall appearances in-
deed by any other bar association aside from the ABA against the
Governor. And I assume that the opportunity having been given for a
full and open hearing, that that was the close of the matter.
But that wasn't to be. Using the excuse of the Connecticut State
Legislature leasing hearings, the process of judging this man's quali-
fications began to be dragged out. And I watched this dragout with
interest. Aside from the testimony of Connelly on the day of the hear-
ings, I never once again heard a w^ord of complaint from the bar asso-
ciation. Rather I read and I heard of the inferences relative to Tom
Meskill and what he may or may not have done insofar as the leasing
practices of the State of Connecticut while he was Governor of that
State.
And slowly and surely it began to build up to the point where a
man was actually being tried and presumed guilty, not in a forum
such as this, not in the forum of a leasing commission, not in a court-
room, but by word of mouth, by allegations as among the staff and the
members of the various committees, both in Hartford and down here.
And I thought that the time had come to take a trip to Hartford.
My ire was aroused because of the failure of the leasing commission to
stop these inuendos and these inferences. And I think the record of my
testimony before that commission indicates that there was plenty of
heat in the way I felt.
But I admired that commission, because at the conclusion of that
testimony, after extensive meetings as between the staff of your com-
mittee and myself, the staff and the members of the leasing commis-
90
sion of the State of Connecticut, a statement was issued, and it was
widely reported in the press, and it is available to your committee,
specifically clearing the Governor of any illegalities, while not com-
menting on matters of judgment.
And it was so reported.
The leasing commission I think should be thanked, and I thank
them now, for having stepped out front at a rather important time
when I think a rather unfortunate situation was beginning to develop
totally outside the normal presumptions and the norraal forums and
the normal practices of our legislative and judicial entities.
The day that I met with the leasing commission the American Bar
Association released to the press a telegram. Now, mind you, Septem-
ber 17 was the time when your committee had heard from the bar asso-
ciation. And not a word was heard until the evening of December 16,
almost 3 months later. And when it was heard, it was heard in the
press. There was a telegram sent to me, which I didn't receive until
December 17th, the day when your committee met to go over this mat-
ter. And the telegram from Walsh read as follows :
Deoembeb 16, 1974.
Hon. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
The purpose of this telegram is to urge you to join with the American Bar
Association in requesting the reopening of the Senate Judiciary Committee
hearings as to the fitness of Thomas J. Meskill to be a judge of the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. The American Bar Association objected to Mr.
Meskill's confirmation on the ground that he was unqualified by training for
this important judicial post. Although I know that you believe that the standards
of the American Bar Association are overly narrow in their requirement of
litigation experience, I must point out that in the case of Mr. Meskill there
is not even a close question. His lack of qualification would be manifest by any
reasonable standards. Not only has he never argued an appeal or written an
appellate brief or tried a case of any significance, he has never received distinc-
tion in the practice of the law. He is essentially untrained in the skills which
would be required daily in handling the diflBcult and important cases which
come before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
"But, in any event" — and this to me is the most damaging com-
mentary on men who profess to know the laws of this Nation and the
presumptions that the law lays down in this Nation —
But, in any event, even though you totally disregard his lack of training for
this post, charges bearing upon his integrity and the conduct of his office as
Governor of Connecticut require the reopening of the hearings on his nomination.
According to the public press, a Connecticut State Senator has charged under
oath and in public hearings that Mr. Meskill had knowledge that substantial
state leases were being awarded upon the basis of political favoritism and that
he took no steps to correct this practice. This State Senator also testified that
he had been subject to threats and intimidation in an effort to cover up this
practice. Mr. Meskill apparently denies knowledge of this practice and he has,
in fact, appointed an alleged central participant in these transactions to be
a Connecticut State Judge.
Under these circumstances and in the light of the extended remarks which
you have made regarding the Watergate coverup, will you not join with the
American Bar Association in urging the reopening of the Senate Judiciary
Committee hearings on Mr. Meskill so that there may be a satisfactory and
conclusive resolution of these questions concerning his integrity, his acqui-
escence in the use of public office for political favors and his respect for the
courts of his own state before he is confirmed for a lifetime judgeship of this
importance. The vacancy in this office is now long-standing. Congress will re-
91
convene in January. There is no urgency which could conceivably justify hasty
action by the Senate without hearing first-hand the charges of a reputable
state official which go to the integrity of a future lifetime judge.
Respectfully yours,
Lawrence E. Walsh,
President-Elect, American Bar Association.
How coincidental that the evening before your committee was to
meet this telegram arrived, the evening when no longer could any
member of your connnittee attribute delay to the fact that the State
Leasing Commission might find the Governor guilty of illegal conduct.
So after a .'5-month silence now the American Bar Association once
again enters the scene. And this telegram, that can only be based upon
hearsay and newspaper clippings and no firsthand investigation or
knowledge, this telegram is released to the press even prior to its re-
cipients getting it.
I propose to you that if that is the sense of justice that is held by the
president-elect of the American Bar Association, he is ill suited to that
position.
Insofar as the public hearings are concerned, let the record show that
in talking with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator
Eastland, I insisted that there be hearings, that this is the proper
forum. I can't deal with shadows. I can't deal with innuendoes. I can't
bounce betAveen Hartford and Washington. This is the place. It is not
the State Leasing Commission's job to make a judgment on this mat-
ter. It is your job. It is the President's job, it is the job of the U.S.
Senate. This is where the matter gets resolved. This is where the buck
stops.
The report of the State Leasing Commission is out. You can say now
that we want to await for the appendix. You can say that we want to
wait for the final bound volume. I understand that there is a 5-week
delay that has been requested in order that the appendix can be
printed, and we can wait 5 more weeks. I think the evidence is such.
The witnesses are here.
I recall in talking to a member of this committee that one of the
thangs that disturbed the minds of some — and rightfully so — was that
they were told that there was a John Doyle who had information de-
rogatory to the Governor. You have heard the information from Mr.
Doyle yourselves. You have had him before you. No appendix is going
to change anything that he will tell you or anything that you could
question him about.
During the course of the investigation, or during the course of this
matter, again a member of this committee indicated that this was a
representative, John !Mannix, and it was alleged he had damaging
comments to make relative to the Governor, and improprieties by the
Governor. Xow, you have heard from Mr. Mannix, and Mr. Heckman
has heard from him. Let the record show the letter: "Dear Mr. Hock-
man" — Mr. Mannix incidentally, is a member of the State Leasing
Commission — "This is to confirm my complete support and endorse-
ment of the joint statement issued by the Leasing Committee and Sen-
ator Lowell "VYeicker. After reviewing the facts at this time I would
support the nomination of Governor Meskill for the Federal bench
based on the investigation of the leasing practices ot the State of
Connecticut. I know this information will be of service to you."
47-704—75 T
92
Yes ; it is. Just like Mr. Doyle's information is personal. Just like
Dean Hopkins relative to his academic proficiency is personal. I am
not talking about the hit and run, out-of-state New York lawyers. I
am talking about those that have firsthand knowledge. This is what is
important.
If any member of the committee chooses to follow the American Bar
Association in their opinions by virtue of their standards as to who is
qualified or not, no argument. It is fair enough. That is your privilege.
But to insist on anything other than firsthand knowledge in the
appropriate forum and in the open does not do justice to M-hat I have
already stated is the greatest collection of civil libertarians in this
Nation. Now, if a committee comes here from the organization of the
city bar of New York and states that we are not here acting as the
Connecticut State Legislature and speaking for them, then what were
they doing? It wasn't their investigation. This is firsthand knowledge.
If you want firsthand knowledge, get that committee down here, not
some bar association group that is operating second and third hand.
^Yhat is it that brings this type of operation before this committee ?
As far as I am concerned, I will say again, whether it is that asso-
ciation, or whetlier it is the ABA. they are a trade association, they
are interested in their trade which happens to be the law.
All I am saying is, I think tlie time has come now to stop using the
leasing committee of the State of Connecticut as a surface reason for
Avhat miglit be philosophical or political differences.
Now, on down there. Plow many of you would take the time to go
back to your statement when somebody was spraying the landscape
with every possible type of accusation and stand in on a cause that
admittedly isn't popular? I have got the popular rating, he doesn't.
Every time I go to bat for him. for heaven's sake, I probably go down
a couple of points myself but I don't care; you gentlemen know me
well enough, on both sides of the aisle. I don't care Avhether a man is
Democrat. Republican. Liberal, or Conservative or what, if I am for
him. I am going to stand up for him. And I went back to Connecticut
and I spoke up on belialf of the Governor and I responded to this man
down there. Do you know what kind of man you are waiting for in
making vour judgments for Governor Meskill ? Here is a letter dated
April -30', 1974, to U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker. 342 Old Senate Office
Building. Washington. D.C. : "Dear Lowell : After reading the en-
closed"— these are comments on the leasing — "please hurrv' to appoint
Thomas as a Federal judge so that he can be indicted."
"Sincerel5^ Doc."
That is really great as far as testimony which this committee is
willing to evaluate and have stand up against the public record of the
Governor of the State of Connecticut.
I don't agree with Tom Meskill philosophicall3\ I owe him no po-
litical favors. We both made it here, and he up there.
But in conclusion, and this is the last comment I have prior to hear-
ing again the first-hand knowledge of people from the State of Con-
necticut who do relate to the Governor as Governor, as a human being,
as a lawyer, do I feel that those of us who took our law degrees and
instead of making a lot of money, or instead of going into the quiet
world of academia, decided upon a course that involved the rough
93
and tumble of politics, and the problems of people, do I think that we
are as good as a wealthy Wall Street lawyer and a professor on a cam-
pus. I sure do. That is really what is at issue here. And I refer not only
to those that are elected, but those that choose in the appointed capac-
ity to serve in government. I think there is a tremendous pool of talent
for our courts from this area which so many people look down their
noses at.
And so I, once again, Mr. Chairman, recommend to your committee
the nomination of Thomas jMeskill to be a judge of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. I think he will make a great judge. And I beg and
plead before this group that each one of us as defenders of the law take
a look at these traditional concepts which have been established so that
this matter can be decided as any other matter in the greatest possible
traditions of the Senate of the United States.
And I thank you very much.
Senator Burdick. Thank you very much, Senator.
I will give you as a word of explanation that I have three pages of
questions that I could have asked Mr. Doyle, but I thought it was
more or less understood in the committee that after February 1, we
would probably have some other witnesses, and rather than fire the
strawpile first I didn't ask the questions.
Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. This matter
started on September 17, 1974. Now I think one of the issues that is
before the American people as legislators — and I believe our past col-
league Senator Ervin was very much involved with it — is that any
of these matters be brought to a speedy conclusion. I am going to wait.
Please understand this, as far as any of you are concerned. All I have
asked for is an up or down vote. I will be glad to wait on the American
Bar Association and on this committee. I have got to. Until I feel
that the proper and the fair thing has been done by this man, I stay
with this man. And obviously I have deep concern over a matter that
was presented before your committee that started on September 17
and continues now into February and. on the schedule that you an-
nounced, will probably now continue into March. I can't saj that I
think that there is any further need to wait in that regard. I would
hope that as far as any of the succeeding witnesses are concerned, in-
cluding the Governor himself, if you have got something on your mind,
please 2:0 ahead and ask it, because as I said, I can deal with every-
thing that goes on in this room. I have faith in this room. But I can't
do it when it is wandering around in the shadows.
Senator Hruska. Senator Tunney.
Senator Tunney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Weicker. for your testimony.
I think that you understand that we all feel a very great sense of
obligation, not only to the Senate, to the processes of the Senate, but
also to the right oi Governor JMeskill to have a speedy resolution of
this issue one way or the other. I do not think that it is the chairman's
intention. I certainly know that it is not mine, to unduly delay these
proceedings.
The fact that we are faced with, of course, is that we have the presi-
dent-elect of the American Bar Association, representing the entire
bar association, testifying that an inquiry is now going on by the bar,
94
and they have asked for a delay until that inquiry can be completed.
The bar feels that it was impossible for them to have conducted the
inquiry earlier, because they said that the State of Connecticut had
not yet completed its investigation. As I understood the testimony of
INIr. Walsh, Connecticut was not looking at the culpability of any one
individual, or lack thereof, but was looking at the entire leasing pro-
cedure, and that was the reason that tliey felt that it was important
to get this delay so that they could make information available to us.
Now, for my own point of view, it would be my very sincere hope
that the American Bar Association's investigation demonstrates that
Governor Meskill had in no way any ethical improprieties. And I
knoAv I sincerely feel that. And I do not think that it is fair to even
suggest that there is evidence of these improprieties that is probative
now before this committee. But there have been, as you say, innuendoes.
There was one stern statement, apparently, by Senator Gunther which
indicated, perhaps ]:)utting it more kiudlv. a lack of judgment on the
part of Governor Meskill. And I think that in this day and age when
a prestigious private organization like the American Bar Association
asks for time to complete an investigation we should give it to them so
long as they are not being dilatory. And I have no reason to believe
that they are being dilatory.
As you know from the conversations that we have had, T respect
your judgment in feeling that Governor INIeskill is fully qualified in
oveiv way to be a member of the second circuit. I think that you also
realize that my own personal opinion as to the qualifications is that
a person's political career does not necessarily qualify him to sit on the
bencii. but that, particularly for the second circuit, somethin<r more
in the way of legal training or legal scholarship is required. That is
not in any way to denigrate a politician or a politician's ability to
serve as a jiidjre. It is simply to say that this, in and of itself, should
uot be a qualification. It is one of many.
So T hope that you don'r feel — and I don't sense from your state-
mets that yon do ferl — tliMt members of this committee are trying to
l)j'otrnct this liPaT'inu' when some synu)athy is shown to a T'cquest that
has been made by th(> American Bar Association to give them time to
complete their investiiration.
Senator "Wcickkr. Tf T may respond to that : first of all, let me say
this, because I think it deserves comment only because it is the type of
thing that has been going on in the background, and now that you and
T a'-e face to face T can make this statement. You and T are supposed to
have fisticuffs on the flooi' over Tom ^leskill. Thank you very much, the
only time I have beaten you is on tlie tennis court, and you probably
triink you can g"t me at some time in the future. But that is just typi-
<'al of the type of thing that has been going on here.
But let me make these conunents. I don't know about the judgment
of thp American Bar Association. Don't forget, their man that sat here,
Mr. Walsh, was the main pro))onent for both Hainsworth and Cars-
v.fll. I am not willinir to accept this pretentious judgment on the part
of tlie Ameriran Bar Association, certainly not as to Mr. Walsh.
Number two, I think the ABA is already dilator^'. They came to the
September hearinjrs, and then you went through a 3-month period.
A.nd obviously nothing has been done in the way of investigation dur-
ing that time. Except for a last minute telegram when there was a
95
possibility tliat the conimittoo niiirht vote, and they Avanted to o^et their
input to the conmiittee prior to its vote. And thus the release of the
telegram eA'en before T saw it.
Now, all I am sayino; is that there are appropriate bodies to make
certain jude^ments. The Connecticut Leasing Committee said their job
was the leasing practice of the State of Connecticut, it was not the in-
dividual guilt or innocence of the Governor, and to the extent that
they investigated the leasing practice there was no illegality so far as
the Governor is concerned. Your job is to judge from all sides, includ-
ing the opinion of the attorneys, as to the qualifications of this man to
be a judge. That is fair now.
You are not a court. Now if there is an illegality, something that
Avent against the law. that is not your job. That is not my job. That is
not the leasing committee's job. That all of a sudden becomes the job of
the appropriate law enforcement entities, the prosecutor's office, or
Avhat have you. Nothing like that is going on. That is the problem.
As far as the ABA is concerned, what is the nature of their investi-
gation? They have made their investigation relative to his legal quali-
fications. They don't think he has the necessary legal qualifications.
I know that you have been concerned on that basis. Fair enough.
No argument at all, John. But I don't know what they are investigat-
ing right now that they should properly be investigating. It seems to
me that whatever it is that they have been charged with in the past
they have discharged that responsibility, and anything else belongs
to an official body, not the American Bar Association. I just think it is
appauling to see lawyers — five of them from the city of New York
Bar Association — do a hit and run job legally. It goes against any-
thing that I have been taught as a lawyer, not first hand knowledge,
just a little dab here and a little dab there, and then appearing before
a Senate committee. That is disgraceful. I Avouldn't allow that as any
sort of a proper presentation.
So I am saying that I hope we can cret on with this matter. Some-
where there has to be an end. What if all of a sudden somebody came
up and says. Ave think Ave will continue the iuA-estigation of the leasing
practices of I'^TO, and so we will continue on.
May I just point out one thing. Your committee was promised
the report of the leasing committee December 1. That is when you
were promised the report. That didn't come to pass. I say, even as
to what people are commited to, that doesn't occur.
Senator Tunney. The chairman has stepped out for a moment. I
can't speak for anyone else. I do feel is that this committee should
act promptly. I think we ought to give a time certain to the Ameri-
can Bar Association by which to complete its study, and if they
haA^en't completed it at that time, it is too bad. it will not be con-
sidered. But this is going to be a committee judgment, it is going
to be up to a majority to decide what this committee Avants to do. So
that you understand Avhere I am on it. I haA^e made clear to you that
I am not going to try to unduly protract this hearing.
Senator Weicker. Absolutely. You gave that word long ago.
Absolutely.
Senator Tunnet. I stand on that. But if we giA^e the bar 3 or 4
weeks to come up with its report, and then be able to move up or
down, within the Aveek after that, the interest of justice will be serA'ed.
96
In all fairness to Governor Meskill, it is not right to have his name
considered and perhaps approved by the committee and the Senate
with the American Bar Association's investigation hanging out here
on the side unresolved. The Governor's record as a public servant is
sufficiently distinguished not to put that kind of a burden on him.
That would be the worse type of situation, because it would lead to
all kinds of potential innuendoes. The interests of j ustice does dictate
that we resolve the thing as quickly as possible and in the open. The
feeling is — from my own point of view, and I think from Senator
Burdick's point of view — that we ought to make a time definite for the
report of the ABA, and then consider that report in executive session,
and vote on the nomination one way or another, I know that that is
not totally satisfactory to you. I hope that you understand that it is
not done in any sense with a desire to delay the proceedings, but from a
desire to protect Governor Meskill and protect ourselves.
Senator Weicker. John, I have absolutely no question as to the fact
that you are dilligently pursuing this matter and trying to do it in the
fairest possible way, none whatsoever. 1 am sorry as to the tactics
exhibited by the ABA up to this point. I would make this comment
about them. I think they have been very deceiving in their tactics. I
hope your committee, and I apparently have this assurance, if they
have something, will give them the time to do it — they have had 4
months now, that is really quite enough, I think — and after that point
it becomes a waiting game as to who can outlast whom.
I have been asked to submit for the record, and I will now, because I
think it is important — we are trying to ascertain the whole truth —
the interview of Senator Gunther released in the public hearing of
December 13, 1974. I think it should be a part of your record so that
the members of the committee can see exactly what this man said on
December 13, 1974, some 6 months or so after he was of the opinion
that Governor ought to be indicted. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will
present it to your committee.
[The material referred to follows.]
Interview of Senator Gunther at Leasing Public Hearing of Dec. 13, 1974
Dice. Do you swear that the evidence that you give in this investigation to be
the truth, tlie whole truth, and nothing but the truth ... so help you God?
Gunther. I do.
Dice. Thank you. Will you please give us your full name and address.
Gunther. Senator George L. Gunther, 890 Judson Place, Stratford, Connecti-
cut. And if I may Mr. Chairman before I start, I've already asked you whether
or not at some stage of this proceeding that I would be very happy to go under
a polygraph . . . where you want to take and interrogate me relative to any
statements that I make here or in the process or anything after this ... I'd be
very happy to sit down and submit to the lie detector because I know that state-
ments have been made around here by various people . . . and it seems that we
have a new disease ... I call it "executive amnesia" . . . and apparently it's
spreading throughout the country because people have trouble remembering
things. And I woi-ld like very much to submit myself at any time, with your
Committee's approval and with my voluntarily doing this, to any interrogation
under those circumstances. And of course I think that it also might be a good
idea that any evidence to the contrary of anything I say . . . that those people
also submit to such a demonstration.
Dice. Thank you Senator Gunther. We'll note that for the record. I think that
for today it is sufficient that you testify under oath and we'll take your testimony
under oath today. Obviously you're here in response to our inquiry as to certain
97
knowledge you may have as to the Waterford Highway Garage lease. Could you
please tell us when you first learned of that lease and the sequence of events
that happened after you learned of that?
GuNTHER. If I might, and I may save all this business of going back and forth,
if I can give you sort of a running dialogue of my exposure ... of my first expo-
sure to it, the various events that took place ... I spent a lot of time last night
trying to get my dates together and if I can follow this rather than going all over
a 10 acre lot maybe I can keep some sense into this thing and the sequences in a
chronological runup of exactly how I was involved in it.
Dice. Well if you'll that . . . that's why I asked the question so you'd begin
when you first found out about it . . . and follow on with the events. If you stray
a lirtle bit I may ask you back, however. . . .
GuNTHER. Or interrupt me . . . and I hope that we can get back onto the track.
I've got a few notes that I can probably keep myself on. Because I'm known for
rambling a little bit and we could be here to 12 :00 o'clock tonight if you really
wanted to. Actually my first exposure to the Waterford or the Downes lease was
an anonymous telephone call sometime actually the latter part of the 1972 Ses-
sion when we were up here which would put it into an area of I'd say pretty
much maybe the middle of April. I had an anonymous telephone call and the
party on the phone said "Gunther you've got a big mouth when it comes to what
the Democrats are doing. How big a mouth have you got when it's your own party
and the Republicans doing the same thing?" I said "Try me." And with that the
phoner at that time gave me a complete detailed breakdown of the Downes lease
and I do have . . . my typed copy of that . . . which goes back at that time . . .
which gives a detailed breakdown . . . and you're welcome to have a copy of that
if it's going to help this proceeding . . . and it gives the breakdown that he gave
me . . . it's $563,000 for the construction work ; $266,000 for the site work ; $100,000
for contingency ; $36,000 for architect ; $26,000 Public Workers ; $22,000 Equip-
ment ; $22,000 Surveyors ; $1,350 ... in other words it was a detailed breakdown
of what was being proposed at that particular lease. Now I asked at that time
that the person identify themselves and they said that they would rather not and
that they would be keeping their eye on me and see just what I would do. It was
just about the next day, if I recall properly, that I saw Brian Gaffney in the hall
outside my office . . .
Shure. Is that a notation date. Dr. Gunther?
Gunther. No I'm sorry it isn't. I wish it was. I would have had less trouble
last night going through my diary to try and find out when it was.
LiEBERMAN. Senator, was that caller or voice anyone that you recognized in any
way?
Gunther. No, not at all. And I'm certain that they had made reference to pre-
vious leasing situations in the State that I had made public. I'd say that almost
assuredly they were the Ruby Cohen leases and that which I had come out and
been very critical of. But as far recognizing the voice ... no I'm sorry.
LiEBERMAN. Was that the last time that you heard from that caller?
Gunther. No in the interim there . . . somewhere in the paper, I believe
the New York Daily News had a little blow-up of the Ruby Cohen lease . . . and
they had a little press release. And I had the phone call come to me. And I had
nothing to do with that incidentally. But this showed in the press and I said
that this was old hat . . . that this was old news . . . and at that time the fellow
asked me if I was trying to be cute and was this something that I was feeding
out to the press? And I said "Absolutely not." I had no idea why. . . .
LiEBERMAN. Was this the same voice . . . this first call?
Gunther. Same voice hut it was quite apparent that whoever it was kept
their eye to the newspaper and also I'd say that in order to have this type of
detail would certainly have to be an in-department individual.
Lleberman. You've never found out who this was ?
Gunther. No I haven't. As I say, the next day out in front of my office Brian
Gaffney came by and I stopped him and I would appproximate that this time
as much ... as close as I can determine it . . . this was either late April or
early May. And I had a devil of a job trying to tie the exact time down because
I had to go to some positives and work back and figure time factors. At that
time. . . .
.Dice. This was 1972 yet?
Gunther. Yes this was 1972 and I'd say either late April or early May. I
showed Brian Gaffney the slip and asked him if he knew about this and he said
98
that he knew that his uncle was applying for a lease but that he would have
to check the figures. So he took the figures and ten minutes later he came back
up and said "yes, that's . . . it's as closely accurate as it could be" and that his
uncle was definitely applying for the lease and that those figures were for all
intents and purposes accurate. At that point I asked him to stop the signing
of these leases or at least go after this thing . . .
Dice. And asked who now?
GuNTHER. Brian Gaffney. I'm trying to get back to mv notes here . oh
one of the points that I uiemember with this is that he said when I asked him
about the lease ... he said "well this is the way that we do things."' And I '^aid
"No, this is the way that they do things."
Let me correct that. And at that point I said "No, that isn't the way that they
do. That's the way that we do it because the Republican Partv today controls
that particular dept, and ifs the same thing that the Democrats liave been doin«^ "'
Lexge. Senator. "'
GuNTHER. Yes.
Lenge. What was the first thing that you said to Brian Gaffnev when vou
encountered him in the hallway V
GuNTHER. I asked him to take a look at the slip and asked him if he knew
about this particular lease.
Lenge. Was that slip typed out from the previous day? Was that it?
GuNTHEB. Yes, I had taken it down in pencil on the phone and I had typed
that out . . . yes. That is not my original penciled version.
Lenge. And when you asked him to take a look ... did you give him any indi-
cation of what it pertained to at all?
GuKTHER. Oh of course. I mean . . . it's on there as a Frank Downes Garage
definitely. I ... I ... I certainly ... he knew it was on a leasing program.
And as far as the specific dialogue I remember some of the highlights. We're
going back a couple of years you know . . .
Lenge. Right. And did you give him your conclusion as the whole thing . . I
mean tell us more of the detail of the dialogue ...
GuNTHER. Not at that point when he went to check it. When he came back
and he said that "this is the way that they do it" and I said "this is the way
that we do it because it's the Republican Party." And I'm sure about the dialogue,
and I can't remember that specifically, but that I had been working against
these leases and opposing these leases as long as I knew about them.
Lenge. What was the main point that you were making to Brian Gaffney at
that point? Leave that impression with us.
GuNTHER. That it should be stopped. That they should not proceed with
Lknge. And did you tell him why specifically you felt it should be stopped.
GuNTHER. Well again I'm trying to be accurate for you.
Lenge. I understand that.
GuNTHER. I don't think that I si)ecifically said why it should be stopped. I
think that anybody with an ounce of brains knows ....
Lenge. No . . . no. Regardless of what you may think. The question is did you tell
him specifically why you believe it should be stopped? It's just a factual thing.
Gunther. I can't at that moment. Senator, .say that I specifically said that.
I think that in the record ...
Lenge. No. no. Don't be defensive about it. We just want the fact.
GuNTTiER. No, I'm not defensive. But I'd like to say to you yes I went over
everything and said that it was . . . you know . . . exactly . . . well it is a
prime case on what they shouldn't be doing in leasing.
Lenge. OK, fiine.
GuNTiiER. I mean pretty much for the record.
Dice. Why don't proceed on then Doctor. . . . Thank you Senator.
GuNTHER. OK, after I do remember him saying that he would look into this
lease. In other words, I opposed it and thought it should be stopped and he
said that he would look into it. Now in a day or so . . . and it could pit^sihly
have been even that day ... I called up the then Commissioner Kozlowski and
I asked him to check the figures. And I think that it'.<? interesting to note that
my typing did have the telephone number of Kozlowski right on the note that
T have here. And T asked him to check the figures. I wanted to know if those
figures were accurate as far as the leasing on that wns concerned. And he gave
me the assurance that they were basically exactly the figures that they were
working with. And I couldn't help but feel at that time that he had a little re.ser-
vation about this particular lease. And incidentally, the telephone call had al.so
99
made mention that there was another lease that had not . . . and incidentally the
telephone call had also made mention that there was another lease that had not
and I'm going back now to recall it . . . that there had been another lease
that was going to be in the works by the name of Tomasso.
Dice. What telephone call was this?
GuNTiiER. Thafs the original anonymous telephone caller . . . also made men-
tion but no details on the Tomasso lease.
Dice. But they did mention Tomasso?
GuisTHEB. They did mention it on the phone but without detail.
Lenge. Senator so that I can at least follow this in its chronology. Is it cor-
rect for us to draw . . . you said that you asked Brian Gaffney to stop this
lease, is that correct? And then are we to be left now with the impression that
he took the papers ... or took the notes . . . and said that he would look into it.
Did that leave you with the impression or are you asking us to draw the con-
clusion from that that at least he was going to consider your request?
GrNTiiEK. I would say that it was my impression that he would at least look into
it and whether or not he had any intentions of going into the request or not I
couldn't say. But at least . . .
Lenge. Well we'll draw that conclusion later. But at this point you asked him
to stop it. He took the papers and said that he was going to look into it.
GuNTHER. He didn't take any papers.
Lenge. I mean the notations.
GuNTHER. In other words he knew of my notations and his own checking on the
figures that more or less indicated that these were correct.
Lenge. Alright. And did you initiate the call to Comm. Kozlowski?
GuNTHER. Yes I called Kozlowski to check out and find out whether or not these
were accurate and also whether or not there had been any phone calls or anything
relating to GalTney coming through to him.
Lenge. Did you tell the Commissioner that you had had the conversation with
Gaffney?
Gunther. I believe that I did.
Lenge. All right.
Gunther. I'm almost certain that I would have. Commissioner Kozlowski is
from my district politically and I know him and I know the type of individual . . .
Lenge. Is it your present recollection that you did tell you made the request to
Gaffney?
Gunther. Yes I would say that.
Lenge. All right.
Gunther. I would say that it was my impression that he would at least look into
was important . . . and that is that this particular lease Kozlowski had implied
or stated that he had bypassed the kitty corp. set up as far as this particular
lease was concerned and had gone directly to Brian and to the top of the ticket to
clear this particular lease.
Dice. Okay now . . . this is what Kozlowski told you in the conversation where
you called Kozlowski . . . the first time that you called Kozlowski about this lease?
Gt'nther. That's in the early part of either May or the latter part of April. Yes.
Dice. .Tnst so we're all .sure we know what we're talking about. What did you
mean when you said that they "bypassed the kitty corp"?
GiNTHER. Well there was a process set up when Tom Meskill took office in this
State wherp he set up a young ... we call them the kitty corp because of their
age. And in order to have his finger on top of just about everything he had each
one of these young people assigned to a department or departments. He had
almost a constant overview of what was going on in the State of Connecticut in
practically every department because they had frequent meetings almost daily at
times I believe.
Dice. All right.
Gt?jther. Now the kitty corp. woxild have normally been involved.
Lenge. How would you know of the frequency of the meetings of the kitty
corp ?
Gunther. Well anybody who served up here during the 1971 Session and was in
leaderi<hip certainly had to know about the meetings.
Lenge. No but I mean that there were formal nieetina:s by the group?
Gunther. Yes. Frequent meetings with the "Kitty Corp" and the Governor.
Lenge. And what did Comm. Kozlow.ski mean to you . . . are you quoting him
accurately when you say that "He bypassed" . . . Are tho.se his words— "I by-
pas.sed the Kitty Corp"?
100
GuNTHEK. Okay. I wouldn't say that "bypassed" would be his word . . . but in
other words the implication of what he had said relative to the leases . . . and I
couldn't help but feel whether it was stated by him or whether it was my impres-
sion . . . that he had some great reservations personally on these leases and be-
cause of this he had gone directly to the leadership itself, whether you can imply
that ... I know definitely Gaffney . . . but I would say probably Meskill too.
Lenge. But more particularly I am more concerned with his words as distin-
guished from yours in response to that. "Bypassed" is your word?
GuNTHER. Yes, that's my kind of a word.
Lenge. All right. Fine thank you.
GuNTHER. Because I don't think that he . . . I'm a two syllable fellow.
Dice. Would you please go on about the conversation with Commissioner
Kozlowski.
GuNTHER. Talking about the next week to ten days and up until the second
week in May at various times ... I won't say every day . . . but on a frequent basis
I would call Kozlowski to find out if there was anything being done ... if there
was a hold being put on this . . . and each time he reported that there was no
change in the status of the leasing. And during one of these conversations I was
getting a little bit concerned about this business of getting sluffed off and I even
suggested that he might reject the lease itself because he did have the authority
under the policy of the State and at that time he kind of remarked that . . . you
know ... if you want your job ... in another words the implication here either
you do your job or you possibly get out. So that . . .
Dice. I'm not sure that I understand who is saying this and what they are
referring to.
GuNTHER. Alright. Kozlowski said that he liked his job at one point when I
suggested that he should reject this lease . . . because as far as I'm concerned this
type of lease . . . that it was wrong that this type of lease be continued in the
State of Connecticut. It had been going on for years with the Democratic Admin-
istration and I felt that we should put a stop to it. And his was just a simple
remark, and I don't know if this is 100% the way that he said it . . . but it was
"I like my job" ... to that degree.
Dice. All right. Do you want to proceed on then.
GuNTHEK. I'm trying to hold this time factor as close as I can calculate because
I did it all between 2 :00 o'clock yesterday afternoon and 2 :00 o'clock last evening.
But about the 10th of May I had a call from Brian Gaffney . . . this is at my home
oflSce. At that time he asked me again what were my intentions as to what I was
going to do about the leases and that kind of thing. And I told him that I wanted
to .see those kind of leases stopped and I said that as far as I was concerned it was
either a case of their being stopped or I would probably go to the press and lay it
out to the public. And I said that he could have stopped it and asked why he
didn't stop it and he said "I can't . . . I'm committed." And to be very candid with
you I was a little amazed that he could be committed to his own uncle to that
degree that he knew by nature I'm one of those that blows his mouth off and
usually goes through with anything that I say that I'm going to go through . . .
and to be committed to that degree was really an amazement to me.
Lenge. Did you a.sk him at that point why he left you with the impression that
he would try to do something about it when you first encountered him in the hall-
way and yon gave him the numbers and he said that he would look into it?
Gunther. No I didn't.
Lenge. Didn't it appear as though was some inconsistency that he would
give you the impression that he would do something about it and then later tell
you that "I'm committed."?
Gunther. AVell I think that I know Brian Gaffney well enough to not say that
I expected great things from him. But at thi.s point I felt that there was still a
chnnce until you hear that type of remark — that he as an individual would be
willing to take and step in and cut it off.
Lenge. So you didn't note the apparent . . . ?
Gunther. Not particularly . . . no.
Dice. Is that the full conversation that you had at that time?
Gunther. Very short conversation ... it was on the phone.
Dice. He called you?
Gttnther. He called me and I don't know from where but it was at my office
and my home. And within a day or so after that . . . yes go ahead, do you want
something?
101
LiEBERMAN. Scuator, I'm curious as to how you were able to place . . . you said
while describing the beginning of that conversation that you thought it was
about May 10, 1972.
GuNTHER. I just took the sequence of events and I started up in May when I
knew that I had a meeting and I worked back as much as I could in relative
time spans. And I'm not talking; in exact dates incidentally. The May 10th ... I
looked into my daily diary in my office and I see that at that time I was in my
olfice, which isn't too frequent during these periods, and I know that it was in an
evening. I know that I was there and I knew that it w-as relatively in the span
of time. It could be a day or two difference.
LiEBERMAN. A curious thing to say for the record is that our investigation of
this case shows that the letter of commitment from the State to Mr. Downes
went out on May 9th, which would have been the day before you believe the
phone call occured?
GuNTHER. Well I don't know about any coincidence about May 9th. I've heard
some figures that have been jjopped around about when a letter of commitment or
anything of that ... I knew nothing about May 9th being the date. I've heard
something about the first of April that the press has been calling me and been
wanting me to make statements and May 9th right at this moment I can say that
I've heard of it within the preliminary talk that we had before. But there was
no ^ea^^on that I picked the 10th except that that was one of the nights that I was
in my office. It was an office night and it was in that time frame which I con-
sidered to be what was going on.
LiEBERMAN. The other thing which is suggested by your recollection of the
dates is that your first contact with Mr. Gaffney about the lease were prior to
May 9th, which was the date of the commitment.
GuNTHER. Oh I'd definitely say that it was the latter part of April or the first
part of May.
LiEBERMAN. You feel confident that your initial attempts to stop this lease
did occur prior to the Letter of Commitment going out?
GuNTHER. I was a little surprised. Senator, that any commitments had gone
out because I got some details here later on which I'll show you ... at no time
with any conversation with any of the parties involved was I ever given the
impression that a Letter of Commitment or anything had been given to Frank
Downes for this particular lease. At no time because it would have been easy
enough to shut me off and send me on my way . . . and whichever way that would
have been incidentally . . . had they said "look we're committed. The letters in
and that's the end of it."
LiEBERMAN. Maybe that was what Brian Gaffney was trying to say when he
said "I'm committed."
GrxTiiER. Well maybe that's so. I couldn't say that that was part of the con-
versation. At no time up until June did I know ... or I might even go farther
than that ... to this minute the exact date but even with our investigation that
we were running in 1972 did I know the sequence of dates and I probably
wouldn't have checked it except for this hearing.
Dice. Then that's the sum and substance though of the conversation with Mr.
Gaffney on or about May 10th?
GuNTHER. That's right.
Dice. Then what happened next?
GuNTHER. For the next . . . I'm trying to . . . oh . . . either the next day
or within a day or so of that time I contacted John Doyle because he was
the liaison man between the Governor and the Legislature and I'll say that at
this given period of time I 'don't think that our relations down there were
as sweet and lovely as they were in the early part of 1971. We've had some
differences . . . not open differences . . . but we've had some differences. But I
asked John to set me up with a meeting with the Governor and that I wanted
to go over this lease itself and see whether we could get something from the
Governor or find out what his attitude was on it. At the time that I asked
Doyle to go in there I gave him the details and I said that there was no need
to go into a great harangue . . . "here's the details in case he doesn't know. And
I would like to meet with him and find out w^hether or not he subscribes to this
because as far as I'm concerned ole Harry Truman says it 'this is where the
buck stops and the executive can stop this type of thing and I think might have
been ;' . . . might."
102
Dice. Just so we're sure though of the date that you're talking about . . . the
date that you went to Mr. Doyle was on or about May 11th, 1972?
GuNTHER. Or a couple of days. I'm just saying please don't try to hold me to
the specific dates because I tried to go back two years and relate to specifics that
I knew of and areas that I could relate to that something was happening ... let
me put it that way.
Dice. All right. Let's go on then and see what other kinds of dates we have.
GuNTHER. All right. For the next week or so . . . and it might have been a
week to 10 days . . . anytime that I .saw John Doyle I said that I wanted to
get in and see the Governor and it was always the sluff off and I very frankly
thought I was being put off until I came in here and I'd say that it was on or
about the 18th or 19th of May . . . and again I can't be that accurate on these
dates but I'm just trying to tie the thing up.
Dice. Just so that we have one other fact on the record. Was it not true that in
1970-1971 you were the Senator who helped brief the Governor as to bills and
the like?
GuNTHER. In 1971 . . . yes.
Dice. In 1971.
GuNTHER. In 1971 Session I was the liason ... in fact I helped to set the
liason up between the Senate and the Hou.se in order to keep the Governor aware
of what was happening in the Legislature, interpreting bills, discussing bills and
trying to get his position on my part so as to not go back and lead our people
around by the nose but just to let them know whether the Governor was going to
oppose or veto or what have you.
Dice. All right. Now proceed on to the . . .
GuNTHER. There was almost daily meetings incidentally. In fact, during the
latter part of tbe 1971 Session it was practically 8 AM. every morning. So we
had a bit of a relationship there. On about the 18tb or 19th . . . again don't hold
me to the day ... it was when I was coming into the State Capitol here and John
Dovlc was walking down through the lobby and I said "John, I've wanted to
get in to see the Governor. And if I don't hear from him . . . and if I don't hear
from him pretty damn quick . . . I'm to go public and I'm going to the
press and I'm going to lay out the whole damn leasing thing on the Downes
lease." With that John told me to sit tight and "let me go in and see if the
Governor can't see you." At that point he set me up with an appointment with the
Governor and specifically to take and discuss the Downes situation.
Dice. When did he set it up for?
GuNTHER. He set it for May 23rd at 11 :30 AM.
Lenge. Senator . . . When you came into the Capitol and you encountered
John Doyle and you said that you were going to go public and he said that he'd
see what he could do about it . . . Did he give you the feeling . . . Did he turn
around and go in and arrange it immediately? When were you next . . .
GuNTHEU. Oh yes. No ... I think John ... he called me back . . .
Lenge. That same day?
GfNTHEu. Yes. John Doyle was very receptive to trying to get something into
the Governor's Office.
Lenge. Just the sequence. I wanted to know what the sequence was.
Guntiier. I'd say that by the latter part of the morning he had set up the
appointment . . . Okay.
Lenge. Okay fine.
Dice. Just for the record. Mr. Doyle at that time was the liaison between the
Governor's Ofiice and the . . .
GiNTiiER. Legislature . . . right. Now if you ask me how I knew about the
May l!3rd date I'm very happy to say that I have my desk calendar for 1972 and
I happen to save them. God knows why but maybe it's for things likt- this . . .
cuz I understand that I didn't have a meeting on that day. But if you care you're
welcome to the tear sheet and on the 23rd of May at 11 :30 AM . . . Governor
Meskill. And how I remember pretty well about the date and the reason for
the meeting is that at 12:00 PM I was over at the Sonesta meeting with the
Gaming Commissidu on what we were doing as fnr as the flat tracks and I got
an ('duration in the racing field. But I remembered after that I went from his
oflSce to that meeting and if you would like me to name the people at that meet-
ing I think that we can get some relationship here. But this is available to you.
I don't know if you want this for anything.
Lenge. You went from the Governor's OflBce to the Gaming Meeting. Were
there any other legislators there?
103
GuNTiiER. Yes I think that ... it was poorly attended by legislators because
they were very pleased to see me. I tiink that there was one or two legislators.
Lenge. Do you recollect who they were?
GUNTHER. No I can't. I'm sure that the record of that will probably show.
Lenge. Did you tell anyone at that point of your meeting?
GuNTHER. Nope. We didn't have time. In fact the legislators ate their dinner
and left. I stayed for the whole meeting . . . ah . . . ah. It was a dinner meet-
ing. You know how it goes.
Lenge. Yeh I know . . . (Laughter from audience). Things are lean sometimes.
GuNTiiER. It's the only way some of us could live.
Lenge. Did they have oysters and organic stew?
GuNTHER. No they didn't that day. (Laughter from audience)
Dice. Let's go back to the meeting with the Governor. If you'll describe from
the time that you went into the oflBce till the time you left for us please — what
he said and what you said and anyone that was present . . . please describe
that also.
GuNTHEu. Well first of all there was none present. There was just a meeting
between Tom Meskill and myself. And I said that I was going to be very brief.
I knew that I'd given the details . . .
Dice. By the way, who showed you into the room?
GuNTHER. I think .John Doyle took me down to the door by hand.
Lenge. You mean actually?
GUNTIIER. Not actually. I was being facetious. No I think John . . . I'm not
sure ... I think John ... I know his secretary Nitsky, I believe it was? . . .
was there . . . but 11 :30 I went in there and told him . , ,
Dice. Mr. Doyle didn't go in there?
GuNTHER. No. Nobody was in the room with us . . . unfortunately. I told him
that he had the details from John . . . that I had given John Doyle the details
that I had on the Downes lease and he knew my attitudes about it. And one of the
first things that he said to nn- after going over the lease a bit and my objection
and that this was the same old ball game . . .
Dice. Why don't you tell us what you told him as far as your objections were
. . . how you described the lease to him . . . Why don't you go into some details
if you can recall?
GuNTHER. I didn't go into any great detail because I know or I have known or
he should have known what the.se leases were all about.
Shure. Was it your impression Senator Gunther that when you got into that
meeting that the Governor was aware of why you were coming and the purpose?
Gunther. I'm quite sure that he knew why I was coming.
Shure. And what transpired to cause you to come to that conclusion?
Gunther. Well the fact that I had given all the details to John Doyle prior to
that meeting and that ... as far . . . I'm sure that Governor Meskill was well
aware of my attitudes toward this type of practice and I know damm right well
that he could feel the heat following me down the hall.
Shure. Well ... I appreciate his understanding of your attitudes but what
I'm more particularly asking you is whether or not the Governor gave you the
impression that he knew specifically when you arrived what you were coming to
talk to him about and that is the Downes lease?
Gunther. Well I . . . yes I think that he was well aware of it. I think there
had been enough prelude in the setting up of the meeting. I'm sure that John
Doyle is fully competent in carrying coals to Newscastle, as he's done many
times in the past on many issues.
Shure. Did he discuss with you initially what the status of that lease was at
the time ?
Gunther. No. He didn't say that it was already sewed up though ... I can
tell you that. At no time was I ever given the impression that that lease was
sewed up and that there was any commitments or any lease assigned or letters
of commitment or anything else.
Shure. Did he know about the details of the lease when you came in or did
you have to explain them to him?
Gunther. No we did not go into the details. Again . . .
Dice. That isn't the question. Did he know the details of the lease or did you
have to explain to him what the details of the lea.se were?
Gunther. No I don't recall going into the minute details of the lease itself.
As I say I think that I prefaced that well enough with anything that Doyle would
have to bring into him.
104
Dice. Were you under the impression though that he did know the details of
the lease when you were discussing it?
GuNTHEB. That he didn't know?
Dice. That he did?
GuNTHER. Oh . . . yes I'd say that he did know about the lease.
Dice. You didn't explain them to him but he knew the details of it?
GuNTHEB. I would say that. That would be my impression because he said
"What's wrong with it", which impressed the hell out of me. Senator . . . yes?
Lenge. Trying now to get a present recollection of just what occurred as you
went into the Executive Office. . . . After John Doyle literally took you by the
hand to the door and you walked in and you had whatever the amenities
were . . . presumably there were some . . . and . . .
GuNTHEB. I don't . . . I . . .
Lenge. I don't even want the details of that . . .
GuNTHEB. I said that joking on Doyle so don't . . .
Lenge. I understand. But after you had the initial greetings and you got to the
purpose of your visit to the best of your recollection who initiated the convera-
tion to the business at hand?
GuNTHER. I believe that I did.
Lenge. And do you recollect what you said to the best of your ability?
GUNTHEB. Not specifically. I knew that it was a general discussion . . . very
short . . . very brief . . . because I knew that he was in a hurry and so was I.
Lenge. What do you think that you said to him or at least the tenor of what
you said to him?
GuNTHEB. Well I think the tenor was just the attitude towards my attitude
towards leasing and that he was aware through the fact that we had feed in
through Doyle and that . . . that this was one of the leases that I would object
to. You know this is one of the biggees as far as I'm concerned . . . that the
build-lease type lease . . . there are a lot of leases that are probably very very
legitimate. I know they are legitimate. But this is a biggee . . .
Lenge. All right. But to this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, would I be
correct in drawing the conclusion that you went into his oflBce; you had some
initial conversation ; and then you got to the business in hand by stating your
general objection to the leasing situations and practice . . . Sort of a general
stoppage of. . . .
Gunther. I would say that that would be as fair as anything.
Lenge. Did you at any time specifically mention a specific lease and particu-
larly the Downes lease?
GuNTHEB. Oh yes. Well that was what we were talking about.
Lenge. All right. When did that come? Did you mention it by name?
Gunther. Oh of course . . . I'm sure I did.
Lenge. Well . . . you know . . .
GuNTHEB. As far as.
Lenge. No, no . . . let's take it nice and slow and easy. I mean we're really
interested in the facts . . .
Guntheb. Well that was the only lease. Look it, that's the only lease we were
really talking about even though the Tomasso lease could have been in the works
and we were aware that there was something in the works. We had no details
on the Tomasso lease. So to discuss anything other than the Downes lease you
know would be ridiculous.
Lenge. Is it fair for us to draw the conclusion that you did mention the Downes
lease specifically?
Gunther. Oh I'm certain I ... I ... by name . . . yes.
Dice. Why don't you go on Senator Gunther.
Gunther. Do vou want to ask something?
Dice. I think that we'd sort of like you to go in the sequence and then maybe
we'll come back to some of these things in detail.
Gunther. All rieht. After he had made the remark "what's wrong with it I
recalled to his attention that shortly after the 1970 Election, when he had won
the election, and I don't know if it was a day or two after that election, but it
was shortly after it, I went to his Headquarters in New Britain where I happened
to bump into him. And at that time I told Tommy Meskill that he could die 90
years old but that as the Governor of this State just give the people what they
were promised and I said "let's clean out that backroom" ... and I said "especially
105
that leasing program". And I was quite specific because I had been hung up on
that thing for quite some time. At that time he shook my hand and said "Doc
. . . we're going to do it." That's why some of these things stay in my mind. Oh,
then ... at that point he asked me what was he going to do if . . . and I believe
the word was "we" ... if we continue to process the lease and go through with
the lease? And he said "then what are you going to do?" And I told him I said
"Very frankly I'm going to go to the public and I'm going to go to the press and
I'm going to lay it right out on the deck." And at that point he said to me, "What
you going to do . . . the Democrats dirty work?" Very frankly my response to that
was "That was not the Democrats dirty work. That was the dirty work of the
Senator from the 21st District and it wasn't dirty work." I remember that quite
succinctly because I was a little bit amazed at that attitude. At that point he said
that he would look into the lease . . . Again another one of these things that he
would look into it. And again the impression, if we get into this thing, when he
says he would look into it I would surmise that meant that there might be an
attempt to stop that particular lease. I waited for a couple of days and I called
Kozlowski again to see if there was any change in the status of it ... if they had
done anything at all to take and stop that particular lease and that time it was
again negative that there was nothing being done to stop that lease. And I indi-
cated to him that I was just going to put it out on the deck. Now that would have
put it in just prior to the 31st of May when on . . . June 1st is when I drafted a
letter to Governor Meskill and I released it to the press relative to the Downes
lease and asking him to intervene at that point. I was hoping very frankly . . .
Dice. Do you have a copy of that letter for the Committee?
GuNTHER. Yes I do have copies of it. I don't ... I think my girl made some
copies and I don't know if I have them here. She's got a bunch of goodies for
you.
Shure. Senator Gunther ... at any point during your conversation with Gov-
ernor Meskill on the 23rd of May or in your subsequent conversation with Comm.
Kozlowski . . . did either of them indicate to you that the State had already
issued a Letter of Commitment and that in all likelihood the perspective land-
lord would probably have already commenced his construction or whatever it
was he was going to do?
Gunther. I have never at any meeting with anyone of them ever had anyone
of them ever make a statement that there was a letter of commitment or that the
thing still wasn't under negotiation and I've gotten a news release there, which
was a rebuttal I believe to my letter out. And I think you've got a copy of that
in your goody package there. This is on . . . frankly this was the same day that
I released and included in the body of the release of the letter that I had sent
to the Governor in the fifth paragraph they apparently went to DPW Commis-
sioner Ed. Kozlowski for a reaction to my letter and it was a UPI story and it
said DPW Commissioner Edward Kozlowski says he does not intend to reject
the Garage lease being negotiated. He maintains that the lease represents a
reasonable price etc. Hardly what I would consider a public statement at the
time but it was inconclusive that the . . . but you could go ahead and conclude
from that there was still a possibility that he might still be in the process of
negotiation in my book.
Lenge. Senator . . .
Gunther. Yes.
Lenge. You said that the Governor said to you "what are you going to do about
it?" . . . What do you believe he meant by "it"? ... or can you recollect what
sentence or what you had said to him just prior to that remark on his part?
Gunther. Well he asked me what I was going to do if they didn't stop the
lease and the "it" would be not stopping the lease.
Lenge. And are you referring specifically to this Downes lease.
Gunther. The Downes lease . . . yes.
Lenge. Did you . . . ?
Gunther. That's the only thing . . .
Lenge. Right, I understand. Do you expressly at this time have a recollection
that you expressly asked him to stop the Downes lease?
Gunther. Yes. That was the only one we had . . . that was considered . . .
Lenge. Well I'm trying to separate it from the general remarks . . . your gen-
Gunther. Well, Senator, I can't say that my attitude wouldn't be to stop all of
them.
106
Lenge. I'm sure that that was your attitude. My question is did you communi-
cate it to a specific?
GuKTHER. Well I really . . . Apparently there is some good reason that you
want. . . . All I can say is that I was there for a specific purpose and it was the
Downes lease. I believe record has it that I've opposed this type of build-lease
program ever since it's inception. And I don't know of what purpose there could
be with me not saying it specifically or making it generally for that matter. I
think I've had press releases out before and I could have possibly documented
them for you but I have attacked this particular practice.
Dice. Senator . . . Why don't we get on the record then what your objection
is to this ... or was ... to this particular lease. Did you tell the Governor
what your objection was to this specific lease?
GuNTHER. Well to start with ... if you want to know what my objection is . . .
I wouldn't give a damn if it was Brian Gaffney's uncle. That only compounds it
and makes it worse. I think the whole practice of these so-called "build-leases"
IS strictly a patronage rip-off in the State of Connecticut. I can never see the
length of time of investing the people's money into this type of a lease because
all they did was amortize somebody else's debt and given them a hell of a windfall.
So it didn't make any difference. It only amplified it that much more in my book,
the fact that the man was the Governor's uncle. And I think that if we ever got
Into . . .
Shure. You don't mean the Governor's uncle . . .
GuNTHEB. I'm sorry. Actually . . .
Lenge. Are you telliiig us Senator ... Is that what you told the Governor or is
this your present evaluation of the situation?
Gunther. Oh, I don't know if I had to be specific on this. And I don't know if
I was specific. I don't think that I was playing games with him. He certainly
knew it was Brian Gaffney's uncle. Christ ...
Lenge. Did you ever mention ... Do you recollect mentioning Brian Gaffney's
uncle expressly?
Gunther. Oh no . . . not ... to Tom Meskill?
Lenge. .lesus I think that's a little facetious to think that I would do it. I
mean those people are those close and they practically all go to bed together
and you want to know whether I mentioned his uncle ... I don't follow your
point you know. I'm not trying to be cute.
Lenge. It's very simple. If you did you did. And if you didn't you didn't. There
is no alternative purpose other than to get the facts.
Gunther. I know you don't mean that. But I'm trying to relate why in my
own mind because I'm quite sure that somewhere along the line somebody got
the message that it was Brian's uncle, whether it was mine or not.
Lenge. Well there are three things that you are suggesting . . . Whether it
was necessary because it was general knowledge. Secondly, that he would have
gotten the message . . . the general tenor of the conversation. And thirdly,
whether . . . and this is the point that I'm inquiring about . . . whether you
expressly mentioned Brian Gaffney's uncle, the Downes lease. And your recol-
lection seems to be that you didn't express that . . . you got the general feeling . . .
Gunther. I couldn't say that.
Lenge. All right.
Dice. Senator, just to go back. In your general objection to these leases . . .
had you discussed with the Governor before that you objected to any lease?
Gunther. I think it goes way back to my short discussion with him right after
the election, if you want to be specific. But I'm sure that he hasn't been living in
a vacuum.
Dice. Had you discussed other leases between the time that he made that
statement after getting elected and the time that you discussed this lease with
him about leasing by the State? What I gather is that you just don't like leasing
by the State and think that it is not a very good practice for the taxpayers.
Gunther. Well let's correct that a little bit. I'll say that there is some leasing
that I can justify. I think that anything between five years on a necessity
basis . . . yes. Maximum 10 years if you can justify it. But anything beyond
that I think that just plain common sense in the finance market and the cost
of money and that type of thing ... I think it's ludicrous to take and pay some-
body's building off and give them a windfall, which is what we were doing and
doing for years.
107
Dice. Okay. Now, had you discussed that with the Governor since he was
elected up until the May . . . ?
GuNTHER. Up until this one? No I don't believe that I had. This was the first
occasion. I probably was naive enough to think that maybe we weren't doing
it ... I probably would not have known.
Dice. Okay. Had you discussed it with Dept. of Public Works (DPW) at any
detail . . . did you discuss it with them ?
GuNTHEK. No I don't believe that I did. Well wait. I can go back to right after
the election ... in 1971 when we took over . . . when I say we I say the Repub-
lican Party . . . took over the State of Connecticut I had had conversation
with Kozlowski and he knew that I was working on these leases that had taken
place during the Democratic Administration when they wrote the book. And
he let me in, together with Rep. Wm. Smyth because Bill Smyth was getting
interested in this type of a field and trying to find out if there was any hanky
panky that we could hang on the bush on what had transpired. Now Kozlowski
let in to the Public Works Dept. and this was the early part of 1971 period. Well
we went in there and we went over the files to try and find ... I had some
specific files where I could smell a moiise but I couldn't take and really hang
it on them . . . and we wei*e looking to see if there was anything in the file . . .
and I have to compliment whoever handled those files . . . they sure kept a com-
plete file cuz they even had my press releases and everything else . . .
Dice. Did you discuss it with Comm. Kozlowski about the policy though?
Gunther. Oh . . . I'm sure . . . Yes, I'd have to say that. He'd have to know
about it to let us in there to go over it to find out if there had been any hanky
panky going there.
Dice. After the time that you talked to the Governor then ... in May of 1972
did you have occasion . . . you were running through a sequence of events . . .
maybe you ought to continue now.
Gunther. Now . . . where are we now?
Dice. I think we've finished the conversation . . .
Lenge. We're down to the Hilton.
Gunthee. [Laughs] . . . too bad we're not.
Groppo. Mr. Chairman . . . for my own satisfaction. Senator Gunther I would
like to go back when you went into the Governor'.« Ofiice . . . when you walked
in and I think you indicated earlier that you've had communication with the
Governor's Office during the 191 Session. When you went into the Governor's
Office did he say "Doc, sit down, stand up" . . . where was your position during
the conversation?
Gu.vTHER. I'll tell you . . . I'm pretty good usually on my feet and we were
standing and I wasn't there that long that I really needed to take a seat. And
I'll tell you ... I wasn't in an over friendly mood, especially after the dialogue.
I stood ... if you'd like to go down I'll go down and locate the place and show
you where we were standing. But no. It was going to have to be a quick meet-
ing . . as you know this . . . because both of us had obligations ... all right.
Dice. How long did the meeting last ?
Gunther. Oh 10-1-5 minutes maximum. I think 20 at the outside. I think I got in
just time enough to miss the dessert on the dinner.
Groppo. So you were in there for 1.5-20 minutes and I know that there were
a lot of questions thrown at yon. And maybe I'm a little slow at catching things.
So maybe for my own satisfaction. I ask the members of the Committee to let
the Senator give the sequences of . . . when you walked in and your conversation
until the time that you went out ... for my own personal satisfaction.
Gunther. You mean a blow by blow description two years after?
Groppo. .Tust the drift of the conversation. When you walked in there you said
"Governor . . .? .
Gunther. . . . how are you . . . how things going . . . and that type of thing?
Groppo. No what did you actually say about what you were burnt up about?
Gunther. Well I layed it right on. I said "you know I've given the details to
John Doyle. You know why I'm here. It's relative to this leasing business." And
I'm trying very hard to give you a blow by blow description and it's not easy. As
I sav.'at one point he said "whfit's wrong with it?" Now I'm sure there was dia-
logue relative to why we didn't like it and that type of thing. The point is . . .
Shure. What's wrong with what though? I can't
Gunther. What's wrong with the leasing procedures.
Shure. The lea.sing procedures.
47-704 — 73 8
108
GuNTHER. That's right. This is the policies themselves. And at that point that
we then got into my relating back to the election and what I considered to be a
promise from him that we were going to terminate that type of thing. And then
the dialogue relative to what was going to happen if they didn't stop it. And my
reaction there — that I was going to go public and lay it on the deck.
Shure. Well when did you shift from discussing leasing procedures to that
specific lease? I really think that this is very important Senator that \^e attend
to that.
GuNTHER. I don't think there was any shifting back and forth, Atty. Shure. l
can't ... I think that it was all wrapped up in one big ball. I'm not talking about
the specifics. The whole procedure itself I think was a matter of the subject that
we were there. It wasn't just a case, as I said before, ... if it wasn't the Downes
lease ... if it was Joe Jemok's lease for that matter ... I still would have been just
as mad about it. I think it only compounded it with the political connotations.
SHtJRE. Am I incorrect in understanding your testimony to be that shortly
after the election you ran into the Governor and expressed your concerns about
leasing and received an assurance that those type situations would not occur
again and that you assumed until your phone call in late April or early ... in late
March ... or early . . .
GuNTHER. In late April or early May of . . .
Shure. 1U72 . . . that in fact that was the case — that this was not a problem . . .
(inaudible section)
GuNTHER. Yes. I had no reason to suspect that we hadn't terminated. Frankly,
I had had enough to do with the Session and that that I was too damn busy . . .
pardon me ... to take and get into that. But that this is the first indicator that I
had that something was amiss.
Groppo. Okay. Senator, for my own satisfaction, now you're in there and dis-
cussing this and what else before you left for the Statler?
GuNTHER. Well I think that that was all there was to it. The fact that I said
that I would go public and laid it on the deck and left.
Groppo. At what point did he say to you . . . "What are you going to do? The
Democrat's dirty work."?
Shure. When did he say that?
Groppo. Just before you left?
GuNTHER. He asked me just before we terminated our conversation ... I think
that anything else would have been anti-climatic.
Groppo. Okay, thank you.
Dice. All right Senator. In your sequence of events, what happened after this
as far as this particular lease in your conversation with the Governor?
Gunther. Well I think . . . haven't I taken you through? . , . going back to
Kozlowski after to find out if anything took place after the conversation with
Governor Meskill . . . There was no action ... it was negative . . . that there was
not , . . apparently that there was not going to be any action taken against it
and I felt that it was about time to put it on the deck. And my whole purpose
for that was to stop the lease and I felt that if we could do it beforehand . . .
and again we get back to this business of the impression that I had whether or
not there had been commitments made that were irreversible and that type of
thing. At no time . . . even up till the time that I wrote that letter . . . would
I have believed that . . . you know . . . that there was any real commitments made
or I never would have wrote the letter. I would have just laid out the details.
So I think the tenor of my letter is to . . . and let me say this incidentally . . .
in my letter to Governor Meskill I didn't mention our meeting and one of the
reasons was I was kindly. I still thought that maybe somewhere along the line
he as an individual would take an action to stop the darn thing. Now as far as
I was concerned my main function was to see this practice terminated.
Shure. But Senator Gunther ... let me just ask you a couple of questions
now. There's been a great deal of conversation in the press and elsewhere about
meetings or alleged meetings and conversations and alleged conversations . . .
Did you meet with Governor on April 17, 1972?
Gunther. You know I've heard that date thrown around and again I've gone
through my log book and I don't know what time it was . . . but this is my
patient log book . . . and this is how my family eats . . . and on April 17th I
was in my office in the morning right up til noon . . . was it April?
Shure. April 17, 1972.
109
GuNTHEB. All right. Well I wouldn't have been out of my office before 12 :15
aud I was back in it at 5 :45 at uight. Now I cau't, and I've looked into my other
log to see if I had anything scheduled and I didn't. Now there's only one thing
that I can think of and it's that I could have had a meeting with him on . . . and
it seems a little late in the Session for that particular meeting , . . and that
was the time that Brian Gaffney and Collins came up to my leader and had
told him that Tom Meskill didn't want me as his liason there . . . and after almost
breaking up ... ah ... ah .. . over such a situation ... I took and called
Meskill's office . . . this was after we had had quite a conversation Aldon Ives
and I as to who we would get to replace me down there aud I can't tell you that
I was quite happy about the fact that I wouldn't go down there . . . and don't know
if this is the date but if it is . . . and the sequence of events that took place
that day were that we decided on putting Louie Rome in as the liason man.
And after we got through going over the fellows in the caucus that could do
the job I asked all the guys (or Aldon Ives) if the Gov. had told him that he
didn't want me aud he said "no" and I said "you don't mind if I check do you?"
So he laughed and he said go ahead. So I called down and got an emergency
appointment. I don't know if that's the date because I went down and wanted to
know if he had sent his rover boys iipstairs to take and . . . ah . . .
Shure. Was the meeting concerning your termination as liason prior to your
May 23rd meeting concerning this lease?
GUNTHER. Oh yes.
Shure. So there's no question that it was prior?
GuNTHEB. There's no question. You know it seems that the April 16th or 17th
would have been a little late in the session. I'm not sure. I'm trying to relate
what if anything could have ocurred on that date . . .
Shure. But your certain . , .
GuNTHER. Because we were having very infrequent meetings.
Shure. Okay. But you're certain at this point that the May 2- . . . that
that April 17th meeting ... if there was one . . . was not for purposes of
discussing the Downes lease?
Gunther. It preceded even my telephone call . . . I'm positive of that.
Shube. Let me restate the question then ... I think it's an important ques-
tion. . . . You're certain though that the meeting of April 17th, if there was such
a meeting, was not for the purpose of discussing the Downes lease?
Gunther. Yes, that's right.
Shure. And you're certain that the discussion of the Downes lease occurred
on May 23rd or at least within . . . ?
Gunther. Yes, that's right.
Shube. Now. You wrote a letter on June 1st, 1972 which apparently was . . .
well let me go back to May 23rd. At that meeting the Governor knew you well
enough I would take it to realize that if you said that you were going to go
public with this if the lease weren't stopped . . . that he could be pretty sure
that you would?
Guntheb. I would imagine that he would.
Shure. All right. And your understanding is that despite that knowledge . . .
that information that you gave the Governor . . . that to your understanding
nothing was done by having contacted Comm. Kozlowski?
Guntheb. Yes. I'll tell you very frankly, I feel sorry for Kozlowski and I
think that the man didn't want to process those leases. My impression . . . and
I know Ed. Kozlowski ... I know him to be an honest and honorable guy . . .
Shure. Well he's been here and he's expressed his feeling about that lease.
Guntheb. Just so . . . that. . . .
Shutre. You're not imputing his integrity.
Gunther. Well . . . I'm not trying to indite him for what he did. I think
that too many the times the ball game up here goes on and on because that's
the way they do it.
Shube. All right. Let me follow through then now. If you did meet with the
Governor on May 23rd and you did tell him for all intents and purposes that
you were going to go public and you in fact thereafter did go public on
June 1st ... I would have to ask you why in that letter of June 1st you wrote
in the third paragraph "A day or two after the news story a small item
appeared in the newspaper indicating that you were going to look into this
matter of leasing. I would like to call to your attention some information relative
no
to leasing pending in the State that I feel fits into the same policy and should
be stopped. I understand that a Frank Downes is presently negotiating with the
Public Works Dept. of the State of Conn, to build and lease a State highway
garage on Route 85 in Waterford." If in fact you had conducted this conversation
with the Governor on the 23rd of May and you had in fact told him that you
were going to go public with respect to that conversation and the action that
you were calling for . . . why did you phrase your letter in such a way as to
state that you were bringing it to the Governor's attention as though for the
first time?
[Tape 147PH begins.]
GuNTHER. I said before that I was being kindly towards the man and the only
way to get the heat to the meat would have been to give this to the press and I
think that you'll find out in the press release . . . unfortunately I put it out and he
didn't get a chance to read it before he got chance . . . before he was asked to
react. This was for press consumption. I don't think that there's any guy in the
room politically that if he wants to get something out and hit the deck you lay
it out.
Shure. But would you have hit the deck even more substantially if you had
said to him . . . "Governor as I advised you on May 23rd . . . it's come to my
attention . . . you've taken no attion so I'm now advising you in writing." '.■'
GuNTHER. Let me say this. I am more often than not more or less categorized
as a pretty rotten type maverick when it comes to things. But it just shows you
that I'm totally rotten because as you say . . . yes I think it would have had
more impact . . . and I can say that there was story that might have been written
two days after that would have laid him out on this and I stopped it because
what I had said to a particular press man had been in confidence . . . and he
had written a story and I asked him to delete It.
Shure. All right. Senator Gunther, again, based on press reports and so that we
can get everything as clear as possible for the record and for this investigation
. . . there have been ... I myself heard a report on the radio coming up this
morning that you have partially confirmed and that was your offer for a poly-
graph test and the other thing that I had heard was that you had indicated to
the press that there were three people who could substantiate your story. You've
indicated that there were no other persons present at the meeting ... is that
correct?
Gunther. That's correct . . . now . . . alright ... go ahead ask.
Shure. Well . . . why don't you go ahead and say . . . whatever you want to
say . . .
Gunther. Well I have had people who have come forward and say to me that
I have talked to . . . close to if not the very same day when I had my meeting
with meeting . . . and related to them exactly what had happened in the Gov-
ernor's office. It's hearsay. It was ... I say it's a little relevant that way . . .
Now one of the parties that I can actually take and even relate to that could
possibly substantiate my involvement would be your own Deputy Counsel here
. . . because your Deputy Coimsel was one of the men that was involved in the
1972 Sept. Hearing that we had when Frank Downes came in . . . did a lot of
the ground work ... a lot of the background work. And I think that you can
lind out tliat I gave quite a bit of input to . . . I'll foul up your name if I say
it . . . but your Deputy Counsel here . . .
Shure. Altschuler . . .
Gunther. Altschuler . . .
Shure. You have to be Jewish to . . .
Gunther. A good German name like that I should have been able to pronounce
. . . but . . . ah . . . but no ... I think that he can relate many of the things
that I've .said here as part of his preliminary investigation into the Downes'
lease. I'm very unhappy, incidentally, that in 1972 we didn't continue. That was
the icebreaker . . . and we should have gone from that . . . and we wouldn't
have had half of the things that ...
Shure. Do I understand that . . . that . . . essentially . . . and this is not to
denigrate that sort of evidence . . .
Gunther. What did you say? [Laughter.]
Shure. It's not to belittle that sort of evidence . . . But do I understand
Senator Gunther then that persons who you were referring to as persons who
could substantiate basically your meeting with the Governor were people who
you told of that meeting . . . contemporaneous . . . which as we now know
means 'at the same time or approximately the same time as the . . .'
Ill
GcNTHEB. I'm sure glad that you're here as an interpreter. I'd have a hell of
a job otherwise . . . (laughter from the audience) . . . Yes that's true . . .
These people . . . again they were not privy to it. They were privy only after the
fact and by virtue of the fact that I had discussed it with them rather freely.
Lenge. Who were they Senator? . . . other than Mr. Altschuler?
GuNTHER. Well all right. There was a Phil Smith a young reporter who used to
drive back and forth with me. He lives in my hometown and he incidentally
had written a story which I , . . maybe I shouldn't have done it ... we would
have been in the same category had I put more into the letter . . . maybe we
would have had more heat to it. But he had written a story and I felt that that
had been said in confidence and he deleted it.
Leitge. Who was the third person?
GuNTHEK. The third person is Evon Kochey.
Lenge. And will you . . . ah . . , pardon? . . . would you Identify . . .
GuNTHER. I could probably get some more people if you'd like because . . .
Lenge. No . . . No . . . We're not trying to build an inventory of people. It's
just that we're interested . . .
GuNTHEB. I'm not trying to involve these people either because it is . . .
Lenge. No that's not the question. Would you identify Evon Kochey?
GrNTHER. Evon Kockey has been a lobbyist for the Common Cause primarily
lip here. I believe that she's had other areas that she has worked in . . .
Lbnge. All right . . . would you . . .
Dice. Senator ... I think it's important though that he identify when he told
these people of this . . .
Lenge. Well that's the next one . . . Would you identify . . . would you
state in relationship to the time of May 23rd when you had the conversation with
Phil Smith?
GuNTHEB. Well I would say that it would either be the 24th or the 25th . . .
Lenge. And when would you say was the date on which you spoke to Evon
Kochey?
GuNTHEB. On the same relative day . . .
Lenge. 24th or 25th . . .
GrNTHER. With Altschuler . . . with the attorney here ... I believe it was a
little later than that ... it was going back to the summer.
Lenge. Did you tell any of those three persons anything other than what
you've already told the Committee this morning?
GrNTHER. No. I can't recall.
Lenge. So the substance of the communication was essentially what you've
said to the Committee?
GrNTHEB. That's right.
Lenge. All right.
Dice. Senator . . . Did you ever talk to the Governor any other time than the
one you've described about leasing in Connecticut ... or any specific lease?
GrNTHEB. No. I'd say after this that things were quite cool between the two
of us.
Dice. All right. Are there questions from the members of the Committee?
Lenge. Is the Senator finished?
GUNTHER. It's up to yOU.
Lenge. I mean . . . you've finished your chronology?
GrNTHEB. Well I've brought you right up to the date that ... I can't . . .
yes ... up to beyond Kozlowski and that ... I brought to your attention the
UPI story in June of 1972 that as far as I'm concerned you've got that.
Lenge. Did you take this up with any of your colleagues in the circle at any
time?
GrNTHER. When you say "take it up" . . . what do you?
Lenge. I mean specifically the fact that you had been to the Governor's office
or . . . were they among any of the people . . . not necessarily the day after or
any . . .
GrNTHEB. The only thing is ... I can say to you Senator I've di-scussed this
very freely with many people . . . the whole leasing thing. I've never hedged on
this . . .
Lenge. No . . . no . . . We're not questioning that . . .
GrNTHEB. No. I'm trying to recall . . . specifically . . . like I'll say even Sen.
Caldwell who is on the other side of the fence was just discussing with me the
other day . . . and he said "my God you certainly told me enough of what was
112
going on if there is any question." . . . So . . . But I don't want to be a name
dropper. I could probably go on and mention dozens of i)eople that I've discussed
this with . , . you see?
Lenge. I mean I thiuli it's pretty clear that you've indicated what your records
disclose, as well as your own present recollection . . . that you haven't . . .
that however it came to be an appointment was arranged and you had a conversa-
tion with the Governor. You've told us what it is and all we're asking now
is . . . and you've supplied the information . . . contemporaneous in time with
that meeting with whom you had discussions. And you've given us three and now
possibly a fourth . . . Senator Caldwell.
GuNTHER. I've even discussed it with Senator Weicker.
Lenge. When did you discuss it with Senator Weicker?
GuNTHER. Way back in 1972.
Lenge. W^hen in 1972 ?
GuNTHER. Well ... it would be after the leasing. Now, if you want a specific . . .
I don't know. But this I can back up with my wife's . . .
Lenge. What did you tell Senator Weicker?
GuNTHER. I told him that they . . . meaning Meskill and Gaffney . . were
carrying on the same old ball game that the Democrats had written the book on
and that if these people ... if somebody didn't stop them . . . that they were
going to ruin the Republican Party.
Lenge. All right. And what was his response to that?
GuNTHER. Well I don't know what you'd call response. He was blase maybe . . .
if that's it. I don't . . .
Lenge. He didn't think it was very important?
GuNTHER. He didn't go up through the ceiling and go out on his white horse and
say God we're going to stop them Doc ... I can tell you that. But he's
aware . . .
Lenge. But what . . . did he condone it? Or did he . . .?
GuNTHER. I don't think that he condoned it. I think . . . he's been up here . . .
he know the ball game . . .
Lenge. He just shrugged his shoulders?
Gunther. Pardon?
Lenge. Would you say that he just shrugged his shoulders?
Gunther. No I think he was disgusted with the conversation. But I don't think
he pursued it.
Lenge. Did you mention the Gaffney-Downes situation?
Gunther. I mentioned the whole ball game and when I say that . . .
Lenge. Did you mention that you had talked to the Governor about it?
Gunther. That I had talked to the Governor? . . . Yes, I'm almost certain
that . . .
Lenge. You told the Senator that you had talked to the Governor?
Gunther. Yes Sir . . .
Lenge. When do you pinpoint this conversation ?
Gunther. Between 2 :00 o'clock yesterday afternoon and 2 :00 o'clock this
morning I was scrounging. Whether I can go back and get some dates ... I was
in Washington . . .
Lenge. No . . . no . . . We're not interested in the minutiae of your recollections.
Just relate to whether or not . . .
Gunther. You know you're as bad as Shure. . . .
Lenge. Well . . . just relate it to whether it was before or after May 23rd?
Gunther. Oh it would have to be after May 23rd.
Lenge. It was after May 23rd?
Gunther. Certainly.
Lenge. How soon after?
Gunther. Now you're asking me to . . .
Lenge. All right. If you can recollect. If .vou can't . . . you can't.
Gunther. I can't recollect the specific time . . . you know . . . because I was
very disturbed over what . . .
Lenge. Where did you meet Senator Weicker?
Gunth?:r. Oh in Washington. When I go down there we make the rounds and
shake hands and talk to the boys but . . .
Lej^ge. Not the girls?
Gunther. No I had my wife with me ... ha ... ha ... ha (Laughter from the
audience)
113
Lenqe. Okay . . . anyway . . . What did you tell the Senator and who brought
it up?
GuNTHEB. Well I think it was just a general ... I would probably have gone
out of my way if I really wanted to relate to you . . . that I probably went out of
my way to take and bring it to their attention because I was sincerely concerned
about what these people would do to the Republican Party. I think . . . you know
... the 20-20 vision of hindsight in this ... I think that we've seen it. But . . .
Lenge. All right. I think that we've covered these.
Dice. Are there other questions from members of the Committee?
If not, Senator Gunther . . .
Groppo. Mr. Chairman . . .
Dice. Rep. Groppo . . . I'm sorry . . .
Groppo. Senator . . . going back to your visit to Kozlowski's office with a
Rep. Smvth was it?
Gunther. Yeh . . . This is the early part of 1971. It was in the evening after
the place was closed up. We were let in by Kozlowski because he knew of my
interest ... if I can put that in quotes ... on the leasing programs of the
State . . . and I was witch hunting if you want to be technical. I wanted to go
in there and get that file and find out if there were other areas that I could
find that we might be able to expose this practice as being a bad one.
Groppo. Did you find any?
Gunther. Not a damn thing. I say the files in there are excellent. They even
have some of my press releases and some of my letters in the files . . . It was
interesting to read over some of my letters. No we did not find anything addi-
tional to what I had already been involved in with the other leases that go back
a few years ago.
Groppo. You were looking for leases prior to 1970? You were going way back . . .
Gunther. I was looking for anything I could find^ to be honest with you. And
as I say, the abusive part of the leasing practices ... no question were the build-
lease in my book. In other words, I don't think that that could ever be justified.
I think the general leasing program you can justify if you have an emergency and
you need the room and that type of thing . . . you can justify a temporary type
thing. But this practice of build-leasing and giving letters of commitments and
having them financed 100% to 140% of the cost of the building and that type
of thing ... I don't think that that can ever be justified in my mind.
Groppo. Were you aware that there was in existence ... a Committee ... of
um . . .
Gunther. The Public Works . . .
Groppo. I mean the Public Works that scrutinized all of the leasing and that
that Committee was dis.solved . . .
Gunther. We abolished it. And I helped to . . . uh . . . because I think if you've
gotten any of the stuff that I have given you . . . you have a letter there on
July 12th . . . this is after the current thing that we've been talking about and I
was trying to get some other information from the Commissioner and at this time
I think all doors were closed to me as far ns sticking my nose in anywhere and
getting any reaction. And I wrote him a letter . . . and you'll note on the second
question that I make at the bottom . . . "what was the date of the Citizens Ad-
visory Counsel on Public Works, who was in attendance and what was the vote
on this counsel?" If you check into that Counsel you'll find out that our boys
carry it on after your boys. What they used to do is that Counsel would meet
over the telephone 90% of the time. They'd poll them ! And yet the law was being
violated by virtue that the law said that they should meet. And a meeting over
a telephone certainly couldn't be construed . . .
Groppo. Yeh ... we understand . . .
Gunther. It was a useless Committee. And very frankly it was being abused.
And I for one was for wiping it out. Let me say this ... if this is going to give
you any help on this thing ... I now have submitted a bill to set up a leasing
committee that would go along on this guideline. But really that would put some
teeth into that Committee and have a complete inventory . . . having them . . .
I ought to plug my bill here . . . maybe I could get some support if I have . . .
Groppo. If it's a good bill I'll support It Senator.
Gunther. Well it's In there . . . the proposal is in to take and come up with a
Committee ... a leasing specifically. This committee did not function. It never
functioned the Democrats . . . maybe I should say It did function. It functioned
114
In sort of an absentee sort functioning . . . because they just didn't call them
together.
Groppo. But ... in your :,'oing through the file.s you didn't find any wrong-
doing in any of the leases?
Gu.NTHER. I didn't. Let me say I spent one evening there . . . probably .'several
hours and I tried to go by name as to areas that I might suspect . . . because of
let's say political "inness" . . . that's a new word for you.
Lenge. Could you explain that word for us ?
Groppo. Your getting even with the counsel . . . (laughter)
GuNTHER. In other words if any of the boys in the baclv room are up at top
of the file . . . you know . . .
IvENGE. Mr. Chairman.
Dick. Senator Lenge.
LicxGE. Stnator Gunthcr . . . you tf>kl tlio Conimittcc that none was present
at the time that you confered with Gov. Meskill. Who was present when you
confered with Comm. Kozlowski?
GuNTHER. Nobody. Oh . . . wait a minute. Under what circumstance? You
mean when we went in to look at the files?
Lenge. That or anything previous . . .
GrNTHER. For that Rep. Wni. Smyth was with me.
Lexge. All right. And what about your prior conversation with him?
Gu.xTHER. No . . . most of the conversations that I had had with Kozlowski
were over the phone. Now you're talking prior to tlie leasing act?
Lexge. Right prior . . . whatever those contacts were they were either on the
phone . . .
Gr>"TiTEn. All right . . . and you're talking about up to this point . . .?
Lenge. Right.
GuNTHER. Okay.
Lenge. All right. There are reports circulated that you claim to have been
threatened for releasing ... is that correct?
GuNTHER. Now we're into something else. Now . . .
Lenge. Well is it correct ?
GuNTHER. Yes . . . I . . . Do you want me to relate that?
Lenge. Were you in fact threatened?
GuNTHER. Well ... it was a threat . . .
Dice. Senator . . . just a minute . . . Does this apply to the Downes lease now?
Does this relate to the Downes lease in any way or is this just general
conversation?
Gunther. Well it relates to the investigation which includes the Downes . . .
which was going to be conducted on Sept. Ttli.
Dice. All right. So the Sept. 7th, 1972 investigation was and did include the
Downes ... So what you're about to relate has a bearing on the Downes Lease.
Because we could be here all day about extraneous conversations and so if it has
something to do with that . . . fine . . .
Gunther. I don't really mind. Anyway.
Dice. Well I'm sure that we're going to ask you to discuss a number of .vour
pieces of information with the .staff. And we may go into those further. But I
think that at the present time though we interested in anything that has to do
with tlie Downes lease, which is what we" re holding the Public Hearing on.
Gunther. All right. Let me relate . . . and . . . and it pains me a bit in this
because there are people involved which were rather naive and probably
even . . . well I don't want to use those five or six lettered words. But anyways
on or about ... it was either August 25th or Sept. 1st , . . it was Friday . . .
that's how I remember it . . . the then Town Chairman of my town had called
me . . . the Republican Town Chairman . . . and told me that be wanted to
talk to me . . . that .'something very important had come up . . . and that he
seriously wanted to sit down and talk to me. And I had him come over after my
office hours were over. And he sat down and he said "Frankly Doc, I've had a
call from upstate" . . . not identifying anybody ... at no time did he identify
the caller and he says "that this person told him that if I didn't lay off the
leases that they would take and expose me and I would be ruined politically and
professionally." And at that particular time I .says "yes". And he was a little
Itit . . . he said I'm n little bit disturbed with you ... he said "What do you
mean yes?" And I said "Well .von want me to react!" And I think with the cam-
eras and the press here I couldn't react in the same language that I normally
115
would use iu that situation . . . but you can till in all the explicits deleted that
you want but it amounted to a go to hell and that as far as I was concerned
I didn't know of anything that they would have on me. And that as far as I
was concerned I would go a step further . . . that if they had something on me
I would arrange a press conference up here in the Capitol for them so that they
could get full State coverage on whatever this great expose of mine was going
to be and I said "and when they get through tell them to hold onto their head
because 1 was going to blow it off because I don't know what it is.''
Lenge. Did you know whom you were talking about and who's they?
GuNTiiEK. 1 ... No ... I don't know who . . . they were never identified . . .
the caller ... it just so happens . . , and again I can only relate that maybe
the impact of that shouldn't have been very great on me because my Town
Chairman Is a frequent golf buddy with both Brian GafEney and Governor Mes-
kill. So that ... if you don't mind my saying ... I waited a little bit on that
type of thing becaiise some of the arm twisting that I've seen around here . . .
This wasn't surprising at all to me.
Dice. Senator . . . ?
GuNTHER. But none the less it was that type of thing . . . Yes?
Dice. Can you get down to how you relate this to the Downes lease?
GuxTiiEK Oh well . . . then . . . well I'll try to be detailed to you . . . those details
that I cm remember ... Ah ... at that point the Chairman left and at 5 :00 o'clock
that night I had a telephone call asking me if I would take and sit down with he
and Commissioner Kozlowski . . . that they wanted to discuss the leasing process
program and that tyi)e of thing. At that time I told them "No, it's anti-climatic
. . . that anything I had to say . . . that I had said it and that I could see no
benetir in discussing it in froTit of him or . . . you know ... in any way, phape. or
manner." He asked me to think about it over the weekend and on that Monday
. . . and I'm not that sure about dates . . . but I'm sure that on the Monday
after two days I had a telephone call from Rep. Wni. Smyth and he asked me if
I would take and sit down and I said "Any legislator that wants to sit down . . .
if this is a courtesy to you . . . yes . . . but that I couldn't see any sense in it."
I said "I think it's ridiculous but if you want it we'll do it." I believe that it
was the Tuesday after that . . . and this is prior to the Leasing Investigation
. . . that we did meet . . . the four of us ... in the ... in my office — 317 . . .
and we discussed . . . and incidentally I covered that from top to bottom as
I've done today with you people ... I covered ... I started from the beginning
and gave every detail because those two people had asked to take and have me
with the Commissioner and I felt that I wanted to have them have the full
story .so that they'd know it . . . Not that I would ever anticipate that I would
be sitting up here in front of you people in this type of investigation. But those
people heard the whole story and frankly the only reason that I think that
meeting was desirable was the fact that I think Ed. Kozlowski was very con-
cerned over what I might do at the hearing that we were going to have on
Sept. 7th. And I know that he was concerned and I told him that if he answered
the questions honestly I wouldn't go heavy on him. And I believe that at that
hearing I think we got honest reactions and I think that was the main impact
of that particular meeting. But the preliminary of that was I think a stupid stunt.
Lenge. But so far as the threat is concerned delivered by the Chairman . . .
there's no way for this Committee to conclude that it comes from anyone that we
can tie it to . . . and obviously we can draw no conclusions with it other than the
fact that your Chairman delivered some kind of a message to you?
GrNTHFR. Except . . . Let me ask you ... If you took the average politician and
sat him down and he had a message like that . . .
Lexgr. But I'm talking . . . but
GfNTHER. Do you think it would have any impact?
Lenge. But we're not going to conjecture Senator and we can't ... I mean so
far as . . . I'm speaking for myself ... I can't .speak for other members ... I
listened to you and I can't draw a conclusion that that emanated from any par-
ticular per.son or persons that we can identify.
Gi-XTHER. All right. That's ... I concur.
Lenge. And it may have only emanated from the Town Chairman . . .
GuNTHER. It's possible . . .
Lenge. Ro that we don't want to get in the realm of speculation and conjec-
ture. Alright . . . thank you very much.
116
Dice. Are there other questions by members of the Committee? If not . . .
Senator do you have anything else which specifically relates to the Downes lease?
GuNTHEB. Not specifically.
Dick. All right. Well then we will take a temporary recess of the Committee
now. We want to thank you for coming here. And we have other business to con-
duct . . . but we appreciate your coining here and discussing.
GuNTHER. Let me say in closing . . . I'm still very serious ... if there's any
question as to the dates and places and that type of thing I would be very happy
to submit to that polygraph ...
Dice. Senator . . . And I hope that you'll keep your material available . . .
and make it available to our staff and discuss with our staff any other informa-
tion that you have concerning the leasing or the leasing policies of the State . . .
Thank you very much.
Senator Tunney. Thank you very much, Senator Weicker. I really
appreciate your bemg here.
Our next witness will be Dan Lufkin, former commissioner of the
Connecticut Environmental Protection Agency.
TESTIMONY OF DAN LUFKIN, FORMER CONNECTICUT COMMIS-
SIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Lufkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I asked to come and testify today. I was not asked to come. I wanted
to come down.
I want to testify, Mr. Chairman, on two of the three areas of in-
terest suggested by the ABA, the qualifications of Governor Meskill,
and his integrity as it relates to the cloud produced by the leasing
investigation.
Donaldson, Lufkin, & Jeneritt is an investment management, cor-
porate development firm with two subsidiaries, Alliance Capital Man-
agement, which is an investment management arm, rnanaging public
and private funds, and Louis Harrison Associates, which is an opinion
research survey arm.
Except for my stint in public service, and 2 brief years after gradua-
tion from Harvard Business School, I have spent all my life in the
investment process.
Tangential to the two areas I would like to testify on, I would like
to comment on former Judge Bal^man's testimony from a financial
expert point of view. And that is that the judge, whom I assume is an
intelligent man, has taken financial figures in terms of the leasing
transactions and related total payments to be received 15 years in the
future to a gross dollar amount of money laid out today. This is
bizarre, misleading, and financial fakery. 1 cannot help but be influ-
enced, while I am totally unfamiliar with the source and substance of
his other testimony, I cannot help but be influenced as to the integrity
of the entire testimony when I see such a misleading, and I must
assume conciously misleading, use of figures to attempt to influence
this committee.
Senator Tunney. Could you make that point a little more clear to
those of us who are not familiar with it ?
Mr. Lufkin. Senator, when you take a stream of payments to be
received 15 years into the future, and total them up, and then compare
them with a gross dollar amount of money laid out today, and the
stream of payments into the future aggregate $900,000, and the money
117
is laid out to achieve that stream of payments is $400,000, the inference
is that jrross profits are being made. He totally denies through that
testimony the use of interest, the value of the money, the dollar re-
ceived today and what it can earn. That is a financial mechanism
described as present value. If you discount that stream of payments
received into the future as to its present value — and I will do it in my
head — vou will find that it will represent something in the order, over
a 15-year period, of 20 to 25 percent of the gross figure given. So that
a fair comparison would have been $400,000 laid out today related to a
present value of the stream of payments to be received in the future
of something on the order of $175,000 to $200,000. That is a guess, but
it is not too far wrong.
My point is not to prove that the financial considerations are wrong,
but to suggest that that type of testimony from a very intelligent man,
with a distinguished career, has to be designed not with a totally objec-
tive view^ in mind. That is my point.
That is tangential, but it happens to be an area that I am an expert
in. I am delighted to have been able to be here to testify to that
specifically.
I am going to testify, as Senator Weicker suggests, to things that
I know of first hand, that I have either done research on or ex-
perienced myself. I am not going to testify to innuendo, hearsay, or
to selected press reports or other such things.
In 1969 I began to experience a deep and abiding concern for the
environment and welfare of the State of Connecticut. In 1970 I served,
along wath your colleague. Senator Gaylord Nelson, and with Con-
gressman Pete McCloskey, as one of the nine members of the steer-
ing committee that established Earth Day, 1970. I was one of the
original founders of the Environmental Defense Fund, and have sup-
ported that judicious approach to the management of our environ-
mental direction for these many years. Part and parcel of this interest
is my interest in the welfare of the State of Connecticut.
I left the firm of Donaldson, Luf kin and Jeneritt in 1971 and took
the appointment as Connecticut's first Commissioner of Environ-
mental Protection — after first refusing the job twice — at the urging of
Governor Meskill.
I want to state right now — and I want to give you two specific
examples, and this relates to the charge of integrity of the man —
that never during my close to 2 years of tenure in that job as the
first Commissioner did I ever go to Governor Meskill that he did not
fully and carefully review the facts, and even when he decided against
the conclusions that I felt appropriate, decided those tough decisions
with absolute integrity, and in many instances, two of which I shall
give examples, not to his personal best political interest.
In October of 1971, which was the target date that the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection was formed, an amalgam
of 17 departments, commissions, agencies and so on, we were a mere
90 days away from the Federal requirement that an air implementa-
tion plan for the State be delivered. That is easy to say, but as you
know. Senator, extremely hard to do. The air implementation plan
when finally delivered by the State was well over 200 pages long,
and it was extremely complex, with a technical data base as well as
118
a judgemental base of how you manage emissions which create or do
not create environmental pollution of our air. The report as finally
submitted was one of nine State reports accepted without change by
the EPA, and to my knowledge the only report accepted from a major
industrial State without change.
The substance of that report, the technical substance of that report
had at each stage along the way careful review, both from the point
of view of the technology and from the point of view of the impact
on other State activities, by Governor Meskill. And associated with
that careful review, as I know from personal experience, were pres-
sures from the various interest groups in the State that this was
wrong, that this would impact very seriously on their welfare. Of
many specific interest groups, one comes to mind. Connecticut business
and industry associations, from which came major financial and po-
litical support for the Governor. The Governor made those tough
decision^ always with the question aslced of me, based on technical data,
what is right, what will do the best for our citizens, all things consid-
ered over the long term. And he made those judgments directly counter
to the wishes of strong constituent bodies that had supported him in
the past and to whom a politician would have to look to for support
in the future. That is point No. 1.
Point Xo. 2, there was an act passed in Connecticut in 1971, public
145. which was mandated to then form a Department of Environ-
mental Protection to establish a solid waste plan for the State, 10.000
tons a day of solid waste. The Solid Waste Department of the State
health department had gone nine-tenths of the way along toward the
establishment of a plan which followed the technology of Julius
Ceasar. and that is burn it and bury it.
Governor Meskill upon reviewing that plans, called me and said,
there has got to be a ])etter way, particularly in those days of scarcity,
and particularly in these days of resource allocation, there has got to
be a better way than burning and burying.
With that incentive, and with funds provided for and help provided
by the Federal EPA, we began to explore a better way, and came up
with — and I will shorten the story- — a partnership with industry and
State government and Federal Government to look for a statewide
resource recovery and reuse plan for the State of Connecticut, which
is again, like the air implement plan, very difficult to implement.
DuT'ing the course of that implementation a wide range of con-
stituents' oxes were gored, not once, but again and again. And the
political opportunities such a new and innovated and untried approach
provided to the opposition were legion. Never once, when those pies-
sure groups and ])ressure points came into ]')lay. did the Governor
waver in his judixment aiul in his commitment to do this a better way.
As a result of that man's integrity and character, the State of Con-
necticut has led the way for 40 other States in terms of establishing
an int(>lli<rent solid waste maiiatrement svstem whicli recovers both
energy and material for future use.
I became inti'igued with the ABA's — my business is research, I am
not a l:!wver — I became intrigued with tlie ABA's position on the lack
of (|Uiilifications of Governor INleskill as it relates to their interpreta-
tion of (lualifications for the second circuit court. On the second circuit
119
court today there are eight judges. Six had former experience pri-
marily as district judges, and one had former experience primarily as
an acadeniicijin. he was dean of the Fordham Law School, and 'one
came from private practice. On that multijudge court there is no prior
experience in terms of public service as an administrator, a public ad-
ministrator, or as a legislator.
I became intrigued and looked at other circuits and their represen-
tation.
Judge Coffin of the first cii-cuit was a member of Congress, the State
Department, AID. and the INIaine Democratic party.
Judge Staley of the third circuit was solicitor for the city of Pitts-
burgh ; Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General ; Director, Workman's
Compensation Bureau; Deputy Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Labor and Industry,
Judge Bell of the fifth circuit was chief assistant for a period of time
to Judge Vandiver of Georgia.
Judge Coleman from Chairman Eastland's own Mississippi, was
Mississippi's attorney general, Governor of Mississippi, and then a
member of the ^lississippi State Legislature.
Judge Celebrezze from the sixth circuit was a member of the Ohio
State Legislature, Mayor of Cleveland, and Secretary of HEW.
Judge Ross of the eighth circuit was U.S. Attorney for Nebraska,
General Council Republican Party, Nebraska, and held various posi-
tions in the National Republican Party.
Judge Hanley of the ninth circuit was in the State water depart-
ment, bureau of reclamation and legal adviser to Governor Langlie.
Judge MacKinnon of the District of Columbia circuit served in the
Minnesota House of Representatives, as a Member of Congress, as U.S.
attornev from ^Minnesota, and special assistant to the LLS. Attorney
GeneTal.
Judge Danaher of the Distinct of Columbia circuit was assistant
U.S. attorney, secretary of state in Connecticut, and U.S. Senator from
Connecticut.
This leavening, it seems to me, has prevaded all the circuits, one of
which is the second circuit and there is no representative of this "nuilti-
judge court," including retired Judge Smith and Judge Oakes, who
has not liad a part in the consideration of great questions of public
policy, the interpretation of legislation and regulation, or legislative
intent.
And finally. Senator, just for the record, so that it will not be for-
gotten, let's quote Judge Felix Frankfurter once more :
Not anointed priests, but men with proved grasp of affairs, who have developed
resilience and spaciousness of mind through seasoned and diversified experience
in a work-a-day world, usually in public, are the judges who have wrought abid-
ingly on the Supreme Court.
Many thanks.
Senator Tunxet. Thank you very much, Mr. Lufkin. I appreciate
the fact that your testimony related to the matters of which you have
personal knowledge. And I appreciate the material that you gave on
the other circuits. The committee is certainly going to be interested,
when they have an opportunity to read your comments, in the integrity
that you personally observed in connection with Governor Meskill.
120
Do you have any personal knowledge of the leasing problem at all ?
Mr. LuFKiN. Senator, I do not have any knowledge of the leasing
program of the State of Connecticut.
Senator Tunxey. Your testimony, then, is directed to the subject
of integrity from your own personal observations ?
Mr. LuFKiN. Absolutely.
Senator Tunney. And is to judicial temperament from your own
observations, having been on the Governor's staff and seen the way he
evaluated problems that came before him ?
Mr. LuFKix. Senator, that is correct.
Senator Tunney. And you felt that he handled those problems in a
judicial fashion, as you would like to see a judge handle similar
problems?
Mr. LuFKiN. Senator, I can state that without qualifications.
Senator Tunney. Thank you very much, Mr. Lufkin, for 3'our
testimony.
Senator Burdick cannot return this afternoon, and he has asked me
to recess this hearing until 10:30 tomorrow, when the following six
witnesses will be called : Lee Novick, chairwoman, Connecticut Wom-
en's Political Caucus; Edward Coll, director of the revitalization
corps; John Labelle, State's attorney, Connecticut; Carmine Laveri,
attorney; Representative Gerald F. Stevens, minority leader, State
house of representatives; and I^on RisCassi, of Connecticut, who is
an attorney.
The listing I have made of the witnesses is not necessarily the order
in which they will be called. I want to apologize to the witnesses who
are here and have not been called today; it was impossible for them
to be called because of the time that was necessarily taken in hearing
the witnesses we have heard, but I want you all to know that you will
be called tomorrow and I hope that you will be able to be in attendance.
Senator Weicker. There is a group here with Mr. Coll. If I might
interject as representing these people as their Senator, I know that
they have had a long trip and they do have to get back. They really
can't aiford to come down here and I wonder if you could hear Mr.
Coll before you adjourn.
Senator Tunney. We will hear Mr. Coll.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD T. COLL, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, THE
REVITALIZATION CORPS, HARTFORD, CONN.
Mr. Coll. Thank you, Senator Tunney, and thank you Senator
Weicker.
Sitting through all this, one thinks sometimes of Harry Truman
who was strong for plain talking and being direct.
Any member of this committee would expect the person who is
speaking to be honest. Senator Weicker has referred to hard evidence.
I believe I have evidence to show that former Governor Meskill lied
to this committee on September 17. I think he lied in regard to the
question of the arrest in New Britain on January 25, 1963.
By ^yay of introduction of evidence, I have the sworn statement
of the individual who was involved, which I shall read and give to
the committee.
121
I also have a newspaper clipping including a photo of men being
arrested in New Britain on January 25, 1963. The caption underneath
the photo says that New Britain Chief Arthur Hayward attempts
to calm irrate Democratic aldermen. They stand in front of the ele-
vator prepared to go to the police station. Shortly before Sergeant
Josepli Novak arrested all seven and told them to put on their hats
and coats on orders from the mayor.
Here is the sworn statement of Patrick Nolan. I wish Senator
Hruska were here or Senator Scott. Mr. Nolan in a way is a senior
statesman in the town of New Britain. Mayor Meskill was the mayor
of New Britain — contrary to the testimony today of the Governor
of Rhode Island who knew so much about the background of Governor
^leskill that he referred to him as having been the Mayor of Bridge-
port and the Corporation Council of Bridgeport.
Here is the statement by Mr. Nolan. I will just read it as best I can :
I Patrick C. Nolan, of the City of New Britain, County of Hartford and State
of Connecticut, being duly sworn, depose and say :
1. That I was an Alderman of the City of New Britain during a period of 20
years, in addition to six years on the Board of Selectmen, including the month
of January, 1963.
2. I arrived at a meeting of the Board of Alderman at the City Hall on the
evening of January 25, 1963, at which meeting the budget for the City of New
Britain was to be established and voted upon, which amounted to several million
dollars.
3. The meeting was to be called to order at 7 :30 p.m., and a significant period
of time prior to 7 :30, and before several of the other members of the Board of
Aldermen had arrived, including the Clerk of the Common Council, Alderman
John Moskus walked from the Chamber table toward the hall door, and I got up
and walked toward the door with him. As we arrived near the hall door, the
Mayor, Thomas J. Meskill, called out "Sergeant, place these men under arrest.
Don't let them leave the chambers." So the Sergeant came over and put his hand
on my shoulder and said, "This is a very unpleasant task for me to do, knowing
you as I do." I said, "It's all right officer, you are doing your duty." And the
policeman who told us we were under arrest asked us to step to one side of the
hall door, and he kept the two of us there while the other Aldermen arrived.
The other Aldermen, as they arrived, were also placed under arrest. The accusa-
tion by the Mayor was that we were accused of breaking the quorum. Some
time later, while we were all being detained by the policeman, Alderman Jack
Fusari, who was of the same party of Mayor Meskill, and who was not placed
under arrest, came to the policeman and said that the arrest was "lifted." I
stated that the Mayor had caused us to be placed under arrest, and it would take
the Mayor to lift the arrest. Mr. Fusari went back, and a short while later Chief
of Police Arthur Hayward showed up at the building, having come from Police
Headquarters. Hayward spoke to all of us and said "let's cool it. Just stick around
a second". Then he went into the Chambers and spoke with Mayor Meskill. We
were told by Chief Hayward that we could go in to the Chambers, the arrest was
lifted.
The arrest, of course, was really illegal because it was groundless and prior
to 7:30, and. as I have mentioned, the arrest was ordered prior to the arrival
of some of the Aldermen, including the Clerk. In addition, the requirement of
our ordinance was that that night the budget had to be voted upon on the meet-
ing could be recessed for continued hearings during the next several weeks, if
necessary, but not adjourned. As a matter of fact, there was no question at
that time which appeared to require even a recess because we were all agreed that
the several million dollar budget which was necessary for the payment of teach-
ers salaries, the fire department, police department and all other city employees,
was basically agreed upon, and would be passed without any serious
disagreement.
After the meeting was called to order, one of the Aldermen said "I move that
we recess until tomorrow night because no one here has control of his feelings
122
after what has just happened." The motion passed, and the next night we met
and passed the budget.
I do not believe that the sort of man that Mr. Meskill is should be made a
Federal judge.
I am 84 years of age and I owe my good health to the fact that I have never
drank or smoked. And this is the first and only time that I was ever arrested
in ray life, or had anything of this sort happen to me.
I would have been glad to attend the Senate hearing tomorrow, except that
I was rather foolishly painting the outside of my house about six weeks ago
and injured my back. However, I hope that the Senate Committee will review
and make a part of their records this statement which I have made under oath.
Patrick C. Nolan.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of January, 1975.
James Sherman, Notary Public.
Senator Tunnet. That affidavit will be incorporated in the record.
[The document ^Yas filed with the committee.]
Mr. Coll. "We have heard a great deal about the American Bar
Association and we have heard a great deal about the leasing com-
mittee. One thing we have not heard a great deal about is the opinion
of the people of the State of Connecticut.
A poll was taken which was published in the Hartford Times, I
believe it was the Connecticut poll of October 23, 1974, which pointed
out that people in the State of Connecticut were 5 to 3 opposed to a
judgeship for Governor Meskill. That makes a point when you consider
that these same people voted for him. I voted for him 4 years ago.
We have seen the Governor run out on the people. He did it on Jan-
uary 20, 1963, at the State capitol. We have seen and read about
the Governor going up to the State of Vermont in the middle of the
onerg}' crisis and go skiing while 100,000 people in the State of Con-
necticut were without electricity.
Now you can get into the whole question of legal qualification. There
can be snobbery in the American Bar Association. I don't see too many
memliers on the streets working with the people where they should be.
But I think M'e have to consider their view of the profession. They can
be wrong, but what would be the other criteria ? I think it would be if
the man who was a judge had a feel for people, had some kind of feel
lilce Franklin Roosevelt and Robert Kennedy and others had. I do not
sec that in Governor Meskill.
He didn't think Watergate was an important issue in the A^ear 1974.
Senator Weicker spoke up in regard to Watergate.
We don't see Senator Ribicoff here. Where is he ? He is in Florida
today.
Why have there not been investigations in the State of Connecticut
of leasing in past years ? There have not been. It is not just the question
of Tom Meskill, it has been the interlock in Connecticut politically
wheie no one has really probed that State, ranging from the insurance
industi-y right through the business interests.
Mr, Lufkin talks in terms of the solid waste question. Tliere are a
lot of people with me who can identify the administration of Governor
Meskill with the question of solid wastes. People under that flat grant
system in Connecticut are calling our offices continually for food and
clothmg, and they are not getting help at all from the State.
One of the reasons we are down here today is to point out the crisis
in food stamps nationally in America. You have probably 25 million
123
Americans who don't realize that they are eli^ble for food stamps
because it is not being promoted.
Eight down the street from our office, which is in a poverty area, un-
employed men come in and sign up for checks on the first floor of the
building, and on the second floor is a food stamp program, and they
are not even told about it. People think you have to be on welfare to
get food stamps in America. You don't have to be. You can if you
have a home and $1,500 and many other things. It is not being
promoted.
Getting back to Mr. Meskill. We have some things in common. We
are both Irish and mainly stubborn. But certainly you have got to
have a feel for people. Think of having a Nixon style character one
step below the Supreme Court. What are his qualifications ? Whom are
they bringing in to lobby ? They have the former dean of the Univer-
sity of Connecticut Law School. Have they gone out and spoken to
the people of Connecticut ?
Probably the most revealing thing is what Senator Ribicoff thinks
about the whole question. We had a meeting with Senator Ribicoff,
myself and two other people, after the last hearing. I don't think Sen-
ator Ivibicoff is really that interested in having a hearing. Senator
Ribicoff for various reasons is remaining neutral — you remember that
the highest places in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in
time of crisis — I said, how do I answer people who say to me that the
w]iole question of the Federal jiidgosliip is one of an agreement between
you and Senator Weicker, under which John Newman was appointed a
Federal district judge, that you would not bother Senator Weicker's
choice whatever it might be. And Senator Ribicoff said to me, well,
Newman is qualified. I said, yes, I believe he is qualified, that is the
point, Senator.
You liave a fraternity. You have the Democratic city councilman,
c.nci the Democratic legislator from the city of Hartford, Bill Cotter,
in a district that is two to one against INIeskill being a judge, coming up
lie re telling you that he thinks JMeskill should be a judge because he
went to college with him. We are talking about appointment to a
fraternity.
I do resent some of the attacks by Senator Weicker on the American
Bar Association. First it was Connell}^, and today it is Walsh he doesn't
like. It was Connelly when I met with him several months ago. I think
that it is good that they are looking into it. You don't have someone in
charge of hospitals that the professionals don't think has some ability.
The point is the same in regard to courts.
Tlie people in Connecticut that are not here today are the ones who
can't afford to come down here. But a large amount of public opinion
in the State of Connecticut is against this judgeship. And I think the
man on the stree often has pretty good instincts. I think that the people
of Connecticut by and large have as much faith in the integrity of
Thomas Meskill as Harry Truman had faith in the integrity of
Richard M. Nixon.
I would like to submit this picture and the statement of Mr. Nolan.
This is proof that he is lying.
I thank you for your time. It is a serious issue as far as a lot of the
people here are concerned. They have been hurt. It is not just a matter
47-704—75 9
/
124
of philosophy, it is a matter of open government. That is why there
was such great disappointment. Specifically, Senator Weicker, we are
really not concerned with his being elected as the president of the fra-
ternity, but we are concerned about having an excellent judge. Making
him a judge on the second circuit court would be like putting Kichard
Nixon in charge of the world bank.
Thank you.
Senator Tuxney. Thank you, Mr. Coll.
The chairman of the subcommittee has asked me to incoporate in
the record a letter from George F. Sherwood, attorney at law, Glaston-
bury, Conn., and a letter from Nathan Levy, professor of law at the
University of Connecticut.
[The letters referred to follow :]
Sherwood and Plessingeb,
Attoeneys at Law,
Olastonbwry, Conn., January 17, 1975.
Hon. James Eastland,
Chairman, Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Senate,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Eastland : It is my understanding that your committee will
consider the nomination of Governor Thomas J. Meskill for appointment to the
United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals at a session to be held on
January 23, 1975.
As a Connecticut attorney, and as President of the University of Connecticut
Law School Alumni Association, it seems appropriate to express my views on his
pending nomination.
Governor Meskill has guided the affairs of this State during an extraordinarily
difficult period. His judgment, restraint and backbone in the administration of
many socially sensitive issues has, in my opinion, elevated the quality of his
service to greatness. In all instances, his decisions, however difficult, were reached
after careful and thoughtful analysis of all options and viewpoints. Although
some of his positions he adopted as the State's Chief Executive were unpopular,
he was uniformly admired for his ability to reach and stand by what he beiieved
to be in the best interest of the public.
Because of my involvement with the University of Connecticut School of Law,
I have had a number of opportunities to discuss his academic achievements with
his former professors. They have uniformly stated that he was an outstanding
student whose professional training culminated in his election as an Editor of
the Law Review. This view is also strongly enunciated by Professor Bert Hopkins
who served as Dean during Governor Moskill's tenure as a student. It is the
considered opinion of the.se men that he would make a valuable and lasting con-
tribution to the Federal bench.
Although the thoughts set forth above do not constitute a formal endorsement
of the proiTOSed appointment by the University of Connecticut Law School
Alumni Association, they do reflect the substance of many conversations with
alumni which T have had since Governor Meskill's name was first proposed. It
is also notewoi'thy that he has been the recipient of the Alumni Association's
Distinguished Alumnus Award, an honor which is bestowed for outstanding
achievement and service by a Law School graduate.
As an individual who, although not even a member of the same political
party, is concerned with quality and competence of the judicial process, I urge
you to confirm Governor Meskill so that he will be afforded the opportunity to
bring his unique qualifications and empathy to this high oflSce.
Very truly yours,
Sherwood and Plessingeir,
George F. Sherwood
125
Janitaby 21, 1975.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Sir : I am a Professor of Law in The University of Connecticut School of
Law, and I write to set the record straight concerning my position on the
nomination of The Hon. Thomas J. Meskill to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit. Please incorporate my remarks in the transcript of your
proceedings.
Some months ago Professor Howard R. Sacks of my school released to the
press a statement in opposition to Governor Meskill's nomination. This statement
was co-signed by several members of the faculty. About the same time, an article
in the Hartford Courant stated that Mr. Sacks said that about 50 of 75 faculty
were consulted, "but we did not find one person who favors the nomination," I
was one of those with whom Mr. Sacks talked privately. While I did not say that
I favored the nomination I never expected that what I did say would be used in a
context which is suggestive of opposition. The time has come for me to speak for
myself.
Mr. Sacks stopped me in the hall, asked me into his oflSce, and rather casually
inquired as to how I felt about the nomination. I told him that I had serious
reservations about it because of what I understood was Governor Meskill's com-
paratively short experience in the practice of law. He then showed me a draft
of his press release and asked if I cared to sign it. I refused on the basis that I
had insuflScient actual knowledge upon which to base a firm opinion either for or
against the nomination. I might add that even had I been opposed to it, I would-
n't have joined in such a petulant and intemperate diatribe. Since the occasion
of my talk with Mr. Sacks I have heard such praise of the qualities of Governor
Meskill from persons in the legal profession for whose judgment I have respect,
that I am thankful that I did not elevate my reservations into opjwsition. I am
also thankful that the decision on this nomination will be made by per.sons who
have more actual information about the nominee than I believe many of his
opponents in the School of Law have.
There are certain background facts that may or may not be operative in the
fierceness of the opposition to Governor Meskill that emanates from the School
of Law. I present them, not by way of accusation of improper motives to mem-
bers of the law school community, but as factors that are at least relevant to
the issue of objectivity.
Governor Meskill has had several "run-ins" with the School of Law, not the
least of which was his opposition to certain activities of our Legal Clinic. Sev-
eral years ago. when Mr. Sacks was Dean of our school. Governor Meskill pub-
licly objected to the clinic's representation of one of its own staff in a criminal
case deliberately precipitated by this staff member in order to test the constitu-
tionality of Connecticut's "Red Flag" law. In my opinion Governor Meskill was
right in opposing the clinic in this instance, but for the wrong reason. I believe
that it was quite proper for a state supported agency to oppose another state
agency, but that this particular case constituted an improper politicizing of the
school of law. Governor Meskill's action evoked a storm of indignation and invec-
tive within the law school community. Antiestablishment sentiment was running
high in those days, and our school was not exempt from the struggle between
those desiring a politically active institution and those desiring a politically
neutral one. Governor Meskill's position certainly strengthened the hand of those
of us who were advocating political neutrality.
One of the most drastic actions taken by Governor Meskill was an economy
move in which he administratively precluded the granting of the annual merit
raises to faculty of The University of Connecticut. You can imagine how popular
this made him with us. Some have interpreted it as a "spanking" of the Univer-
sity, but I believe it was misplaced economizing on his part.
The University tends to lean leftward. Governor Meskill does not. It was in-
evitable that the two would clash. I respectfully suggest that those who have
126
worked directly with Governor Meskill in government and in tlie practice of law
are better qualified to judge his nomination than are members of a law school
who possess no special qualifications beyond those of any persons trained in the
law, and who in this instance may lack sufllcient objectivity.
Very truly yours,
Nathan Levy, Jr.,
Professor of Law.
Jantjaby 21, 1975.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Committee on the Judiciary,
U.8. Senate, Washington, D.O.
Deab Senatoe: I did not wish to burden my long letter about Governor
Thomas J. Meskill's nomination to the Court of Appeals with autobiographical
information, but afterwards I thought that my own credentials are relevant to
the issue, so here they are in brief.
I am 51 years old, a native of Vicksburg. Mississippi, where I practiced law
for 6 years, from 1949 to 1955. I hold a B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering from
Mississippi State College (now University), an LLB from The University of
Mississippi School of Law, and a JSD from Yale Law School. I am a veteran
of World War II and of 23 years duty in the USAR. I am in my 19th year of
full-time service on the faculty of The University of Connecticut School of Law,
being now the senior member of the faculty in point of full-time service.
Very truly yours,
, Nathan Levy, Jr., Professor of Law.
Senator Tunney. There should also be made a part of the record,
if it has not already been submitted, the final report of the special
subcommitteee of the Connecticut General Assembly on the matter
of its investigation of leasing practices. It is my understanding that
this is the final report but that the appendix to the final report is yet
to be completed. The appendix will be made a part of the record when
it is received.
[The document referred to, the final report without the appendix,
appears at page 2.]
Senator Tunney. As the Chair indicated earlier, the hearing will
now recess until 10 :30 tomorrow morning, when the witnesses named
will be called.
[Whereupon, at 4 :05 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene
at 10 :30 a.m. the following morning.]
NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. MESKILL
TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
FBIDAY, JANTTARY 24, 1975
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D.C
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :30 a.m., in room
2228, Dirksen Senate OiRce Building, Senator Quentin N. Burdick
presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick, Tunney, Hruska, and Scott of
Pennsylvania.
Also present : Francis C. Kosenberger of the committee staff.
Senator Burdick. The subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, a letter dated January 23, from Christopher J.
Dodd, a Member of Congress from Connecticut, and a letter dated
January 23, from Toby Moffet, a Member of Congress from Connecti-
cut, and a letter dated January 21, from G. L. Gunther, Connecticut
State senator, will be made a part of the record at this time.
[The letters referred to follow :]
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C, January 2S, 1975.
James O. Eastland,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman : I have been asked to say a few words to your Committee
by Thomas Meskill on behalf of his nomination as judge on the U.S. 2nd Circuit
Court of Appeals.
I am not a close personal acquaintance of Governor Meskill and I am not suf-
ficiently aware of his legal background to comment on his qualifications for a
judgeship.
From the few times that I have met Governor Meskill, and in discussing him
with people I respect, I understand Tom Meskill, married and the father of five
children, to be a good family man ; a decent man who has served his state for the
past fourteen years as Governor, U.S. Representative, Mayor, and Corporation
Counsel.
I urge your Committee to give Governor MeskiU's nomination full
consideration.
Sincerely,
Christopher J. Dodd,
Member of Congress.
(127)
128
Congress of the United States,
House op Repbesentativeb,
Washington, D.C., January 23, 1975.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senatob Eastland: As you may recaU, I wrote you in December to
express my opposition to the nomination of former Governor Meskill to the U.b.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Today I am writing, as a new member of Congress, to reaffirm that opposition.
My position stems neither from partisanship nor from a feeling that the Gov-
ernor's lack of trial experience should disqualify him.
What does concern me greatly is that during his term as Governor, Mr. Mes-
kill took no action to halt State procurement practices that were at least ethically
and perhaps legally questionable. More specifically, in June, 1972, he hid behind
our State's Freedom of Information Act in withholding information requested
by me regarding a controversial state lease awarded to the uncle of his Party's
State Chairman.
I urge the Committee to reject this nomination.
Sincerely, ^
Toby Moffett,
Member of Congress.
State of Connecticut,
Senate, State Capitol,
Hartford, Conn., January 21, 1975.
Senator James O. Eastland,
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, D.C.
Deab Senatob Eastland : Inasmuch as the name of Thomas Meskill has been
reintroduced for consideration as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge-
ship, I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm my position that this
nomination should be rejected.
It is unfortunate that your Committee does not have the hearings in the State
of Connecticut as it is almost impossible, financially and time-wise, for many of
thp people who oppose this nomination to appear in Washington.
I have noticed that your Sentae Committee composition is primarily the same
as it was when the previous hearing was conducted. Because of this I would ask
that my previous objections be considered. Since my last correspondence there
has been a leasing investigation committee that conducted public hearings, and
have made some final conclusions. I believe that either your Committee, or mem-
bers of it, have made some inquiry as to what the involvement of the then Gover-
nor Thomas Meskill was in these leasing procedures. The committee did come out
with a statement that they could find no criminal involvement, but beyond that
there was no conclusion.
For the record, I have never implied or stated that there was any "criminal
involvement of any of the parties in the leasing policies of the State of Con-
necticut. T^^lat has been fully documented, is that the State of Connecticut and
its taxpayers have been abused by the practices that have gone on in awarding
leases to close friends of the administration. When the executive branch of gov-
ernment is aware of abusive practices, allows them to continue, it is nonfeas-
ance— not a criminal offense.
I believe that the lack of "criminal" charges have been advanced as a "red
herring" to attempt the Meskill supporters to de-emphasize the seriousness of
nonfeasance. I would point out to you that although the "parties" concerned with
the leasing "fiasco" in Connecticut all deny that I attempted to appeal to them
to stop this practice before they got started. The fact of the matter is that the
period I was appealing to State Chairman Gaffney, Governor Meskill, the Com-
mi.ssioner of the Public Works Department, covered only a period of one month
(late April to June 1st, 1972). On June 1st, 1972, I sent a letter to Governor
Meskill, and released to the press copies, asking him to stop the Downes and
other similar leases because they were abusive. ( See enclosed copy of letter and
two of many press releases) .
129
The issue that is being clouded by the supporters of Meskill is the fact that
on June 1st he couldn't deny that he knew of the questionable leases. Action could
have been taken then, or several months later, to put a hold on the Downes
leases, and could have been rejected. This action wasn't taken.
In September 1972 the State and Urban Development sub-committee of the
Legislature conducted a hearing on leasing practices, based on the Downes lease.
The testimony presented at that hearing, September 1972, brought out the in-
volvement of "political favoritism" in receiving advance information that led up
to the Downes lease. Tliis information was widely publicized and certainly the
Governor would have had to be in a vacuum not to have read the reporting.
This is only three months after my June 1st letter and a period of three months
when Governor Thomas INIeskill had said he was going to look into the matter.
As a result of the State and Urban Development Committee investigation a
law was introduced, passed and signed by Thomas Meskill requiring advertising
for further lease needs to allow anyone interested to compete for the leasing.
The fact is that not only was the Downes lease allowed to continue but another
close associate and friend, Angelo Tomasso, received a controversial lease shortly
thereafter. Furthermore, in 1973, over a year later, another controversial lease
was given to the same Angelo Tomasso, just five days prior to a law that was
passed by the General Assembly and signed into Law by Thomas Meskill which
required advertising for potential lease needs of the state.
I am enclosing a representative sampling of some of the newspaper reporting
of the recent Lease Probe. One of the pre-requisites of a Judge, I think, should
be credibility. In those news releases you will see denials by Thomas Meskill
that he had ever met Avith me, relative to the leasing. He later released a state-
ment that he had met with me in April 1972 but we did not discuss the leases.
After my testimony before the Leasing Investigation Committee stating that I
had had a meeting on May 2.3, 1972, with Thomas Meskill and discussed the
leasing, he then remembered the date but said he couldn't understand what I
was talking about. This is rather unusual as most people who know me, know
that I am very candid and to the point.
The leasing situation is only one point that I feel should weigh heavily on your
Committees ratification of this nomination. It is unfortunate that you are not
in Connecticut to poll the general public on their feelings toward this nomination.
Most of the people are appalled that Thomas Meskill could ever be considered
for this high office. At this time in history I think that our actions should be
strengthening confidence in our courts. The ratification of this appointment
would seriously undermine the confidence of the people of Connecticut in the
Federal Court System, and I feel it should be rejected.
Sincerely,
Dr. G. L. Gunther.
Enclosures.
State of Connecticut,
Senate, State Capitol,
Hartford, Conn., June 1, 1912.
Governor Thomas Meskill,
State Capitol,
Hartford, Conn.
Dear Governor Meskill : For several years now I have been very critical of
some of the policies of the State of Connecticut in "leasing" and have been very
vocal about the need for a change. I have felt that the taxpayers of the State
have been taking a beating, financially, on some of these leases. The procedure
is not illegal, is not established by the legislature, but has been a policy of the
Public Works Dept., with little or no opposition.
Just because the Democratic administration has established this policy, is no
reason why the Republican administration should continue it. When I ran for
office I pledged to try to eliminate the area of leasing that I am talking about ;
the giving of letters of intent, on a non-bid basis, for construction and leasing
of state buildings. One of the examples I used several years ago was the item
which appeared as a news story just last week, pointing out just one example
of where 100% plus, financing was obtained with a certificate of intent for a
state highway garage. The lessor then was given a 15 year lease which amortized
130
the entire cost of the building within the first 8 to 10 years, giving 5 years of
rent as a net profit and the building owned by the lessor. If the State then wished
to purchase the building they could pay the lessor the original cost. An excellent
business deal for the lessor, but darn poor business for the taxpayers of the
State. Especially, when the equity of the state enabled the individual to finance
and build the structure with little or no investment on his part.
A day or two after that news story, a small item appeared in the newspaper
indicating that you were going to look into this matter of leasing, I would like
to call to your attention some information, relative to leasing pending in the
state, that I feel tits into this same policy and should be stopped. I understand
that a Frank Downes is presently negotiating with the Public Works Dept. of
the State of Connecticut to build, and lease, a State Highway Garage on Route
85 in Waterford. The State requirements are for a 12,000 sq. ft. garage with a
1000 sq. ft. salt storage bin, to be built on an 8 acre parcel of land. The ultimate
lease will pay this lessor $64,500,00 per year, for 15 years, at which time the
State will have the option to buy the building for $408,000, or continue to lease
at $42,000 per year.
If my mathematics is correct the State of Conn, could end up paying $967,500.00
for this lease over the next 15 years and at that time elect to purchase the build-
ing for $408,000 or continue to lease at $42,000 per year. This is a potential outlay
of $1,375,500.00 of taxpayers money. I feel this is abusive and intolerable and
because the precedent has been established by the previous administration,
doesn't make it right for the present administration to continue it.
It is my understanding that this lease it in the final stages of approval and
I ask you to take what steps are necessary to stop this contract. In addition, I
feel a complete review of any other pending leases, of this nature, be reviewed
and a new sensible policy, including opening these leases up to public bid, should
be initiated by the Public Works Dept. on any state building need. If my memory
serves me well, we are presently paying out seven million dollars per year on
leases in the state. Not all of them are this type of "boondoggle" that we have
inherited. On the other hand I don't think we should add to this unsound, abusive
practice.
I had hoped that with a change in administration that we would see the end of
this type of leasing in Conn, but I cannot sit idly by and allow a practice that
I feel is wrong continue. Inasmuch as the Public Works Dept. is a branch of
the executive, and is answerable to you, I would ask that you take Immediate
action to stop any leases of this nature.
Very truly yours,
Db. G. L. Guntheb.
[From the Bridgeport, Conn., Post, June 1, 1972]
GuNTHER Calls on Meskill To Bab New No-Bid Lease
(By Alan E. Schoenhaus)
Hartford. — A Republican lawmaker has called upon Gov. Thomas J. Meskill
to take immediate action to halt a no-bid lease arrangement for a new state
highway garage which he claims the state Public Works department is about to
enter into with "a Frank Downes."
UNCLE OP GOP CHAIRMAN
Mr. Downes, a New Britain builder, is an uncle of Republican State Chairman
J. Brian Gaffney. Mr. Gaffney said this morning that he is aware of the lease
negotiation, but has no part in it. He also said he has no financial interest in the
Downes firm.
The negotiating of "no-bid" leases by the state is a long-time practice which
is con.«!idered completely legal and within the power of state administration.
In a letter to the governor, Deputy Senate Minority Leader George L. Gunther,
R-Stratford, said Mr. Downes is presently negotiating with the state Public
Works department to build and lease a state highway garage on Route 85 in
Waterford.
"It is my imderstanding that this lease is in the final stages of approval
and I ask you to take what steps are necessary to stop this contract," Senator
Gunther wrote the governor. "In addition, I feel a complete review of any other
131
pending leases of this nature be made and a new, sensible policy, including
opening these leases up to public bid, should be initiated by the Public Worlis
department on any state building need," he added.
CITES KABLIEB CASE
The Stratford legislator, who has long opposed the no-bid leasing practice,
noted that some of his criticism was reiterated last week in news accounts of
a no-bid highway garage lease that went to a firm in which a veteran Demo-
cratic lawmaker is a principal.
"I have felt that the taxpayers of the state have been taking a beating,
financially, on some of these leases," he wrote Governor Meskill. "The procedure
is not illegal, is not established by the legislature, but has been a policy of the
Public Works department with little or no opposition."
"One of the examples I used several years ago was the item which appeared as
a news story just last week, pointing out just one example where 100 per cent
plus financing was obtained with a certificate of intent for a state highway
garage," he wrote.
The articles mentioned by Senator Gunther are an apparent reference to
published reports last week indicating that veteran Democratic State Rep. Rubin
Cohen of Colchester, has an interest in two real estate corporations which hare
been given "no-bid" state contracts totaling more than $1.2 million for the
leasing of highway garages in Colchester, Marborough and Canterbury.
Those articles emphasized that the no-bid leasing procedure Is quite legal and
is a common practice employed by the Public Works department. Rep. Cohen,
a licensed real estate broker, also denied any conflict of interest between his
position in the legislature, where he is House chairman of the powerful Ap-
propriations committee, and his role in the realty transactions.
Senator Gunther said he read newspaper articles last week Indicating that
Governor Meskill was planning to look into the matter of leasing. "I would like
to call to your attention some information, relative to leasing pending in the
state, that I feel fits into this same policy and should be stopped," he wrote the
governor in his letter seeking a halt to negotiations between the Public Works
department and Mr. Downes which he said are nearing completion on the Water-
ford lease.
WANTS GOP ACTION
"Just because the Democratic administration has established this policy,"
wrote the GOP governor, "is no reason why the Republican administration should
continue it."
Senator Gunther said he has information that the state requirements for the
Waterford facility are for a 12,000 square foot garage with a 1,000 square foot
salt storage bin to be constructed on an eight-acre site. "The ultimate lease will
pay this lessor $04,500 per year for 15 years at which time the state will have
the option to buy the building for $408,000 or continue to lease at $42,000 per
year." he wrote the governor.
Under this arrangement, he added, the state "could end up paying $967,500
for this lease over the next 15 years, at that time, elect to purchase the building
for $408,000 or lease at $42,000 per year. This is a potential outlay of $1,375,500
of taxpayers money," he continued.
"I feei," Senator Gunther wrote the governor, "this is abusive and Intolerable
and because the precedent has been established by the previous administration,
doesn't make it right for the present administration to continue it."
Tlie Stratford lawmaker said the state presently leases facilities to the tune
of $7 million annually. "Not all of them, are this type of boondoggle that we
have inherited," he wrote in his letter to the governor. "On the other hand, I
don't think we should add to this unsound, abusive practice."
[From the Milford. Conn., Cltlnen, June 1, 1972]
State Public Works Department Dealing With Gaffnet's Kin
Hartford, Conn. (UPI) — Deputy Senate Minority Leader George L. Gunther,
R-Stratford. says the Meskill administration is negotiating a no-bid lease with
an uncle of Republican State Chairman J. Brian Gaffney.
132
In a letter to Gov. Thomas J. Meskill released Thursday, Gunther said the
State Public Works Department is now negotiating with Frank Downs, an uncle
of Gaffney, for a highway garage on Rte. 85 in Waterford.
GafEney, a state representative from New Britain, said later his uncle had
asked him about competing for the contract. He said he told Downs, "I can't
prevent anyone in my family from going about their business because of my
position."
Gov. Meskill's office said Thursday afternoon that he had not read Gunther's
letter and therefore, couldn't comment on it.
Public Works Commissioner Edward Kozlowski said he does not intend to
reject the garage lease being negotiated. He maintained the lease represents "a
reasonable price per square foot for the state and is in keeping with previous
practices."
The commissioner refused, however, to disclose details of the lease.
He said that his department and the state finance Department are reviewing
the entire state garage program to determine whether it would be better to build,
buy or continue to lease private garages. He expects the survey to be done by the
end of the year.
Gunther said that under the terms of the proposed lease the state would pay
$84,500 per year for a 12,000 sq. ft. of garage space and a 1,000 sq. ft. salt bin,
built on an eight acre lot.
He said the lease would run for 15 years, at which time the state would have
the option of buying the building for $408,000 or of continuing to lease it, at
$42,000 a year.
Gunther asked Meskill to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent sign-
ing of the lease and order a review of state's policy of leasing highway garages.
Last Friday, Meskill announced that such a review was already underway.
At the same time Meskill said that he had no knowledge of any contracts that
were in the process of being negotiated.
The state policy of leasing buildings came up for discussion last week after a
published report that Rep. Rubin Cohen, D-Colchester, is an executive in a firm
that holds state leasing contracts.
Cohen replied that the contracts were a matter of public record and were in
compliance with the state's leasing policy.
Senator Burdick. Our first witness will be Lee Novick, chairwoman
of the Connecticut Women's Political Caucus, New Haven, Conn.
Welcome to the committee.
TESTIMONY OF LEE NOVICK, CHAIEWOMAN, CONNECTICUT
WOMEN'S POLITICAL CATJCTJS
Ms. NoviCK. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Btjrdick. I "might say for the benefit of the other witnesses
today, this hearing is taking longer than we thought. We are hoping
to conclude by 12 o'clock today. If any one has a long statement, we
would appreciate it if you would summarize it because we would like
to finish by noon today.
Ms. Novick. T am Lee Novick, chairwoman of the Connecticut Wo-
men's Political Caucus.
We have been in communication with you. Senator Burdick, and
with other members of the committee. However, this is the first oppor-
tunity we have had to present our reasons for objecting to the con-
firmation of former Governor Meskill in a more complete fashion
than we have in our letters to you.
Our opposition is based oii a number of actions taken by Mr. Mes-
kill, as Governor of Connecticut, which we think should disqualify
him from consideration for the Federal judiciary.
133
There was a good deal of discussion here yesterday as to the role
of a Governor or political person in terms of suitability for the Federal
bench. What we think, having heard that testimony, is we are not
here to urge you that someone who has been in political office is not
qualified, but rather you should look at their actions while they were
in political office to make some judgments about their temperament
and their suitability for the court.
One of Mr. Meskill's best known actions was his repeated defiance
of the Federal court's decisions concerning Connecticut's antiabortion
laws.
In 1972, after three Federal judges ruled that Connecticut's anti-
quated antiabortion law was unconstitutional, then Governor Meskill
called the legislature into special session, and asked them to pass an-
other bill, just as strict as the old one. The legislature complied with
the Governor's request. The second bill was also declared unconstitu-
tional by the Federal courts.
In October of 1972, Mr. Meskill pledged "that he would never give
up his fight for a strict antiabortion law." Does this mean that he will
now defy the Supreme Court ? In either case can you, we question, in
good conscience appoint this man to sit on the Federal bench when he
has repeatedly demonstrated his disrespect for its decisions ?
We also think that the way Mr. Meskill has handled judicial ap-
pointments in Connecticut suggests some of the same contempt for the
judiciary process. I cite just one example, the recent appointment of
the former Republican chairman, J. Brian Gaffney, who was consid-
ered by the Connecticut Bar Association to be unqualified for that
appointment. We feel that this is indication of the way in which Mr.
Meskill has treated the courts as if they were simply another piece of
political patronage.
I have come here today, representing a statewide organization that is
dedicated to the advancement of women into the political system, be-
cause we believe that the American political system can be responsive
to the rights of women.
However, we are very conscious of the fact that if we are to over-
come the exclusions and the inequities of the past, we have to be able
to look to proper enforcement of the law from the courts. Otherwise
we will not have a future characterized by equal opportunity.
Based on Mr. Meskill's past as Governor of Connecticut we have
little hope that he can provide equal justice to women and other groups
that have been excluded from the American political system in a man-
ner that would be befitting a member of the Federal court.
We are afraid that his own personal biases will make it impossible
for him to render judgments on the law in an impartial and judicious
manner.
Again, I would like to turn to Connecticut and his tenure as Gov-
ernor for some examples. As Governor, Meskill vetoed a number of
bills which would have expanded, or would have improved, enforce-
ment of the antidiscrimination measures. We feel that his record dem-
onstrates a lack of sensitivity to the rights of women, minorities, and
poor people.
134
The four pieces of legislation which Governor Meskill vetoed that I
have chosen all were vetoed in 1971, and I might add that some of
them were later passed the following year because there was so much
political sentiment in their favor.
The first, Public Act 271, was an act concerning discrimination in
public accommodations on the basis of sex or marital status. This bill,
which asserted the most basic of civil rights, was passed the following
session with significant support from both j)olitical parties.
Another act vetoed by Governor Meskill was Public Act 306, an
act providing for tax credits for the establishment of child day care
centers at places of employment. This bill, which the Women's Politi-
cal Caucus asked the legislature to reconsider this year, would have
cost the State little, but could have helped to solve an acute shortage
of day care facilities in our State. This would have particularly helped
blue collar families. We have very few factories in the State of Con-
necticut that have been willing to provide child care. Some of them
did so during the Second World War under the Lanham Act. There
is only one in my own community which has even attempted to
think in this direction, and we think if anything industry needs
encouragement.
The third veto was of Public Act 376, an act concerning visits to
clients by welfare representatives intended to eliminate surprise visits
by welfare representative except by procurement of warrant. What
this dealt with is the fact that welfare workers were able to visit
recipients, usually women, unannounced, and we felt that in order to
protect the civil rights for women that this was an important step
forward.
The fourth was Public Act 487, an act concerning the subpena
power of the commission on human rights and opportunities. This
State commission is the major vehicle for the processing of antidis-
crimination complaints, including those that go to the EEOC. The
commission, under Governor Meskill, and probably under previous
Governors as well, has tended to operate with insufficient staff and
budget. It was asking for the subpena power to make its work of in-
vestigating complaints of discrimination easier and the Governor
chose to veto it.
We further draw your attention to the behavior and attitudes of
Governor Meskill during tjie prolonged bus strike in 1972 and to his
action in an acute power breakdown in the winter of 1973.
I believe a number of the Hartford witnesses who were at your
earlier hearings spoke of the fact that the Governor showed no con-
cern for the thousands of residents of our State who depend on bus
transportation.
In the second case, when parts of Hartford were without electricity
for many winter days, Governor Meskill suggested to the public that
we help those families by supplying them with firewood, something
that I had difficulty understanding since few apartments in the poor
neighborhoods of Hartford come equipped with fireplaces.
I could go on with his record as Governor, What we think the com-
mittee ought to look at is how his role as Governor would affect his
temperament and his sensitivity on the bench. We think that the
handling of the entire welfare program in Connecticut and the insti-
135
tution of a very unhumane, flat grant for welfare recipients during his
tenure suggests that he has problems in terms of the concept of equal
justice for those groups that are outside of the majority. And I think
it is no accident that many of these groups, including the Indians of
Connecticut, a number of minority groups in Connecticut, women's
groups in Connecticut, feel uneasy in terms of whether the Governor
has the sensitivity to deal with the issues that would come before him
on the Federal bench.
We have expressed our views in the past, repeatedly, to Senator
Weicker, to President Ford, and to former President Nixon. We ap-
preciate this opportunity now to come before the committee and to
urge you before you make your decision to look at the Governor's
record in terms of its implication for his serving on the bench.
We as an organization and individually urge you to vote against
confirmation.
Senator Burdick. Thank you very much for a succinct statement.
I think you have made your point.
Thank you.
Ms. NovicK. Thank you.
Senator Burdick. Our next witness is Mrs. Charlette Kitowski ot
West Hartford, Conn.
Mr. RiscAssi. Senator Burdick, may I interrupt for a moment ?
A group of us came from back home in Connecticut on behalf of Mr.
Meskill's nomination. Governor Meskill's nomination, and we have an
early plane home today. We were held over yesterday, because an in-
dividual by the name of Coll in opposition had a group, and respect-
fully we would like to be heard first. We have the State's attorney from
our county back home, and the president of our State bar, and myself,
and we have an early plane home. We were held over last night. We
were supposed to go on yesterday. I think these witnesses are out of
order. I understood the proponents were to go first and we were so
listed.
Senator Burdick. The committee will determine the order of wit-
nesses. We are trying to get a balance here. Are there others that have
travel problems? We would like to accommodate all of you.
Does Mrs. Kitowski have a travel problem ? ^ _
Mrs. Kitowski. No ; it is perfectly all right with me if he would like
to go on next.
Senator Burdick. If that be the case, we will try to accommodate.
Next we will have John D. LaBelle, State's attorney for Connecticut.
Is he here ?
Welcome to the committee.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN D. LaBELLE, STATE'S ATTORNEY,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. LaBelle. Mr. Chairman, my name is John D. LaBelle and I am
the State's attorney for Hartford County. That office I hold is some-
times called in other States the district attorney or the prosecuting
attorney.
I have been acquainted with Thomas J. Meskill since about 1957.
I knew him from having had matters with the State's attorney's office
136
while I was a practicing lawyer and while he was corporation counsel
of the city of New Britain and while he was mayor of the city of New
Britain. .
When he went to Congress, I had some occasions to have communi-
cations with him while he was a congressman. And when he became
Governor, I have had matters with him concerning investigations,
extraditions, and rewards.
One of the highest responsibilities of a lawyer is to answer the call
to public service and to hold public office. Thomas J. Meskill has been
a city corporation counsel, mayor, Congressman, and Governor. He
has been a leader in molding public opinion. He knows the feelings
of the people concerning the problems of the day. His public service
has limited his trial experience, but this should not be disqualifying.
His experience in the decisionmaking process more than makes up
for this lack.
Our judges do not come from any one particular discipline. One
may have been a corporation lawyer. Another may have represented
labor unions. One may have been a law professor. Whatever the back-
ground, the good judge has a broad experience in understanding
human nature and the ability to make fair decisions.
I believe Thomas J. Meskill possesses these attributes in spades.
I would like to talk to you a moment about the question of his
integrity. The office that I hold as State's Attorney for Hartford
County is an independent office. I am not elected. I am not appointed
by the political process. I am appointed by the judges. Connecticut
is the only State in the United States where the prosecutors in the
State are appointed by the judges.
We are not under the jurisdiction of the Governor, we are not
under the jurisdiction of the attorney general. Consequently we have
a great deal of independence and a great deal of power.
I have been State's attorney for over 15 years, and I was an assist-
ant State's Attorney for some 3 years before that. In the course of
holding this office, I have been called upon by various Governors to
make investigations.
Over the period of years, I have investigated the highway depart-
ment, the transportation department, the motor vehicles department,
and I have had to investigate the police department of the city of
Hartford, the housing authority of the city of Hartford, and the
zoning boards in the other communities. As an example of what I
found to be the integrity of Governor Meskill, in 1973 I was called
upon the day after the newspapers made a claim that the State Person-
nel Act was being violated b}^ the Meskill administration. He asked
me to come to his office, and he asked me to investigate the personnel
department of the State of Connecticut. And of course, in the course
of doing that, I had to go into practically every department to see
whether or not the Civil Eights Act classified service was being
violated.
When he called me into his office, he said to me : I would like to
have you make this investigation, and I want you to call it as you
see it. And the other thing he told me was : I will see to it that every
department makes available to you every single record that you want.
That investigation took some 8 or 9 months, and when it was finished
I made my report which became public and there were violations
137
found. Most of them were teclinical violations. There is a criminal
penalty in Connecticut for violations of the Personnel Act. I did not
find sufficient violations, willful and intentional violations, to warrant
any prosecution. But the findings of the investigation certainly did not
help the Governor politically. ,
In any event, I found that when he told me to make the investiga-
tion, and that he would see to it that I was given access to every single
record in any department, that that was the fact, even though it may
have ended up hurting him politically. When it was over and there
were some areas that had to be corrected, he issued an order to the de-
partments and to the personnel department to clear up these cases that
were in violation.
One other matter that I would like to discuss with the committee,
Mr. Chairman, just briefly, is the matter of the American Bar Asso-
ciation committee's o):)inion with respect to qualification of judges.
Now I am aware that ^Mr. Walsh is a very reputable and respected and
highly successful attorney. I am aware that his opinion is important.
But I am astonished by the investigation that M^as conducted that was
the basis for Mr. Walsh's and that committee's conclusions.
If I recollect his testimony correctly, it is my understanding that
that committee consists of 12 members, one each from each of the
judicial circuits, being nine, and a chairman, and apparently two
other committee members at large, probably officers of the associa-
tion, a total coiiHuittee niembej'sliip of 1:2. If I recollect his testimony
correctly, he indicated that the judicial appointment in the particular
circuit, in this case the second, is handled by the committee member
from that circuit. And if I recall his testimony again correctly, he
indicated that the committee member from the second circuit talked
with 30 members of the bar to form the basis for the committee's
report. After that member from the second circuit made his opinion
Icnown to the other members, they unanimously adopted his recom-
mendation.
>7ow, for the life of me, one of the things I would like to know is,
what 30 members of the bar did they talk to ? "Who were they ? Where
do they live? Where do they practice? Do they practice in the second
circuit? There has not been one word of what lawyers, who the 30 law-
yers are that were supposed to be interviewed in order to be the basis
for that opinion. I do not even know whether any of them were from
Connecticut.
I am a member of the ABA. I practice iu tlie second circuit. My
office has cases in the second circuit continually. I would guess con-
servatively that there is not a law firm in Connecticut that has more
cases in the second circuit than my office. I have argued cases there
myself many times. I am a member of the American College of
Trial Lawyers. I would have thought that in this investigation, if they
were going to talk to some lawyers in Connecticut, that I might have
been one that might have been considered. I was not.
I was considered appropriate for giving my opinion to the FBI.
So I think that the method of the American Bar Association and
the rigidity of their investigation does not make it inadmissible, but
it certainly does affect the weight that ought to be accorded.
I came down here because I thought my testimony might be help-
ful to this committee, and because I felt that the nominee was being
138
attacked on flimsy evidence. I do not know Tom Meskill personally.
I have never been out with him socially. I am not a member of his
political party. I probably disagree with him ideologically on a lot
of things. But from my dealings with him, I have found him to be an
honorable man, and I think he is a good lawyer.
Thank you very much.
Senator Btjrdick. Do you have any questions ?
Senator Hruska. No.
Senator Burdick. Thank you.
Our next witness will be attornej^ Carmine Lavieri of Connecticut.
TESTIMONY OF CARMINE R. LAVIERI, ATTORNEY,
WINSTED, CONN.
Mr. Lavieki. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hruska, I appreciate the op-
portunity to appear before you tod^iy so that T may speak on behalf of
Connecticut's former Governor, Thomas J. Meskill, nominee for the
bench of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
I would like to preface my remarks by explaining that I am an
active member of the American Bar Association, and also of my State
and county bar associations. I served as president of the Litchfield
County Bar Association, and have served the Connecticut Bar Asso-
ciation in several positions over the years. I am a graduate of the Uni-
versity of Connecticut Law School, and have served as president of its
alumni association. I am currently president of the University of Con-
necticut Law School Foundation.
Let me emphasize please that my remarks to you today are not made
on behalf of either of these organizations ; rather, I speak for myself,
and only myself, as a practicing member of the bar. I have provided
some details of my background so that you will understand the per-
spective from which I speak.
I have been fortunate to know Tom Meskill since his early days as a
Connecticut Congressman, and have found him through the years to be
a very thoughtful and considerate person with a commanding working
knowledge of the law. He understands difficult legal principles and
can analyze and discuss them readily.
Thereare some who would base the decision on his ability to serve
our judicial system solely on his trial court experience. This narrow
view is of concern to me"; for it virtually ignores the fact that, as you
know, many cases which come before the second circuit court of
appeals have bi-oad social and political consequence. Avhich must be
weighed together with an analysis of the legal principles involved.
I believe the insight gained from many years of public service is
an invaluable resource for one who would serve in this high post. Cer-
tainly you gentlemen know the value of the experience you've acquired
in public service, dealing with very complicated social and economic
issues — issues which are often the basis of the cases which come before
the Federal courts.
Insofar as I have been able to determine, the American Bar Associa-
tion's Committee on the Judiciary^ apparently addressed only the ques-
tion of trial court experience in its survey of lawyers in my State. I
have some doubt about the relevance, actually, of formal, everyday
139
trial court experience as preparation for the job ot hearing and decid-
ing, for instance, complicated income tax or antitrust cases.
Incidentally, I have been able to find only three lawyers who were
called as part of the survey, in spite of the fact that I have extensive
and frequent contact with lawyers throughout Connecticut. I also
reiterate what Mr. LaBelle said about the 30 lawyers who were initially
asked, or were selected.
I fail to see how the ABA committee can make a meaningful recom-
mendation based on the limited scope of its inquiry. A large element
of the bar would agree with me, 1 think, that everyday, ordinary
trial experience is not the only desired preparation for a career on an
appellate court.
In part because of the ABA position, but also because of opposi-
tion from other quarters, this nomination has been widely termed
"controversial." I submit to you that any Governor who stands firm
against excessive spending, as Governor Meskill did, will acquire
heated opposition from special-interest groups. I urge you to keep in
mind that Governor Meskill not only brought the budget into balance,
but turned in a surplus for 3 years in a row. He accomplished this
with broad taxpayer support, but at enormous cost to his own popu-
larity among those whose particular interest required more govern-
ment spending.
Tom INIesldll's legal expertise and his orientation toward public
service provide excellent baclvground, I believe, for his service on the
bench. It would be a shame if this nomination failed because of the
report of a limited inquiry, or because of opposition growing out of
disagreement over his philosophy of fiscal management.
I know Tom Meskill to be a man of integrity, a good lawyer, a
dedicated public servant, and therefore a nominee who is particularly
well qualified for this position on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
I respectfully urge his confirmation.
Senator Burdick. Thank you very much.
Senator Hruska?
Senator Hruska. I thank you, sir.
ISIr. Lavieri. Thank you.
Senator Burdick. Our next witness is Representative Gerald F.
Stevens, minority leader in the State House of Representatives, Con-
necticut.
«
TESTIMCIIY OF GEHALD F. STEVENS, HOUSE MINOSITY LEADER,
COITNECTICTJT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Stevens. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gerald Stevens of Mil-
ford, Conn. By way of background, I have been a member of the
Connecticut House of Representatives since 1967, and served from
1971 to 1972 as the deputy minority leader in the House, and the
last two years, 1973 and 1974, as the majority leader of the House of
Representatives, and I am presently, for 1975 and 1976, the minority
leader of the Connecticut House.
By way of professional background, I am an attorney licensed to
practice in the State of Connecticut and admitted to the bar of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut; U.S. Court of
47-704—75 10
140
Appeals for the Second Circuit ; and the Supreme Court of the United
States.
I would like just briefly to address myself to an aspect of Gover-
nor Meskill's tenure which I think bears upon this nomination and
which to my knowledge has not been discussed before the committee,
and that is the effect of Governor Meskill's 4 years on the judicial
system in the State of Connecticut.
During his 4 years, our judcial structure on both the civil and
criminal side underwent changes that were unprecedented in recent
memory. The first year in office saw the creation under the Governor's
urging of a commission to study no-fault insurance, which, of course,
is a very volatile subject. The Governor lent his support to this pro-
posal, and tiie recommendation of the commission, and in 1072 he
signed into law an extremely consumer oriented no-fault law for the
entire State of Connecticut.
Concern for the need to provide a second chance for youthful
offenders led the Governor to support and subsequently to the adop-
tion of a youthful offender law in the State of Connecticut designed
to give 16- and 17-year-olds a second chance once they have a run-in
with the law. He followed this in 1973 by providing an unprece-
dented act of accelerated rehabilitation for the criminals in the State
of Connecticut which gave a person convicted for the first time a
presentencing provi^ioiial i:)eriod vrliereby they could avoid the crim-
inal record for crimes which were not a serious nature.
For many years, going back to colonial times, our Stnte had a frag-
mented system of prosecuting criminal offenses. We had State's attor-
neys in each countj^ with no overall coordination. Governor ]Meslvill
called for the establishment of a coordinated division of Justice in 1970.
In 1973, due to his efforts, this was realized. We now hnve a division
of criminal justice headed by a chief States attorney to investigate
and prosecute all criminal matters in the State of Connecticut.
To make the division of justice effective, the Governor supported
the creation of a Statewide organized crime investigative task force
within the Connecticut State Police Department.
Persons unable to afford coimsel in criminal cases were not over-
looked in Governor Meskill's program. A public defenders services
commission was created in 1974 to administer, coordinate and control
the operations of defender services in our State.
Perhaps the major judicipl reform l)ronQ:ht about bv th^^ ^VrpRl^-ill
administration was the reorganization of Connecticut courts. Our
State had a three tier-court structure, each with its own jurisdiction.al
limits. In 1973, the Governor supported the creation of a commission
to study the court structure and make reconunendations for improve-
ment. Its report called for a merger of the tlirce trial courts into two
courts and eventually a single tier structure. Much controversy was
generated by this proposal. The Connecticut Bar Association was one
of the groups adamantly opposed to the recommendations. The Gov-
ernor gave his full backing to the commission's report and our State
now has a two-tier trial bench. We are moving toward a single tier
similar to that which I understand now exists in the District of Colum-
bia. Were it not for the Governor's support, this measure would never
have been enacted.
141
Governor Meskill lias not been hesitant to call for much-needed
change in our State's judicial structure. He has brought about im-
provements that benefit all citizens utilizing our courts. Both the
criminal justice system and the civil courts have been improved due
to his efforts.
On a personal note relative to the Governor's abilities as an attorney,
I can testify directly to what I think are his abilities in terms of being
a lawyer, a prospective judge, who can instinctively look at a statute
and pick out what are the important parts and the issues in the par-
ticular bill before him. As Governor, we established a procedure un-
heard of in Connecticut. The Governor would personally read and
review every single bill before it would come up for a vote in the House
and the Senate.
The members of those chambers met with him on almost a daily
basis. I was one who did that for the first 2 years of his term, and
during the last 2 years because of my duties as a majority leader, I
designated a deputy. There was no question but what Governor INIeskill
could read a complex statute, pick out the issues and the controversial
points and ask for appropriate amendments where they were called
for.
I think he has an outstanding ability to perceive what the problems
might be in a particular case before him.
I would like also, because of my personal knowledge, to address
myself to some of the remarks made here earlier concerning the INIeskill
administration and leasing activities during that period. I was rather
disturbed as an attorney sitting here yesterday hearing a great many
charges which were based upon newspaper statements, innuendo, and I
would like to bring to the committee's attention that the question of
leasing practices in the State of Connecticut has been under investiga-
tion by legislative committees for several years.
In 19Y3, with the Governor's support, we made changes in our
leasing practices laws in the State of Connecticut. We adopted in 1973
a law requiring the disclosure of all principles in leasing with the
State of Connecticut. Prior to that, a person or an entity who entered
into a lease with the State of Connecticut had no requirements of filing
the names and the addresse of who the actual owners were. That was
changed in 1973.
We also, under Governor Meskill's administration in 1973, required
public advertising of all leases that the State was going to enter into
where more than 5,000 square feet was concerned. The commissioner
of public work was directed by this statute, which the Governor sup-
ported and signed into law, to advertise at least 60 days prior to selec-
tion that the State was in the market for a lease of the particular type
in question.
So contrary to what I think the image projected has been, the
Governor has brought about reforms in leasing practices in the State
of Connecticut.
There has been discussion here of the Governor's ability and refer-
ence made to litigation which he was involved in as Governor. And
most particularly that he had ignored prior Supreme Court decisions
m challengmg a Ime item veto, a bill passed by the Assembly. I recall
very specifically that legislation, and I would like to point out to the
142
Committee that it was with an attempt for political purposes to include
an appropriation item in a regular bill to avoid the Governor's veto, to
take away from him the constitutional right to veto a spending bill.
Our constitution has a peculiar clause in it that gives the Governor
the ability to line item only spending bills. The opposition legislature
in 1972 passed a bill with substantive provisions and added another
section calling for the expenditure of State funds. A conference was
held. I was privy to it. There were at least four lawyers, including non-
legislative lawyers there, counsel to the Governor, who discussed the
legal ramifications of the Governor's veto of this bill.
"We came to the conclusion, that is as a group, that there was a valid
question that had not yet been passed upon b}^ our State Supreme
Court, and this was a distinguishable case. On that advice, the Gover-
nor, concurring, did, in fact, veto a portion of the bill which was sub-
sequently reversed by our State Supreme Court. I would point out to
members of the committee, though, it was a case where we thought
there was a valid distinction, and it is not unusual, as I am sure you
know, to have a SupremxC Court disagree with an action of the execu-
tive. I do not think that means that the executive lacks legal ability.
Senator Burdick. I am glad you raised this question, because a wit-
ness testified that the nf^tion the Governor took Avas in the face of a
unanimous decision to the contrary by the Supreme Court, and that
his action itself was declared invalid by the Supreme Court. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Stevens. Not exactly the way you present it. Senator. That was
what was said yesterday. In, I believe, 1963, our Supreme Court, in
the case of Paterson v. Dempsey interpreted the Governor's authority
to line item veto appropriations bills. That was a 1963 case.
In 1072, Governor Meskill was faced with the question of whether
or not he could veto a portion of a non-appropriations bill that had an
appropriations clause in it. The Governor decided, after our consulta-
tion, that he had that constitutional authority. An appeal was taken by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader
of the Senate, who were of a different political party than the Gover-
nor, and after the Governor's action, the Supreme Court held that the
Governor's action was unconstitutional.
He did not take his action in view of a Supreme Court directi^'e not
to do that. His action was subsequently found to have been unconstitu-
tional in exercising what he thought was a line item veto.
Senator Bukdtck. The impression I got from the other testimony
was that the Governor should have known that it had been ruled un-
constitutional because there had been a prior decision by the Supreme
Court in a similar situation. That is the reason I raise the question.
Mr. Stevens, There was a prior decision, Senator. It was the con-
census of the attorneys involved, including myself, that this was not
the same situation that tlie Supreme Court had ruled on 9 years previ-
ously, and that was the basis for our advice which the Governor
followed.
There have also been indications made that the Governor lacks
the proper temperament to be a judge, and I would say that, after 5
years of close association, I think that that is just not the case. The
testimony relied upon to form that opinion comes from testimony that
143
was given to this committee in September by individuals in the State
of Connecticut who have political differences with the Governor. Tom
Meskill has been an activist Governor. There is no question that there
are strong differences of opinion on his approach to governing the
State of Coimecticut. But in terms of temperament, I think he could
well fill the position that he seeks.
I would say in conclusion that never in 5 years of the closest associa-
tion, with meetings at his house at 6 in the morning during the legisla-
tive sessions to review the upcoming calendar of the day, for a full
5 month period, I have never once had any reason to question his
morality or his integrity. I have no questions on that today. I think
a full examination of the record will show tiiat Tom Meskill is an in-
di^ddual who will bring to this bench a distinction and an integrity
that we will all want.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before jou. If
I can answer any question directed toward the legislative activities
during the last 4 years under Governor Meskill, I will be happy to do
so.
Senator Burdick. Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. I have no questions. Thank you very much.
Senator Burdick. Our next witness is Leon RisCassi.
TESTIMONY OF LEON EisCASSI, ATTORNEY, HAETFORD, CONN.
Mr. RisCassi. Mr. Chairman, my name is Leon RisCassi, and I am
a lawyer in Hartford.
I am a member of the American Bar Association. I am on the
Federal bench bar committee of the Connecticut Bar Association. I
have been chairman of our State judiciary committee, and, sat on
nominations proposed by Governors. I am on the board of governors
of the Association of American Trial Lawyers, which is a 25,000
member organization. I have been their legislative chairman.
I went to school in Washington, and while at school I worked
here on Capitol Hill, and I remember serving as a guard in the
Capitol when the U.S. Supreme Court used to sit there. I have had a
deep and great abiding love and affection for our judiciary and those
who are members of it.
Xow many things have been said about Governor Meskill. I am
not a member of his political party and I do not know him personally.
I have never been out with him. I have been a Democrat in the State
of Connecticut, and I have been majority and minority leader of our
State senate in the past.
"\'\liat I say about the Governor has to do with his qualifications for
the high post of judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
I want briefly to point out just a couple of matters referred to yester-
day by Mr. Walsh as a representative of the American Bar Associa-
tion and by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
Much has been said about the fact that the Governor has had no trial
experience. In New York the same ABA and the same bar of the
city of New York vigorously opposed the election of Jacob Feinberg,
now supreme court justice of the court of last resort in the State
of New York, and in the case of Justice Feinberg the argument
that the ABA used, and that the bar of the city of New York used,
144
was the fact that he had nothing but trial experience, that he had
never sat in any judicial position. In the case of Governor Meskill the
opposite ar^ment is used, that he has had no trial experience. Justice
Feinberg tried perhaps more cases than any other lawyer in the state
of New York, so they could not use that argument and they used the
opposite.
The qualities that have been shown hj Governor Meskill are those
that would draw the opposition of certain groups but the opposition
rests on a basis other than his ability to conduct the office of a judge
of the second circuit.
I would like to point out that Joseph J. Smith, who served on the
second circuit until his retirement, prior to his appointment had never,
in his own words, tried a law case. And he made a great justice.
I think the use of leases as an argument against Governor Meskill
is highly unfair. This committee that sits in Connecticut, to date, to
my knowledge, has had nothing to say which attacked the Governor as
having anything to do with our leasing system, and I noticed partic-
ularly yesterday that reference was made only to the past several years
as to what was being investigated in the form of leases. I would like
to point out that former Governor Kibicoff, now U.S. Senator, and a
distinguished Member of the Senate, while Governor sat on our leasing
system, and it was the same then as it is now, with minor or no varia-
tions to my knowledge. Our leasing system in the State of Connecticut
has been the same ever since I was in the State senate, and that was
back in the 1940's. I have heard no attack made on it other than by
those who were not lucky enough to get a lease if they had property
to lease. And everything is a matter of opinion. The people that I have
watched testify in opposition, and that I have read as opposing the
Governor, oppose him mainly on his political views.
I think the ABA has a sorry record, actually, on those that they
have proposed or those that they have opposed. Mainly on those that
they have opposed rather than those they have proposed. But I think
it rests with his committee and not the ABA as to whether or not
Governor Meskill qualifies for the office of a judge of the second circuit
and particularly in the second circuit because the ABA has its great
source of power in that second circuit. As the author of the book "The
Bench Warmers" pointed out, the ABA would like to dictate policy
through its recommendations, who they oppose and who they propose.
When you have a U.S. Supreme Court that by a majority vote can
affect some 200 million people, and when you have a civil case where
to prevail you have to have a unanimous vote, then it becomes appar-
ent that the Senate will have to come to a judgment based on evidence,
and not on propaganda, particularly in reference to leasing. I have not
heard Governor Meskill connected in any way with any one of these
leases. I hope the committee will appprove this man, who is a man of
humility, who bit the bullet and brought our State into a happy state
of financial balance which subjected him to a lot of criticism from
special interest groups. I hope that you will recommend him for
confirmation.
May I say further as to the professors in the University of Connecti-
cut, the legal aid clinic takes up much time of our judiciary with
ridiculous matters, and there were attorneys in great numbers, per-
haps in the majority, I think in the majority, who felt that the legal
145
aid clinic and its activities, sponsored by these professors, should be
curtailed. The time for happy expenditures has gone by. Governor
Meskill will make a great jurist. Any student at any law school tries
to get on the editorial staff of the bar journal of his school. Governor
Meskill was not only a member of the editorial staff, he was chairman
of the board of editors of the University of Connecticut Law Journal,
Senator Hruska. Mr. RisCassi, were you contacted by any repre-
sentatives of the American Bar Association in regard to this ?
Mr.. EisCassi. No, Senator. In that regard may I point out that I am
the senior member of a seven-man firm, and in our county, in Hartford
County, we try perhaps more cases than any other firm, and perhaps
as many as any firm in the State. No one approached anyone in our
office at all to ask us how we felt about Governor Meskill and his
virtues or his inadequacies as a prospective member to the second
circuit.
Senator Hruska. Have you talked to anyone that had been con-
tacted ?
Mr. RisCassi. No, sir, no one that I know has been contacted. I took
an interest in this as a citizen and as a lawyer. I wrote to Senator
Eastland last year and he invited me down. But my doctor would not
let me come and at that time I remember that if you wanted to say
something on the Governor's behalf, there was no investigating done
by anyone that I know of, and I heard this name Walsh at that time
and one other, and I recall calling a Phil Magner in Buffalo, telling
him that we were interested, that I was interested and others were
interested in this nomination, and never did I get any response in
any manner.
Senator Hruska. Was he the representative of the American Bar
Association ?
Mr. RisCassi. A member o,f the American Bar Association and a
member of the Trial Lawyers Association that I belong to.
Senator Hruska. Judge Walsh in his testimony yesterday indicated
that there was a representative of the association, of the committee for
judicial appointments, in each circuit. Do you knoAv who that is in your
circuit ?
Mr. RisCassi. No, sir, Nor was it made known so far as I know
through the press or the news media in any way so that you could
express your views.
May I say in closing that when you get organizations that come in
like the Political Caucus and so on, it would be appropriate to ask how
many active members there are in these organizations. There are many
of these organizations that come in and try to speak for John Q. Public
which represent a dozen and a half people and hold their meetings in
a telephone booth.
Senator Hruska. Thank you.
Senator Burdick. Just one question.
Mr. RisCassi. Yes, Senator Burdick?
Senator Burdick. How many licensed, practicing lawyers do you
have in the State of Connecticut ?
Mr. RisCassi. About 4,500.
Senator Burdick. Thank you very much.
Our next witness will be Mrs. Charlotte Kitowski, West Hartford,
Conn.
146
TESTIMONY OF CHAELOTTE KITOWSKI, WEST HARTFOUD, CONN.
Mrs. KiTowsKi. I am Charlotte Kitowski. I am a citizen. Althoiicrh I
do iiave organizational affiliations, and we do not meet in a telephone
booth, I am speaking today as a citizen, one of the little people, about
whom this candidate is supposed to be unusually concerned.
bomeone here asked yesterday, ''Vvliy did you come?" I think that is
a legitimate question, and I believe I owe you a brief answer. I have
nothing up my sleeve, no deals, no political ambition, no job to be
gained, no leases to conceal, no leases that I want to have arranged.
My vested interest consists of my three children and their frieSds,
whom 1 have always encouraged to believe in the tremendous potential
o± our goyernmental system, regardless of what they have seen on TV
m their lifetinie over the past 12 years. As old-fashioned as it may
sound, 1 feel that I owe them a government that is better, I am sure
you agree with me, that is responsive to human needs, and that does
begin to fulfill the promise that we all believe is there.
To confirm Thomas J. Meskill whose decisions most of these young
people have watched with shock for the last 4 years, to confirm as a
judge m the second highest court in the country, would not offer them
much hope for the future. I will include as attachment No. 1 the re-
sults of a poll taken in Connecticut last fall for the Hartford Times,
a paper which supported the Republican candidate, by the way, indi-
cating a plurality of 5 to 3, of the voters sampled, opposed to the iudffe-
ship of Governor Meskill. i ' ri- j g
[The material referred to .follows :]
[From the Hartford Times, Oct. 23, 1974]
VoTEES Against Meskill Judgeship 5 To 3
Voters in the state, by close to a 5 to 3 pluraUty, are opposed to the appointment
of Got. Thomas Meskill as a federal Court of Appeals judge.
Former President Nixon, as one of his last official acts before resigning, nomi-
nated Meskill to fill a vacancy on the prestigious Second Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals, which covers both New York State and Connecticut. The nomination has
drawn lire from many quarters, including the American Bar Association, on the
ground that Meskill lacks the necessary legal credentials for a judgeship of such
importance.
The Connecticut Poll, conducted exclusively for The Hartford Times and The
New Haven Register by Decision Research Corp. of Wellesley, Mass., show that
voters in the state also tend to disagree with the nomination — disapproval of the
appointment outweighs approval by a 47 per cent to 34 per cent margin, with 19
per cent not yet having reached a conclusion on the issue.
Interviewing for the poll was conducted by telephone between Sept. 27 and 29
among 7.j0 Connecticut residents who say they are registered to vote and almost
certainly or probably will do so in November.
As might be expected, reaction tends to run along party and ideological lines,
but not overwhelmingly so.
Both Democrats and independents oppose the appointment by about 2 to 1,
while Republicans are narrowly (by 47 per cent to 35 per cent) in favor.
Liberals, who traditionally have been most hostile to Meskill, are even more
heavily opposed (they disapprove of the nomination by nearly 4 to 1) than
Democrats. The situation among middle-of-the-roaders, on the other hand, is
far less clear cut — 4.5 per cent are against the Meskill appointment, 33 per cent
are for it. Meskill's fellow conservatives are also divided on the subject, favor-
ing the appointment by a slim 48 per cent to 39 per cent plurality.
Reflecting the split along party lines, opinion in the Hartford and New Haven
areas is more heavily against the nomination than is sentiment elsewhere.
147
<;iniiiarlv voimc People, a higher proportion of whom are Democratic and
liberS s^iow^gSeraiftlpathy t!) making Meskill a federal judge than do their
elders^pposition gradually scales down from about 60 per cent among voters
under age 25 to 40 per cent among those over 65.
Mrs. KiTOwsKi. I suspect that the percentage, if a poll were taken
today, of those opposed, ^vould be higher. This is just to let you know
that I am not alone, and those organizations, which an attempt has
been made to discredit, are not speaking in a vacuum. I don't thmk this
poll was taken in a telephone booth. • i j •
After listening to yesterday's testimony. I decided to include m
the attachments an article which I normally would not have, describ-
incr some of my activities in Connecticut, for identification purposes
onlv.
[The material referred to follows :]
[From the West Hartford News. Dec. 5, 1974]
EPA Honors Kitowski As "Model" foe Citizens
Charlotte Kitowski, the Arnoldale Road woman whose persistence many credit
with stopping 1-291 through West Hartford, was honored by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency in Boston this week. - t oa-i
Mrs. Kitowski received an award for her role in blocking construction of I-2»l
through the West Hartford reservoirs.
Southern New England Telephone also received an EPA award for Its energy-
saving car pool program.
The EPA's testimonial to Mrs. Kitowski :
"Charlotte Kitowski first became involved with environmental issues when
Interstate 291 was proposed to be constructed around Hartford and through the
Hartford MDC reservoirs. At that time, slie organized and became Chairperson
of the Committee to Save the Reservoirs. This Committee was later broadened
to include all of 1-291 and was renamed Citizens on 1-291.
"Since then, her activities have assumed a regional and statewide role with
the development of the Connecticut Transportation Coalition which involves
regional and state-wide environmental and transportation expertise and acts as
a public transportation advocacy group. She is also chairperson of the Advisory
Group for the Citizen Participation Aspects of the Department of Transporta-
tion's Unified Work Program for the Capital Region.
"Despite this significant commitment of time, she has managed to raise a
family as well as remain active in other civic projects.
"Her activities are a model for other citizen participation programs. Work-
ing on very small budgets, her groups have been able to supply responsible
public input which has had a significant effect on the Connecticut Transporta-
tion Program and the related environmental issues.
"Her interests are much broader than highways, however, and the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection as well as the EPA have come under
her scrutiny and have been subjected to conscience-raising inputs and inquiries
which have often resulted in a more resiwnsible approach to the transportation-
environmental issues.
"As a nurse, Mrs. Kitowski saw firsthand that lung diseases and respiratory-
associated disorders were increasing at an alarming rate. Faced with the choice
of treating the diseases or fighting to change the environment which was causing
them, she chose the latter with far-reaching and dramatic results. It has been
a significant commitment of time and effort on her part, but her actions have
provpd that responsible public participation can be the keystone of our environ-
mental effort."
Mrs. Kitowski. I heard yesterday that the University of Connect!^
cut Law School professors who have opposed Governor Meskill are
politically motivated. This was a judgment offered by one of your
witnesses about one of the most political groups in town.
148
Remarks were made throughout yesterday's hearing about the leas-
ing subcommittee, even though they have not even taken a position.
Apparently, investigating in itself is threatening. I could not agree
more that Democrats as well as Republicans have probably been a part
of favored leases, but once again, 1 have to speak as an old-fashioned
person. "\ATien did two wrongs make a right ?
As for Dr. Gunther, whose January 21 letter to Senator Eastland
you will. I assume, include elsewhere in the transcript, this is a re-
spected member of our legislature, one of a handful of Republicans to
be reelected, I might add, on a very Ioav budget. He was described
at great length by Mr. Doyle as a "colorful character" in what ap-
peared to be an effort to discredit his testimony. One of the apparently
unusual things about him is that he admires pretty girls. What has
happened to Washington that a man who admires pretty girls is now
characterized as "colorful" ?
Beginning with the statement I handed in, first I would like to com-
pliment the members of this committee for attempting to fulfill its
obligation to thoroughly examine the credentials of this candidate.
Many of us in Connecticut are aware of the pressures being brought
to bear, but it seems to us. as I am sure it seems to you, that restoring
public confidence in this governmental process is of paramount impor-
tance— more important than the buddy system.
Having taken this much time considering this appointment, we
urge you to take more, due to the number of haunting, unanswered
questions which have arisen within the last several months. During
the proceedings of the State subcommittee investigating the practices
and procedures of leasing, for example, why did Mr. Tomasso, in-
volved in the controversial Riverview Realty lease in Newington, re-
fuse to honor the subpena for his financial records ? A renewal of the
issuance of this subpena by the chairman of the appropriations com-
mittee was voted on the day before I came down, which would be the
22d. at the capitol. by the members of the leasing subcommittee. In
addition, copies of their final report, I was told by this committee, will
not be available until next week, when they will be forwarded to,
among other State officials, the State's attorney. The question of the
Phoenix /Greater Hartford Community College lease has not yet been
thoroughly examined by this subcommittee, and quite possibly will
come up again if the permanent investigating commission which the
subcommittee has recommended is established. All of these considera-
tions would seem to preclude a hasty decision on this candidate.
^ Because there are many people in Connecticut who cannot take the
time or the money to come to Washington for this hearing, it has
been suggested by many individuals, in public office and out, that the
Senate Judiciary Committee pursue this investigation within the
State, where there are many people, including attorneys, who would
like to offer further testimoTiy.
I realize that this is Senator Weicker's third nomination, and I am
sorry about this. However, the fact that he has chosen to nominate
candidatps who, for one renson or another, appeared unacceptable, does
not qualify Thomas Meskill as a judge. Likewise, the fact that Repre-
sentative Cotter attended college with the nominee does not speak to
the ability of the candidate to serve in the second highest court in the
149
country. This is, after all, not a bid for membership in a fraternity.
Public money and public service on a lifetime basis are involved, and
that is where I am involved — my money, and public money and public
service in the State where my mother happens to live, Vermont.
It is very puzzling to those of us in Connecticut, who have heard
the pronouncements of Senator Weicker about the importance of the
appearance of wrongdoing in Washington, that apparently he is not
able to relate to the appearance of wrongdoing in Connecticut. If a
Washington figure had engaged in the kind of secret lobbying —
that's attachment 3 — in which Governor ]\Ieskill participated, in an
effort to overcome the objections to a highway running through a
reservoir area, voiced by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development
Department, Senator Weicker would be the first to cry "foul." And
yet he appears to find this behavior acceptable in his candidate.
[The material referred to follows :]
[From the Hartford Times, Oct. 15. 1972]
Secret Mesktll Lobbying fob 1-291 Was Impeopeb
Governor Meskill's trip to Boston Friday for a closed-door session with the
federal agencies that have opposed construction of Interstate 291 through the
West Hartford reservoirs was unusual, to say the least. It has every look of
impropriety.
The Governor had made no mention of his plan to go to Boston. He was visibly
angered to discover a Hartford Times reporter and an Associated Press photog-
rapher at the scene of the supposedly secret meeting. He initially refused to allow
photographs, and barred the press from the hour-and-a-half meeting.
It seems an inescapable conclusion that the Governor was in Boston to lobby
for 1-291 ; to persuade federal officials who have criticized both the environmental
and land-use planning impact of the route to change their minds ; and to do so
without public acknowledgment of the high-level lobbying.
After the talks, Mr. Meskill said the purpose of his unannounced trip to Bos-
ton was simply to clear up channels of communication with federal agencies.
The channels have not seemed unclear. The Federal Environmental Protection
Agency, the Interior Department and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development all have reviewed proposals for the highway, and all have issued
strong advisory opinions opposing present plans.
Their opinions, like the favorable opinion of a consultant hired by the state
Department of Transportation, have been made public — as they should be.
It is entirely appropriate — although not ordinary — for the Governor to involve
himself in testing their opinions against those of the state experts. It is reason-
able— but far from ordinary — for a Connecticut entourage headed by the Gov-
ernor to go to the horse's mouth in Boston to challenge the assumptions and con-
clusions of federal opponents of the state's route.
But it is entirely inappropriate — and extraordinary — for such a conversation
to be held in closet, unannounced, made known to the public only through an
alert press.
The impression inevitably left is that the state officials hoped to exercise
behind-the-scenes leverage to persiaade the various federal agencies to reverse
their positions or mute their opposition.
If th.1t was not in fact the purpose of Friday's trip to Boston, skeptics will
best be dissuaded by having a full transcript of the meeting made public.
The bland assertion that "clearing up commimications" was the sole intent
does little to clear up communications with those who care deeply about 1-291,
and who fear the state government Is still intent on building the highway in the
face of both local and federal opposition.
Mrs. KiTowsKi. I believe Senator Weicker has stated his intention to
write a book about the desirability of open government, that it is not
only desirable, but essential in order to maintain the democratic proc-
150
ess Yet he does not seem to object to the kind of closed government
which the people of Connecticut have lived with for 4 years. When the
U.S. Department of Transportation released correspondence relating
to the above-mentioned highway — item 4 — in May of 1973, Governor
Meskill referred to the release, valid under the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act, as a "premature leak from an unauthorized source." As some-
one who spoke personally with this top-level source within the Office of
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, I can assure you
that the release of the correspondence was neither premature nor
unauthorized. It just did not happen to agree with Governor Meskill 's
position.
[The material referred to follows :]
1-291 Letter Leaks Charged by Meskill
(By Robert Waters)
Washington. — Gov. Meskill complained last February to federal authorities
about "premature leaks from unauthorized sources" regarding his correspondence
about the controversial 1-291 highway project.
In a letter dated Feb. 6 to U.S. Secretary of Transportation Claude S. Brinegar,
the Connecticut governor charged an "apparent disregard for private corre-
spondence continues unchecked within USDOT (U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion . . ."
Meskill was unaware at the time that his letters were being made public by
DOT under a Freedom of Information Act request from Rep. William R. Cotter,
D-lst Dist., an outspoken foe of the 1-291 project.
Cotter's office released the Meskill complaint letter here Tuesday after re-
questing and receiving a copy of it from DOT under the information act
requirements.
Brinegar's reply to the Meskill letter had already been made public by Cotter
last month following a similar request. On the basis of the contents of Brinegar's
reply letter, Cotter invoked the information act and asked for the original
Meskill letter.
Meskill was aware that Cotter was releasing the 1-291 correspondence. How-
ever, his letter to Brinegar strongly indicated that he believed Cotter was re-
ceiving the correspondence via leaks rather than by official channels.
Cotter's administrative aide, Malcolm Campbell said Tuesday that all the 1-291
correspondence, including the Feb. 6 letter from Meskill, was obtained openly from
DOT via routine telephone calls requesting the letters under the Freedom of
Information Act.
Brinegar's April 6 reply letter hints at Meskill's complaint but does not spell
out clearly the fact that the governor believed his correspondence was being
leaked. In the final paragraph, Brinegar tells Meskill : "Although we will not
distribute copies of this exchange of correspondence, you should be aware that
our letters must be made available to anyone who requests copies under the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552."
In the February letter, Meskill also strongly denied that the state was not
interested in completing 1-291.
"It is our firm belief," said Meskill, "that the circumferential route around
Hartford (1-291) is not only vital to the future growth of our state but that
it must be provided in order to free the logjam which is already seriously affecting
our state's traffic flow."
Meskill made this point in response to an earlier letter from then U.S. Trans-
portation Secretary John A. Volpe. In this letter, dated Jan. 11 and also made
public by Cotter several days later, Volpe had indicated that he believed the
state's only interest was financial: Would the state be required to pay the 90
percent federal share if the project was dropped?
In the Jan. 11 letter, Volpe indicated to Meskill that it was possible that the
project could be abandoned without loss of the federal share for ramp sections
already completed.
Meskill's February letter to Brinegar, who replaced Volpe, said that he had
been unable to "accurately assess" Volpe's letter. He asked Brinegar for comments
on several points including "clarification on the terms of reimbursement . . ."
151
In a separate statement Tuesday, Cotter also was sharply critical of the fail-
ure of state officials to release, until Monday, the contents of a so-called "secret
memo" in which Connecticut Environmental Protection Commissioner Dan W.
Lufkin warned that 1-291 would create serious problems of air, water and noise
pollution west of Hartford.
Cotter charged a "Watergate" type of cover-up was involved in the memo
which was written May 30, 1972 and kept secret until Monday when the Courant
obtained a copy of it.
Cotter released a copy of a letter from George S. Koch, state deputy transpor-
tation commissioner, in which Koch on Jan, 26 claimed that the Connecticut
"Bureau of Highways does not have such a communication (from Lufkin) and
therefore is unable to make it available for public inspection."
Campbell said that the reference to the "Bureau of Highways" possession of
the Lufkin memo is believed to be a device used to mask the fact that the memo
was actually in the possession of Connecticut Transportation Commissioner A.
Earl Wood. Lufkin had addressed the memo to Wood.
Mrs. KiTOWSKi, I will introduce an attachment to my testimony
■which consists of a newspaper account of the secrecy behind the DEP
staff position prepared regarding this same highway, which I use as
a case in point because it is what I know best, which indicated that
there would be adverse environmental effects. The Commissioner of
the Department of Environmental Protection, Dan Lufkin, who spoke
yesterday in support of Governor Meskill, was fully aware, as was
(jovernor Meskill, that this staff position, prepared at taxpayers' ex-
pense, was being suppressed. Even when the final environmental impact
statement was ready for release, months after the staff position was
submitted to the Department of Transportation, the DEP position
paper was not included. The question must be raised, would this posi-
tion paper have been excluded if it had favored the highway? For
Senator Weicker's information, I believe the heading on the newspaper
attachment reads "Watergate-Type Coverup."
[The material referred to follows :]
[From the West Hartford News, May 10, 1973]
Wateegate-Type Coverup Charged on 1-291 Report
Controversy over 1-291 reached new pitch this week when U.S. Rep. William
R. Cotter charged the Meskill administration with "secrecy" and a Watergate
scandal type cover-up of an 11-month old state document critical of the highway
in West Hartford.
The document, a letter last May 30 from State Commissioner of Environ-
mental Protection Dan W. Lufkin to State Commissioner of Transportation A.
Earl Wood, had been described repeatedly by both officials to continued press
inquiries and Cotter's requests for copies, as "inter-office memoranda" and not
public under the Freedom of Information Act.
Cotter's office finally obtained the memo late Monday detailing Lufkin's ob-
jections to completing 1-291 due to "serious" air, noise and water pollution, after
working "intensively since Thursday and off and on" during the year, accord-
ing to Cotter Aide Malcolm Campbell.
He said the memo was picked up in Hartford about 5 p.m. and that about 8
p.m., the Governor's office released the memo to the Hartford Courant.
The supressed letter cited Lufkin's adverse comments about completing 1-291
through West Hartford reservoir land and residential sections of Windsor and
Bloomfield. It cited potential pollution, negative land-use impact and overall
degradation in the environment.
"I do not subscribe to the point of view that condones hiding adverse govern-
mental reports or attempts to manipulate the flow of information to the people,"
Cotter said, "One of the tragic lessons of the over-increasing Watergate scandal
is that when the public's right to know is thwarted, there is increased latitude
for irresponsible, even illegal action. Official government cover-ups have no place
in the state of Connecticut."
152
Cotter charged specifically that the "spirit and letter" of regulations of the
Council of Environmental Quality and of the U.S. Transportation Department
were violated when Lufkin and Wood decided to withhold the documents, inti-
mating the action may have been "illegal."
A spokesman for Wood said the memo would appear in the final environmental
re})ort in Washington, reportedly due later this month, and that Wood had de-
cided now that Lufkin's letter "is part of the record."
A.sked why the same letter was not a public document several months ago,
Wood's ofiice had no comment.
Lufkin's office said it had not asked the status of the letter to be changed, nor
had it protested tlie "inner-office" designation. Asst. Environmental Commis-
sioner Richard W. Chase .said of Cotter's charge: "I don't think it's true. There
was a measure of ambiguity on interpretation of what the letter was. Both sides
were justified. Now that interpretation is changed."
Ironically, on Nov. 7, 1972, Lufkin's office released a statement about new
"rules of practice."
"One of the first policies established in this department was 'open files,' " the
statement read. "And that policy has been reinforced in the new Rules of Prac-
tice." Commissioner Lufkin said, "The final rules make clear that our intention
is not only to comply with the letter of the right-to-know law, but to go consid-
erably beyond as well."
Meanwhile, Charlotte Kitowski of Arnoldale Road, leader of the Citizens
Against 1-291, charged that Lufkin and Wood have compromised their positions
and .should "withdraw from decision-making capacity" on the planned one-year
study of land-use and transportation needs in the capitol region, a studv which
could decide the final fate of 1-291.
She blamed suppression of the memo on "political pressure from Governor
Meskill," adding "it would seem that those who claim to be the most concerned
about law and order acturJly have the least resi)ect for it. Transportation needs
are not being met in Connecticut, and yet we have to struggle just to maintain
the democratic process."
Mrs. KiTOwsKT. Tlio fact is, I am sympathetic to Senator Weicker's
ori<j:iiial premise that tlic bcncli might be made more representative
by havinir a judge wlio might be considered less elitist, and more a
man of the peo])lo. T have observed in court and I understand what it
is he is saying. But tliis nominee does not meet that criteria. Fomier
Governor Meskill has been pictured by Senator Weicker as a com-
passionate man. I offer only one example of what T feel is perhaps a
contradictory view of his statement. Tn the spring of 1973. T turned on
my TV set at 7:15 a.m. to liear JoJm Hart, of CBS news, interviewing
Governor Evans of Washington, and Governor Meskill. at a Gover-
nors conference, regarding capital punishment. Governor Meskill,
with a broad smile, agreed that one of the reasons he favored capital
punishment was that it saved the State money. I do not consider this
a high level of compassion, although, I snppose that if someone wants
to discredit my testimony they can indicate that, being a registered
nurse. T ha\'e to have a higher standard of compassion.
During the winter of 1972-73, as you may know, people all over
Connecticut suffered tlirough a 4-month bus strike. I personallv picked
up elderly people, hitchhiking to work dui-i)ig bitterlv cold weather.
Regardless of who was most at fault for the\luration of the strike,
and I am sure there was enough blame to go around, I call to your
attention a quotation from the Jamiarv 6, 1973 New York Times. In
a story dealing with the bus crisis. Governor Meskill is quoted as
saying, the crisis "may not be a crisis, after all. People buy another
car, they get used to riding with somebody else." This "man of the
153
people" never did acknowledge, during his entire term, that between
20 and 30 percent of the people in nrban areas do not own one car,
let alone possess the ability to "buy another car."'
Those of ns who consider ourselves common people in Connecticut,
whether we live in the suburbs or the cities, find this appointment unac-
ceptable. We hope that you will consider improving the quality of
justice a higher priority than political accommodation.
I would like to make just a couple of remarks about some of yester-
day's testimony because I thought that there w^ere a few holes.
The opposition of the University of Connecticut Law School faculty
dates back to the sp.ring of ] 972. Governor Noel stated yesterday that
that kind of opposition that Governor IMeskill has generated is the lot
of eveiy Governor when the needs seen by each agency outweigh the
funds available. T am very sympathetic to that. I am sure that no
agency is ever satisfied with its appropriations. I have this article
which is Attachment 6.
[The material referred to follows :]
[From the Hartford Times, June 21, 1972]
A 'Harassed' Law Clinic
The decision of Joseph D. Harbaugh, director of the University of Connecticut
Law Clinic, to leave the state for a post at Duke in North Carolina is an unhappy-
omen.
Professor Harbaugh served with distinction as the first chief public defender
in the state's ciiTuit court system. He loft that post to join the law faculty, in-
cluding the new "clinical" program in criminal law.
Under his direction, the state'.s lawyers-to-be have had an unparalled introduc-
tion to the court system. They have not been confined to book-learning or mock
trials ; they have worked with members of the bar in the actual defense and
prosecution of real cases — just as doctors and dentists, at some stage of their
professional training, must practice on real people with real ailments.
Some of tlie cases taken by the clinic — a very small fraction — have involved
crucial constitutional (luestions, as indeed they should. And on some of these
cases, the students have been on the side of the plaintiffs, challenging the state.
Governor Thomas J. Meskill, himself a lawyer and the product of an earlier
era of law training, has objected strenuously to anything that puts a UConn
student on the plaintiffs .side against the state. Early in his administration, he
called the clinic "nothing less than an agency for subsidizing attack on our insti-
tutions and our government" — and he has stuck to that hasty and misguided
judgment ever since.
According to Professor Harbaugh, that hostility has led to "continuing harass-
ment" of the program by the executive branch — and he's had it.
Connecticut's loss to Duke University's gain. Perhaps a successor can make
a fresh start with the Governor, and win a reasoned and reasonable response.
Mrs. KiTowsKi. This did not fall into that category, but rather
went to basic differences in approach toward public service. The feel-
ing of the faculty working out of the legal clinic was that people
with no money who appeared to have a grievance against the govern-
ment should be able to receive legal assistance. The Governor was
quoted in the editorial that he objected strenuously to anything that
put the University of Connecticut students on the plaintiff side
against the State, However, since taxpayers all across the country
are now paying for the legal expenses of those who are not indigent
154
who would appear to have a grievance agamst the Government,
perhaps his evaluation would be different at this time. It seemed to
me that it was important to take note of this clarification.
I do not want to go into any detail about the leasing investigation.
I would assume that you would be waiting for that final report. How-
ever, I would like to point out that this is a conmiittee which I
believe was operating on a $35,000 budget to investigate $7 million
worth of leases. I think that the expectations which were expressed
here yesterday were rather high considering that kind of time limita-
tion and that very small budget.
I would like to offer into the record — and this is attachment 7 — an
editorial by U.S. Representative Moffett which appeared in a syndi-
cated column in 22 papers in Connecticut on September 10, 1973. If
Senator Gunther, who has publicly offered to take a lie detector test,
is not to be taken seriously because of his apparent admiration of
pretty girls, how about the statement of Representative Moffett? I
believe Representative Moffett has also requested that his December
21 and January 23 letters to Senator Eastland be included in the
testimony.
[The editorial referred to follows:]
[From the Torrlngton Register, Sept. 10, 1973]
$4 Million State DOT Lease Avoids New Law By Five Days
(By Kick Diamond and Toby Moffett)
Secret, no-bid leasing of private property for state agency needs has tradi-
tionally been a method of rewarding political favorites in Connecticut.
Well-connected landlords have realized millions of dollars of excess profits —
at taxpayers expense — from the state leasing "money tree". Thus patronage
policy, under Governor Thomas .1. Meskill, has continued unabated despite
revelations made in 1971 of profiteering by political insiders during the Dempsey
Administration.
Adverse publicity on state leasing practices did not deter Governor Meskill
from giving State garage leasing contracts, totaling more than $1 million each,
to two prominent Republican friends from his hometown of New Britain in
1!)72. Recipients of the Governor's largesse were contractor Angelo Tomasso,
Jr., president of Riverview Realty Inc. of Farmington, and Frank Downes,
uncle of GOP State Chairman J. Brian Gaffney.
The hue and cry resulting from these disclosures, however, tipped the scale
in favor of legislative reform on leasing procedures. Perhaps the final straw
was the revelation by Downes, testifying before the State and Urban Develop-
ment Committee in September of 1972, that he personally received inside infor-
mation that the state planned to acquire a highway garage in Waterford.
Downes subseqcently purchased a building and negotiated a lucrative no-bid
lease for the facility.
In May of this year Meskill signed into law a bill intended to curb such
abuses in the .$8 million annual state leasing program administered by the
Public "Works Department. The main thru.st of the legislation was a provision
that all prospective state leases were to be publicly advertised fiO rlays prior
to consummation of any deals l)y the PWD. Supposedly this would eliminate
the "tip ofif" abuse, while an additional clause, requiring disclosure of all parties
to a lease, would discourage political participation.
On June 25, however, five days prior to the July 1 effective date of the new
law, PWD Commissioner Paul J. Manafort, an old New Britain associate of the
Governor, sent out a "letter of intent" accepting a proposal for a $4 million.
155
20 year lease, for a Department of Transportation office building in Newington.
The leasor? Angelo Tomasso's Riverview Realty Inc. Reliable sources indicate
Tomasso was tipped off to the Newington deal. Similar allegations were made
when he landed the highway garage lease in Winsted last year.
Earlier this year Riverview obtained an option on a 42,000 square foot build-
ing on a four acre parcel in Newington. Upon receipt of the state's commit-
ment letter it exercised its option and purchased the building for $420,000 or
$10 per square foot.
The State now proposes to lease this building for a 20 year period, paying
$203,700 annually or $4.85 a square foot. Manafort defends the arrangement by
maintaining that Riverview will spend $1 million in renovations to bring the
building up to state specifications, a figure disputed by some experts.
Asked if there was any urgency for the DOT office space that necessitated
avoiding the requirements of the new law, Manafort replied, "We have been
negotiating the lease for six months, to have delayed would have meant six
months' work out the window."
Commissioner Manafort, like many of his predecessors, asserts that the unique
nature of leasing agreements does not lend itself to public bidding. But the
Etherington Commission (on Services and Expenditures) and several others
who have studied state leasing practices, conclude that more competition is an
essential ingredient to holding down costly leases. The 1971 Report, which made
a long list of still unacted upon recommendations, pointed out that the state cost
for buildings is 23.7 per cent higher than comparable space negotiated by private
industry.
The Tomasso deal, notwithstanding, the new law, Public Act 149, is a step in
the right direction, but most critics contend the State still has a long way to go.
A recently released report by the New Jersey Office of Fiscal Affairs concluded
that New Jersey could have saved $19.6 milion and wound up with more office
space if the state had constructed its own office space instead of leasing space
over the next 30 years.
Release of the report followed an April announcement by New Jersey Governor
William T. Cahill that "state leasing procedures are being tightened up and
changed". The Governor's action came on the heels of a Newark Star-Ledger
story, showing that James A. O'Connor, former director of purchase and property
for the state, had gone into business vpith a real estate broker who benefitted
from state lease deals.
A complete and thorough study of Connecticut's leasing practices might prove
just as revealing.
Mrs. KrrowsKi. One final comment on the leasing, and to my surprise
this has not been brought up by anyone, I do not believe. There is
a difference. There is a difference between the leasing practices of this
administration and the tone which has been taken in the previous
ones. For one thing, of course, we do not have a Democrat up here
as a nominee. If we did, I am sure those of us who disagree with the
way this leasing has been done would be commenting on that. I think
the difference is summed up in this editorial perfectly, and I would
like to bring it in.
The Hartford Times editorial of December 20 says :
In a sense it may be unimportant whether State Senator George Gunther ex-
plicitly warned the Governor about the impropriety of a specific lease, or whether
Representative-elect Toby Moffett can show that Mr. Meskill knew of that lease
in time to have stopi)ed it.
The important point is that the Governor must have known of the patronage
that lubricated his adminisration ; everyone else did. The patronage may have
been more extensive in his administration, but even that if demonstrated would
be unimportant.
Whether better or worse than that of previous administrations, it should have
been stopped. I could have been stopped. It was not stopped.
47-704—75 11
156
Far from stopping it, Mr. Meskill favored the kingpin of the patronage system,
his party chairman, with a state judgeship for which, in the view of the organized
state bar, he was not qualified.
Far from stopping the patronage system, the Governor of the state put his
implicit blessing upon it by bestowing an ultimate patronage plum on the man
who not only ran the system, but who has subsequently defended it before the
legislative committee probing it.
Is that relevant to consideration of Mr. MeskiU's fitness for judicial office
himself?
[The editorial referred to follows :]
[The Hartford Times, Dec. 20, 1974]
Leasing Is Not Irrelevant to the Meskill Judgeship
If the continuing investigation into state leasing practices has proved any-
thing, it is that a pattern of misuse extends well back beyond the Meskill
Administration.
Whether the misuse has in all cases — indeed, in any cases, without specific
charges and trials — involved criminal misbehavior is less clear.
But there can be little doubt that favored persons have been successful in
negotiating contracts with the state in less than even competition.
There can be little doubt that the favored contractors expected to turn a profit —
enough, in fact, that they could in some cases offer an equity interest in a project
to those who had contributed nothing apparent save their influence over the leas-
ing system itself.
The list of beneficiaries is bipartisan ; both parties have apparently cleared
their friends' way to the public trough.
One person now stands to be held uniquely accountable for this long-standing
patronage system : Governor Thomas J. Meskill, whose nomination to the Second
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals was shelved this week by the Senate Judiciary
Committee pending the outcome of the leasing investigation.
THERE IS AN element of unfairness in that delay. Governor Meskill has been
implicated only to the extent of having failed to intervene to stop the manipula-
tion of the leasing system.
But to weigh that limited implication in considering his fitness for a lifetime
appointment to the nation's second-highest court is not entirely unfair, either.
In a sense, it may be unimportant whether State Sen. George Gunther explicitly
warned the Governor about the impropriety of a specific lease, or whether
Representative-elect Toby Mofi'ett can show that Mr. Meskill knew of that lease
in time to have stopped it.
The important point is that the Governor must have known of the patronage
that lubricated his administration; everyone else did. The patronage may have
been more extensive in his administration, but even that if demonstrated would
be unimportant.
Whether better or worse than that of previous administrations, it should have
been stopped. It could have been stopped. It was not stopped.
Far from stopping it, Mr. Meskill favored the kingpin of the patronage system,
his party chairman, with a state judgeship for which, in the view of the organized
state bar, he was not qualified.
Far from stopping the patronage system, the Governor of the state put his im-
plicit blessing upon it by bestowing an ultimate patronage plum on the man
who not only ran the system, but who has subsequently defended it before the
legislative committee probing it.
Is that relevant to consideration of Mr. MeskiU's fitness for judicial office
himself?
It is.
There are other and more compelling considerations. Mr. MeskiU's experience
in court has been questioned by a committee of the American Bar Association,
and by prestigious members of the academic legal profession.
His "judicial temperament" has been challenged by others : The inclination to
Usten thoughtfully and patiently to complex arguments put forth by opposing
spokesmen ; the inclination to weigh humane consideration against punitive need.
157
To add to those tests a new factor — hands clean of the political process out of
which many of our judges have sprung, judged now in the sterner morality of the
post-Watergate era — is to apply a test that few incumbent judges have faced,
and that many might have failed.
But that does not make the test irrelevant. If we care about cleaning up the
political process, removing the influence of disproportionate campaign financing,
restoring the checks and balances of an open process — we must extend that con-
cern to politics and the bench as well.
It is a matter of public concern that our judges be as alert to white-collar crime
and political crime as they are to street crime and crimes of violence.
It is a matter of public concern that our judges be selected on the basis of
exemplary merit, and that their own records reflect an abiding insistence on
merit as the touchstone of all public decision-making.
It is Governor Meskill's unique misfortune to be a candidate for the bench at
a time when those concerns are at the fore.
But the concerns are legitimate. His toleration of a patronage system — the
very antithesis of merit selection — is not irrelevant.
Mrs. KiTowsKi, I happen to agree with that editorial.
I believe that the other items that I submit speak for themselves. It
is nice to say that the State ended up with a gigantic surplus, and that
was a courageous act on the part of the Governor. Item 10, which shows
where the State has hoarded $48 million worth of money in order to
create the surplus, has to tell you where it is at, and I think if you
check with the current Governor, you will find that there is not a sur-
plus there.
Item 9 regards the failure of the Meskill staff to report a 1970 dona-
tion which Kalmbach made to Governor Meskill's campaign chairman,
Adolph G. Carlson, who sent it directly to the advertising agency.
Actually I have a secret admiration for that, I would like to send my
husband's salary directly to one of the department stores in Hartford
and bypass any reporting procedure. But it seems to me that that prob-
ably, while it is acceptable to Governor Meskill and his administration,
and to Mr. Carlson, it would not be acceptable to the U.S. Government.
The final statement. Item 11, is again by an ordinary reporter who
analyzes the way in which Meskill rendered his human services.
I suspect that my feeling is that if there is such an enormous evi-
dence that there is a lack of judicial qualification from the Bar Asso-
ciation, if a poll of the electorate for accountability indicates opposi-
tion, if human services have suffered, then I guess I have to feel that
Senator Weicker and Senator Ribicoff have to try to explain more
carefully to us what qualifications they feel this person does have.
I appreciate your time. Thank you.
[Items 9, 10, and 11 referred to follow :]
Meskill Staff Fails to Repoet 1970 Donation
(By William W. Keifer)
Gov. Meskill's 1970 campaign staff did not file a state report on funds con-
tributed by a secret Washington, D.C., organization, Adolph G. Carlson, com-
missioner of finance and control, said Wednesday.
Carlson, former finance co-chairman of the Meskill campaign, told The Courant
he did not believe that the funds, sent directly from Washington to a Hartford
advertising firm, had to be reported.
Asked if the checks totaled more than $65,000, as a Washington source told The
Courant, Carlson said he thought the figure was "too high."
158
The Washington Star-News said Wednesday It had traced the source of the
funds to Herbert W. Kalmbach, President Nixon's former lawyer. He had fun-
neled a secret $1.5 million in cashier's checks to 1970 Republican state campaigns,
the Star-News said.
The focus of the Star-News article was Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., R-Conn., a
member of the Senate's select Watergate committee.
Weicker acknowledged that he had received some of the funds, a total of
$79,601, but said the funds had been reported to the Connecticut secretary of
the state.
The Courant was able to find the Washington funds in the state files. The funds
were reported in a series of donations, many of them in $5,000 and $3,000 amounts,
as contributed to the "D.C. Committee for Weicker."
Similar entries were not recorded for the Meskill campaign.
OFFICIAI. CONTACT
Carlson told The Courant that he had talked by phone to Jack Glcason, now
a Washington consultant. A Weicker aide had identified Gleason as the official
contact for the Washington campaign funds.
Carlson said Wednesday that he had talked to Gleason "about our problems" in
raising campaign funds and acknowledged he had mentioned advertising bills.
Carlson recalled that he had mentioned the agency, the former Graceman Ad-
vertising Agency, and said the checks from Washington had been sent directly to
the agency.
By sending the checks directly to the agency, they were apparently not listed
as contributions by any of the several campaign committees receiving funds.
EEPOBT CALLED UNNECESSARY
Carlson said that if someone had made independent donations outside the
campaign organization, the figures did not have to be reported.
Henry C. White, former welfare commissioner, and another Meskill campaign
cochairman in 1970, said he did not recall the Washington campaign donations
from the secret Washington contributions.
Weicker said neither he nor any of his aides had talked to Kalmbach, and did
not know the source of the anonymous donations.
He said he was aware that the White House and Nixon supporters had con-
tributed to his campaign.
A Weicker aide said there was nothing illegal about the Washington funds.
Since the 1970 campaign, Connecticut law provides that campaign committees
list individual donors.
Quoting sources close to the Watergate hearings, the Star-News said Kalm-
bach used a dummy name. "The Public Institute," to distribute the campaign
money. The newspaper said the Kalmbach money was distributed for about two
dozen candidates under the direct supervision of former White House Chief of
Staff H. R. Haldeman.
Kalmbach drew the checks on the Security Pacific National Bank in his home
town of Newport Beach, Calif., and forwarded the money to Washington, the
newspaper said.
The source of the money is still unexplained, the Star-News said.
Weicker last week accused former White House aide Charles W. Colson of
trying to leak damaging accusations about his 1970 campaign to newsmen.
[From the Hartford Times, Jan. 16, 1974]
State Hoards $48 Millioit Aid
(By Larry Williams)
While other states have been using federal revenue-sharing funds for purposes
such as education, Connecticut has yet to spend any of more than $48 million
received since late 1972.
159
According to a report from the OflSce of Fiscal Analysis, the money now is
sitting in a special revenue-sharing trust fund, gathering interest. The total will
grow to more than $57 million by June 30, the OFA said.
In order to comply with federal law, the entire fund — two years' worth of
receipts and interest — must be transferred to the general fund by June 30.
And an inter-departmental memorandum obtained Tuesday outlines what State
Auditor Leo V. Donohue termed a "deceptive financial maneuver in order to make
the fund tranfer in compliance with federal law."
The state's use of the money came in for a hail of criticism Tuesday both from
the state auditors and from three citizen groups.
The Connecticut Citizen Action Group, the NAACP and the state's Urban
Leagues told a meeting of the Legislature's Finance Committee that Connecticut
should make a commitment next year to spend federal revenue-sharing funds
on specific projects.
Patricia Hennessey of the CCAG said federal statistics show education as
getting the most attention in other states.
Auditors Donohue and Henry J. Becker Jr. argued that current plans give the
executive branch too much control over the use of the money. "The General As-
sembly should make these decisions," Becker said.
Donohue said that a memorandum written by Deputy Finance Commissioner
Gerald J. McCann shows the Treasury Department planning to make state debt
payments withdrawals simultaneously.
Donohue, a Democrat, said the plan is designed "to establish a trail for the
funds which isn't really there." This would indicate to the federal government, he
said, that revenue-sharing funds were going to pay off the state debt when
actually they "are simply going into the general fund."
The Finance and Control Department in August filed an "actual use" docu-
ment with the government saying that the funds would be used to cut the sales,
corporation and dividends taxes.
Donohue indicated that the relationship between the funds and the tar cuts
is indirect under present circumstances.
"The General Assembly shouldn't turn the power over this money over to the
executive branch," Donohue said. He contended the money could just as easily be
represented as paying for an election year surplus for Gov. Thomas J. Meskill.
"OFA estimates of both the surplus and the balance in the revenue-sharing
fund are almost identical," Donohue said. The OFA has predicted a $55.8 million
surplus and a $57.5 million revenue-sharing balance.
[From the Hartford Times. .Tan. 15, 1974]
Pot-and-Kettle Impoundments
Governor Meskill is reported to be "seriously disturbed" over President Nixon's
decision to impound $3 billion in clean-water programs — $54 million earmarked
for Connecticut — that Congress has appropriated.
The Governor is right to be disturbed, and he should do what he can to shake
the money loose.
But he's in a somewhat embarrassing position : He has been Impounding ap-
propriations himself.
The Federal money was earmarked to pay for sewage-treatment plants through-
out the state, some of which are already under construction under 1966 legisla-
tion allowing states to get started with state "pre-flnancing" to be reimbursed
later.
Even before the impoundment, a bargain struck In the Congress had cut into
Connecticut's reimbursements : Money was spread out to some states that had
not begun work under the pre-financing arrangement but were moving inde-
pendently on sewage-treatment plans.
Mr. Nixon's decision to hold up almost half the money appropriated this year
thus cut Connecticut funds that had been cut once already.
It Is, moreover, an action of dubious legality. Mr. Nixon has been taken to
court repeatedly to force disbursement of funds appropriated by the Congress.
According to a tally by ABC News, 25 cases have now been heard and ruled on ;
160
in every case, the courts have said Mr. Nixon acted illegally. The early cases are
now Hearing final Supreme Court adjudication.
lu Connecticut, meanwhile, Governor Meskill has systematically held back
funds appropriated by the General Assembly.
There is a shred of legality to cloak the state impoundments : State departments
are bullied into asking for allocation of less money than the Assembly budget
called for. A General Assembly committee has promised a hard look at the
practice.
Whether technically within the law or not, though, the Meskill impoundments
are made in the same spirit as the Nixon impoundments. The Governor should join
efforts to get the federal appropriations restored — and then should put his own
house in order.
Meskill Hindered Human Services
(By David H. Rhinelander)
The Meskill era has been a difficult one for the state's human services and
sciences.
Some of the troubles were inherited from the mismanagement of the Dempsey
years and others were the result of the international economic collapse.
But the Meskill administration set a tone four years ago that the governor
and his principal advisors adhered to vigorously.
It's that tone that has been the most distressing — one of frank anti-intel-
lectualism and studied coldness towards anyone wandering from the straight
and narrow path of pragmatic utilitarianism.
The Grasso years may end with the same result — particularly because of the
worsening financial crisis. But the advanced notices and promises of the new
leadership indicate a different basic attitude.
The tone will not be that of the hardhat's distrust for humanists and scientists
and professionals. It will be a throwback to the more liberal ideals of the past —
and a welcome relief from the basic philosophy of the Nixon and Meskill
administrations.
Four years ago, as Gov. Meskill was setting up his new administration, his
philosophy became clear as he showed open hostility towards people and insti-
tutions that questioned his pragmatism.
There are many examples.
The old Connecticut Research Commission incurred his anger because it mis-
read his character and was foolish in arguing that its modest projects were too
important to come under the across-the-board budget slash. So Gov. Meskill
starved the commission out by cutting off funds appropriated by the General
Assembly. The substitute Meskill organization hasn't been heard from since it
was born. That's no surprise, since the governor and his fiscal watchdog — Adolf G.
Carlson — weren't interested in speculative ventures and basic science. And yet,
ironically, what the Connecticut economy needs now is the kind of bright new
ideas and projects the research commission nurtured.
What was called the Etherington Commission continued the tone. Stressing
efficiency and what it labeled cost effectiveness, the group sought to discount the
humane role of state government. It disapproved of mone.v spent for peace of
mind or for creating therapeutic environments or for decentralizing services to
bring them closer to the consumer. It promoted maximum efficiency even if that
produced hardships among those being served.
Gov. Meskill and Finance Commissioner Carlson injected politics into their
ecfinomio packaging. The mental retardation commissioner was fired by Meskill
because he balked at the new constraints and the governor then tried to force a
political supporter into that professional job. Fortunately for the state. Gov.
Meskill backed down after a tense confrontation and permitted an open search
for a successor to Bert W. Schmickel. The administration continued to attack
retardation on other fronts until a revolt in the Republican-controlled General
Assembly prompted Gov. Meskill to reinstate Connecticut's leadership in the field.
Meskill and Carlson went after the University of Connecticut and its president,
Homer T>. Babbidge Jr. — who was injudicious enough to make his distain for the
Meskill-Carlson philosophy very clear.
161
They went after the UConn Health Center, which was born in an era when
tht Dempsey-Babbidge bond was strongest and the two men were able to sell the
idea of creating an admittedly expensive institution of excellence.
Meskill at first tried to actually dispose of the health center to the federal
government. AVhen that failed, Meskill and Carlson tried to box it in and suc-
ceeded in shattering the morale and sapping the energy of the truly topflight
people at the institution.
That war ended after another bitter confrontation which culminated in the
resignation of Dr. George F. Cahill Jr., the new chief of medicine, as he was
moving down from Harvard. Dr. Cahill blasted "Mickey Mouse interference";
the faculty charged Carlson and Meskill with an attempt to take political control,
all of UConn charged infringement on academic freedom and the striving for
excellence.
Politics and policy-making by bookkeepers grew. Republican party operatives
reached down into North Carolina for a new State Health Commissioner without
Iniowing his full background or caring that he was technically unqualified for
the job. . .
The governor's own legislative aide was named director of the new Commission
on Hospitals and Health Care, even though he could not meet the very job quali-
fications spelled out in administration's own bill. That commission started on a
rabidly partisan note and still is battling law suits.
Gov. Meskill and some of his close friends have said that the "Tough Tommy"
image is a facade — that his warm and sympathetic nature was covered on pur-
pose because of the brutal cost-cutting job needed to rescue the state from the
bleeding-heart days of the Dempsey years.
That attitude took a double toll. The fiscal side is in better shape but it will
take time to re-establish a humane tone in the state government.
Senator Burdick. Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hkuska. I have no questions of the witness.
But I will take advantage of your recognition at this time. On be-
half of another, I have been asked to inquire whether during the
course of this present hearing there has been submitted for the record
a copy of the criteria by which the American Bar Association judges
nominations, what qualifications are required, those attributes which
are objected to or which are listed as disqualifying and so on, and also
what publication there has been generally or promulgation of these
standards? Has any such statement been submitted during the course
of tlie hearing? I have been here most of the time but not all of the
time.
Senator Burdick. You mean today ?
Senator Hruska. Yesterday or today.
Senator Burdick. No ; I believe it has not.
Senator Hruska. Would it be in order for the stalff to make inquiries
in that regard and have it included in the record?
Senator Burdick. Certainly.
Senator Hruska. And then following up on the number of Ameri-
can Bar Association not qualified ratings, and the date of nomination,
hearings, and confirmation, appointment and so on, the data has been
furnished by tlie Department of Justice, and I ask that it be included
in the record.
Senator Burdick. It will be included.
[The information referred to follows :]
162
■a c
T E
<t.t=
CQ 03
OO'O'o' O'O'O'
< -
(D
c c: o
to (/)
00 00
.— tCSJCVJ
1
;— >'
2
13
'■a
c
TO
ii
1^
5
o
i n o
o
oi",
^
1 O
• '°.'°,
•o
-OLU
0)
eo"
'T3
.>£
c
1 >< X
>— X
X 1
r O O
ra o
Z3
O 1
<U-U.Q.U.QO
U. .
T^esToo'fvi' rn^'<r'
^ *; <D Oj
Q.Q. C c
03 OJ 3 ^
coco— .-^
CD CD to CO
<X) to CD
CT) CTl O^
CD CD
CTXTi
— tOO
CD CD
2222 222 o^oi 55 ^^2^°^^ 22
CNJ cvj ** LTJ CD 'a- (T) in ir>
CD cotnLnLnioLD lOtD
OS CT> CT* O^ O^ Ol O CT5 0>
od" ^eNrco""LrrrC^ ^^ CTi"
.— I CM .— t CNJ CNJ — '
>* i-* • eu)*c: >^ >, oi oi
— iH t> = CL-=— =3 3
-^ :eo<<-^= <<
csj cvj »d- LO CD ^r fn mLr>
"-> cDLnLOLniDtn tn m
OS oy
: >- " -!i =^-S
CQ
<
00
<
o
o
2:
o
<
lO to to CO
O^ CTi 0> Q^
3 a> Q. nJ
•3:co<s
Q. C Q.
O 3 CD
(/J—, CO
(U -—
CD CD
C\J ^ iTi to •<:*■ m
CD in LT) in m LO
torn
in in
en en
OS Oy 0)0>0SCT)CT>01 CT) OJ
^^ .— t ^-t •—> ^^ t—l •—* r~1 ^^ ^^
CD CD o"cvry3"^^~ ctTc
»-H •— iCMCM CNJ .— t —"C
03
=) ^3 3^ 3 3 3 3
2S-S
CD ^^ ~^ •— « to esj ,
<co<S CO— >^ ^< -^
COCOtO(x3 tDtOtO
CM —
CO CD
ror^m Q CO (rsj ir>
Si--. "^oo *"
CiOC«0 »-~
3 = 3 Q. w _. -
<<<< CO-^-'
^< ^
2.
!e3
^tir)CD^cv) inm
CO
o c^i^O'o'u <« w
.^ => ^■o.^-o>-
-» O.*- ^^ o CC3
2= " Jfra
o E
TX lO CO to c/> -
iS g = s "■
03 OJ^ O CU 3 Q -^ 0) Qj
Q. I— 11.Z20Q. QQ-
a>
E O oo
to ^_ C
<13 - - — O —
« ^'.S? C ■— ^ fc_*
cj 3 J= ti: o _ o
Ecjcj OOU-O
CO,
— - ""£e'-'^ CJ CD
£ -c<t:.s;oS° -=bs
o 3.c<^Qj~:— ^o
a: ioq_j5S ^<o
■D
TO
o-nj
163
Mrs. KiTOWSKi. I'm sorry, I forgot one inclusion. I was asked by
a group in Hartford to submit for inclusion in the record a statement
of what they feel is a lack of responsiveness on the part of Governor
Meskill to civil rights inquires that have been made. At my suggestion
this group included in its statement, I believe, two or three letters of
commendation from the U.S. Department of Justice, so that once
again the director cannot be discredited as simply being a civil rights
activist. It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If you have
respect for the U.S. Department of Justice, and feel that they have a
certain amount of standing, then when they commend the civil rights
group, I do not think you can knock them simply because they are
opposed to this candidate.
Thank you.
[The material referred to follows :]
Edtj cation/In STBUCC16N, Inc.,
Hartford, Conn., January 22, 1915.
Senator James Eastland
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C.
Re Thomas J. Meskill nomination.
Deab Senator Eastland : I am writing this letter for presentation to you at
this hearing in order to strongly oppose the appointment of former Governor
Thomas Meskill to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. Meskill has been insensitive to civil rights issues in the State of Connecti-
cut and, in fact, has turned his back on opportunities to deal with items like
discrimination in housing and the role of the "little person" in real estate — the
independent broker (someone not affiliated with the powerful national, state
and local Board of Realtors). I speak from personal knowledge.
I enclose the attached letters and article to demonstrate the following :
(1) Education/Instruccion has been cited for its contributions to civil rights
issues by federal agencies and, therefore, our opinion should be meaningful to
you.
(2) In late 1971 and January 1972, (then) Governor Meskill never replied to
our request for help in dealing with housing discrimination even though it was
pointed out to him that his (appointed) Real Estate Commission was the biggest
problem This caused my organization to file suit in federal court to protect the
rights of all citizens in the State.
(3) Throughout 1972 and 1973, Mr. Meskill failed to enforce the equal op-
portunity aspects of the State's 701 Comprehensive Planning Assistance grant
from HUD. This caused us to file a formal complaint against Mr. Meskill in April
1973. HUD has never formally addressed these matters through conciliation. At
the time, Mr. Meskill assigned one of his aides to meet with us to ascertain
whether or not we would sue in federal over the issue. Mr. Meskill was ap-
parently confident he could ride-out any grievance procedure short of federal
court.
( 4 ) In March, 1974 Mr. Meskill passed the buck regarding complaints from an
aggressive real estate independent broker, Mr. Michael Meehan. Mr. Meehan
pointed out many examples of monopolistic actions on the part of State govern-
ment and the Board of Realtors which hurt the non-affiliated broker and violated
the law. Mr. Meskill's Real Estate Commission did not reply either causing Mr.
Meehan to file an anti-trust action in federal court. I helped Mr. Meehan with the
suit research and he encouraged me to send his bad experience with Mr. Meskill
to you.
(5) For the past two years, my organization has berated state agencies (De-
partment of Community Affairs, Banking, Insurance, Real Estate — to name four)
for not evaluating their functions and eliminating licensing and monitoring pro-
cedures which condoned and maintained past current and future discrimination.
The State Human Rights and Opportunities Commission warned agencies and
Mr. Meskill regarding such violations of law. Mr. Meskill chose not to enforce
the Code of Fair Practices in Connecticut during his administration. The at-
tached Connecticut Civil Liberties Union press release (1/21/75) reinforces my
personal experience.
164
Far from protecting the "little people"' of Conuecticut and those most dis-
criminated against, Mr. IMeskill further victimized them. Opportunities he had
to enforce equal opportunity were avoided.
Many times, civil rights groups only recourse to fight such institutionalized
discrimination and state inaction has been to go to federal court. To place Mr.
Meskill in an important decision making role in the federal court of appeals will
have a negative and chilling effect on human rights work.
I strongly oppose Mr. Meskill's appointment and urge you to reject his
nomination.
Sincerely,
Boyd Hinds,
Co-Director.
Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., August 9, 1974.
Mr. Boyd Hinds.
Education/ Instrnccion, Inc., Hartford, Conn.
Re United States v. The Barrows & Wallace Company, et al., Civil Action No.
H-74-143.
Dear Mr. Hinds : This is to express the appreciation of this Department for
the information your organization provided us with respect to discrimination in
housing in the Hartford area. The statements of more than fifty people who dealt
with one or more of the defendants contributed significantly to the successful out-
come of the above-styled litigation, in which injunctive and aflBrmative relief was
secured by consent against seven major real estate companies.
Efforts like those by your organization have added significantly to the effective-
ness of this Department's enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. I wish to thank
your staff personally for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
J. Stanley Pottinger,
Assistant Attorney Geriernl,
Civil Rights Division.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, B.C., January 14, 1975.
Mr. Boyd Hinds,
Education/ Instruccion, Inc., Hartford, Conn.
Dear Boyd : This is to express the appreciation of this Department for informa-
tion you provided to us bearing on the conduct of the R. C. White Co. As you
know, that information contributed to a constructive consent decree in the case
agreed to by the private plaintiffs, the defendant and the United States, and
ordered by the Court.
Sincerely,
J. Stanley Pottinger,
Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Rights Division.
By: Charles D. Bennett, Jr.,
Deputy Chief,
Housing Section.
Director of Housing Management,
U.S. Department of Housing, Urban Development,
Hartford, Conn., May S, 197J,.
Mr. Boyd Hinds,
Education/ Instruccion, Inc., Hartford, Conn.
Congratulations on your successful efforts to identify and expose racial steering
practices among local realtors. This work is beneficial not only to minority home-
seekers but to our program. Can I ask you to send me a list of the indicted
brokers? If we are doing business with them, we will stop.
Barbara J. DeSipo.
165
U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment Standards Administration,
Office of Federal Contract Compliance,
Boston, Mass., January 16, 1915.
Mr. Boyd Hinds,
Co-Director, Education/ Instruccidn, Inc., Hartford, Conn,
Dear Mr. Hinds : This letter is in response to your request of .January 3, 1975
relating to the conduct of compliance reviews of Federal contractors in the Hart-
ford, Connecticut area.
I regret that existing regulations preclude your inclusion as a principal in the
actual conduct of compliance reviews, however, I am concerned with the contribu-
tions that you might make to the compliance review itself.
Your efforts and accomplishments in support of equal opportunity and affirma-
tive action have been recognized by this office and, to ensure that every advantage
is taken of both the expertise and experience of Education/Instruccion, Inc., I
am referring your offer of assistance to the Federal Contracting Agencies that
will perform the actual compliance reviews for those companies or corporations
noted. I am certain that they will also recognize your Organization as a valuable
resource with a definite input into the total review process.
Thank you for your interest and continue the fine effort that you have displayed
in our mutual interest.
Sincerely yours,
E. William Richardson,
Associate Assistant Regional Director,
Office of Federal Contract Compliance.
Education/Instruccion, Inc.,
Hartford, Conn., April 6, 197S.
Mr. Joseph Vera,
Assistant Regional Administrator For Equal Opportunity, Department of HUD,
Boston, Mass.
Dear Mr. Vera : We write to file a formal complaint against Thomas Meskill
and the Governor's Office, Horace Brown and the Office of State Planning, Ruben
Figueroa and the Department of Community Affairs, and Lawrence Thompson
and the Hartford Area Office of HUD for failing to enforce HUD 701 program
requirements outlined in Chapter 4 of CPM 6041.1a.
The specific occasion for this complaint is the submission of a 701 Comprehen-
sive Planning Assistance grant application by the State of Connecticut and the
impending approval of the grant by HAO HUD. We have attempted to enlist local
HUD's help and support for an honest application of Titles VI and VIII of the
Civil Rights Act as they apply here in tlie State of Connecticut. We enclose a
copy of the letter we sent to Mr. Thomp.sou (March 27, 1973) and his reply to us
(April 4, 1973). His response is completely (and therefore this complaint) un-
satisfactory and serves as further evidence that the HAO is acting in a way
which condones the lack of enforcement of Titles VI and VIII. For instance.
Director Thompson claims :
(n) "equal opportunity and citizen participation" have been included in
discussions. This can obviously be said about other years as well and it is a
fact that HAO has approved about two dozen 701 planning grants (including
one to the State) each year for several years without enforcing equal op-
portunity or citizen participation.
(6) that the application we reviewed was not a "final application". But
it just so happens that this document was submitted by Governor Meskill
on March 1, 1973 with a formal cover letter, with an Overall Program De-
sign, with a "certified" A-95 review . . , and without a single indication of
any kind on any page in the 40 page, bound "application to U.S. HUD For
Comprehensive Planning Assistance" that it was merely a draft. The ap-
plication is also now referred to as "Project No. CPA-CT-01-26-1039.
(c) that "normal clearinghouse procedures" have not been followed because
the application is a draft. This implies that something may follow or be
added which is not true. The A-95 process has been certified as completed
as of Jan. 8th.
166
(d) that our request for a meeting is "misdirected". It is inconceivable
to us that we must return to the State Clearinghouse, which has already
demonstrated its misuse of the A-95 PNRS and by so-doing has already
been part of depriving us and other groups similarly interested of a chance
to review and comment and meet with the applicant. It is also passing-the-
buck to send us to a meeting where the Office of State Planning is police-
man, judge and jury. Where is Mr. Thompson's sense of responsibility and
leadership in enforcing 701 requirements?
We point out that of all years the HAO has been dealing with the State of
Connecticut, this year is particularly significant. President Nixon's Budget
Message and the comments of John McGlennon, Chairman of the Federal
Regional Council of New England (recently in Hartford with Mr. Barry) make
it clear that more and more funds will be channeled through the State. This may
well be the last opportunity HUD has to enforce equal opportunity, affirmative
action and citizen participation through the 701 program. It will also be im-
practical to change an approval once it has been confirmed.
Therefore, we submit our letter of March 27th and a breakdown by race and
sex of the utilization of the staff in the Hartford Area Office to indicate the
probable merit of our feeling that :
1. The HAO has not enforced equal opportunity requirements and guidelines
pertaining to grants received by the Governor's Office, the OSP and DCA.
2. The HAO has not provided sufficient technical assistance and guidance to
the Governor's Office, OSP and DCA toward meeting its equal opportunity re-
quirements and failed to review DOA and OSP adequately for equal opportunity
performance.
3. The Governor's Office, OSP and DCA are not meeting equal opportunity,
affirmative action and citizen participation requirements nor are they monitor-
ing, evaluating or enforcing said requirements in third party contract and sub-
contracts and loans of staff members and staff services.
4. The municipalities and regional planning agencies which have been and
will be involved in benefiting from the 701 program funds and personnel are
not meeting equal opportunity, affirmative action or citizen participation re-
quirements of the 701 program.
5. The Hartford Area Office, itself, has not complied fully with equal employ-
ment opportunity and is, as a result, underutilizing minorities and females on its
own staff.
Based on this information and our belief, we ask you to call for an adminis-
trative investigation of the enforcement of Title VI and Title VIII in Con-
necticut and call for a compliance investigation regarding the apparent failure
of the Governor's Office, The Office of State Planning, the Department of Com-
munity Affairs, and the Hartford Area Office HUD to live up to their equal
opportunity requirements.
Sincerely,
Boyd Hinds
Ben Dixon
Julia Ramos-McKay,
Co-Directors.
[From the Hartford Times, Mar. 24, 1974]
Group Suing Real Estate Commission
A suit will be brought this week against the state Real Estate Commission
for allegedly allowing discriminatory practices in housing, says Boyd Hinds of
Education Instruccion Inc. of Hartford.
Speaking on WFSB-TV's "Face the State," Hinds said the commission was
a "copout" and doesn't insure that real estate Commission, defended his fairly
and without racial discrimination. He said his unit will .sue the commission.
James F. Carey, executive director of the state's Real Estate Commission,
defended his unit. Carey said an affidavit has to be filed with the commission be-
fore it can act on a complaint.
"We would gladly investigate," Carey told Hinds. Then "we would take the
appropriate action."
167
Carey said the commission annually spends thousands of dollars to promote
real estate studies at a special center at the University of Connecticut.
Both Hinds and Carey agreed that racial "steering" goes on in the real estate
market.
Hinds said that 90 per cent of the persons studied by Education Instruccion
noted that racial "steering" was occurring in Bloomfield.
Hinds also noted that Spanish-speaking persons are being "highly discrimi-
nated" against.
Both men also agreed that racial discrimination was taking place in the
mortgage market.
Carey suggested a need to get the state and federal governments to help ease
mortgage discrimination against minorities.
"Integrated neighborhoods cannot survive in our country," Hinds said.
[From The Hartford Times, Mar. 25, 1974]
Rights Group To File Suit Against State Unit
(By Michele Ingrassia)
A Hartford civil rights group has threatened to file suit in federal court this
week against the state Real Estate Commission, charging alleged "dereliction of
duty" in allowing discriminatory housing practices to exist.
According to Boyd Hinds, codirector of Education Instruccion Inc. (E-I), the
suit would cite the commission for dereliction in four basic areas and seek releief
in five areas.
The suit will charge the Real Estate Commission with dereliction of its state
and federal duties in allegedly failing to protect the civil rights of all people,
Hinds said.
It further contends, according to Hinds, the commission "knew or ought to
have known about racial steer- that there is a "total lack of understanding" by
the real estate industry of equal opportunity in housing.
Hinds contends that the industry has failed to educate the public and its licen-
sees on the provisions of fair housing laws, and that the commission has failed
to monitor the industry and to include fair housing education in its licensing
curriculum and tests.
The suit will also cite the commission for alleged failure to cooperate with
community groups working for open housing as required by Sec. 509 of Title
VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
The fourth charge of the suit cites the commission for "total failure to deal
with special problems of the Spanish-speaking community in the state," said
Hinds.
This, he said, includes an alleged lack of material In both Spanish and English
dealing with open housing, as well as a lack of bilingual licensing curriculum and
testing material.
The suit asks that the commission assign investigators to monitor the real
estate industry for lack of compliance with the civil rights and fair housing laws.
It also calls on the commission to hold public hearings in areas of the state
where discriminatory housing patterns allegedly exist. These include Hartford,
New Haven, New London, Danbury, Norwalk, Bridegport and Waterbury.
Hinds said the suit will also demand that the Real Estate Commission increase
the number of hours in its licensing curriculum that deal with equal opportunity
in housing. He said the course must provide "a clear understanding of how racism,
sexism and elitism effect home-buying in the field."
Further, the suit asks the commission to print all materials relating to all
phases of the real estate industry in both Spanish and English. This includes
material on the housing market, the provisions of Title VIII and course material.
Finally, the suit will ask that strict requirements be imposed on the commission
to require affirmative action plans for minority and female utilization in all
licensed real estate companies. Hinds explained that this would require each
company to formulate a plan that would be approved by the state.
168
State of Connecticut,
Executive Chambers,
Hartford, March 18, 1974.
Mr. B. Michael Meehan,
President, B. Michael Meehan Realty, Inc.
Newtamn, Conn.
Dear Mr. Meehan : I read with great interest your letters of March 5, 1974
and February 28, 1U74, to Mr. Robert F. Hurley, Examiner of the Connecticut
Real Estate Commission.
In order that this matter be handled in the most expeditious manner, I have
taken the liberty of forwarding copies of your letters to the attention of Mr.
James Carey, Director of the Connecticut Real Estate Commission, requesting
that he review and contact you directly on this matter.
I am sure that you will be hearing from Mr. Carey in the very near future.
Meanwhile, if I can be of further assistance to you on this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
"With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Meskill,
Governor.
[From the Hartford Times, Sept. 13, 1974]
Realty Board Sued for Monopoly
Bridgeport, Conn. — Two Fairfield County residents are challenging a state-
wide affiliation of "realtors" which they claim has caused more than $300,000 in
losses to real-estate customers and independent agents.
A class-action suit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court is aimed at "exclu-
sive" realty boards and their members who allegedly share business among them-
selves but bar about 24,000 independent agents.
It contends that the board, through Multiple Listing Services (MLS), control
property prices and attempt to monopolize sales in violation of the Sherman Act.
The suit claims treble damages which it says could total more than $1 billion
if other customers and agents are allowed in the class action.
The complaint was initiated by B. Michael Meehan, owner of a Newtown real
estate firm, and Richard Rubin, who bought and sold property in Westport in
recent years.
In the complex, 20-page complaint which took six months to prepare, they chal-
lenge the Connecticut sales domain of agents who acquire the trademark status
of "realtor" by joining the National Association of Realtors.
An MLS is offered by realtors who share the cost of exchanging information
about properties each handles and therefore covers a wider area than one firm
normally does. Non-realtors are barred from participating, the suit contends.
About 75 per cent of the residential property sold in Connecticut is handled
"exclusively" by MLS, it states.
By "exclusive," it means that owners listing a property on a MLS promise to
pay "a commission to the MLS member even if the sale ultimately is made by the
owner or a non-member.
For those reasons "independent brokers are virtually foreclosed from competi-
tion in the real estate market," the suit states.
The complaint names 21 boards of realtors, MLS and realtors doing business
in most parts of Fairfield County. Also named are the national and Connecticut
associations of realtors.
The state has about 30,000 licensed real estate brokers and salesmen. Some
6,000 of them are realtors or their associates, according to James F. Carey, exec-
utive director of the Connecticut Real Estate Commission.
In an unusual move, the suit asks that all Connecticut realtors not named in
the complaint be sued as a class.
Therefore, if the double class action is allowed by the court and if the plaintiffs
win, any state resident who bought or sold property from a realtor in the state
and'claims financial loss can seek damages.
Besides damages, Meehan and Rubin ask the court to order Connecticut MLS
opened to all real estate agents.
169
They also ask that the defendants be ordered to stop their allegedly illegal
flctivitv
Meehan and Rubin are represented by Koskoff, Koskoflf, and Bieder of Bridge-
Meehan at one time complained to the state Real Estate Commission that the
MLS should be licensed, according to Commission Director Carey.
The commission decided further licensing was not necessary because individual
MLS members are related by the commission, Carey said.
He acknowledged that all five commissioners are realtors and that four of them
are former presidents of the state realtors association, which is named in the suit.
Similar suits in other states have forced MLS to admit any licensed real estate
agents willing to contribute costs, but the Connecticut system has never before
been challenged in court, he said.
Education/Instkucci6n, Inc.,
Hartford, Conn., December 21, 1971.
Mr. James Cakey,
Executive Director, Connecticut Real Estate Commission,
Hartford, Conn.
Deae Mb. Caret : Would you please send us a copy of your outline of prescribed
elements, materials, texts, etc. which you use as a criteria for approving courses
in real estate principles and practice, related subjects and the content of such
courses.
Our main concern is racism in the real estate institution (priorities, policies,
procedures, practice, attitudes, etc.). Would you please give us an example or a
sample of the kind of question you ask on your personal written examination
which best covers discrimination against individuals because of race, creed, color,
national origin, sex, age or ancestry.
We are particularly interested in your interpretation of and the criteria you
use for 20-314 ( Qualification for License ) :
(a) Licenses shall be granted only to persons who bear a good reputation for
honesty, truthfulness and fair dealing and who are competent to transact the
business of a real estate broker or real estate salesman in such manner as to
safeguard the interests of the public.
( & ) ... The commission may require such information with regard to the appli-
cant as he deems desirable, with due regard to the paramount interests of the
public, as to the honesty, truthfulness, integrity and competency of the applicant
and, where the applicant is a corporation, association or partnership, as to the
honesty, truthfulness, integrity and competency of the officers of such corporation
or the members of such association or partnership.
We would also like to know how you relate your functioning as a state com-
mission to the needs of individuals whose dominant language is Spanish.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Ben Dixon,
Julia Ramos,
Boyd Hinds.
Edxjcation/Instruccion, Inc.,
Hartford, Conn., January 5, 1972.
Mr. James Carey,
Executive Director, Connecticut Real Estate Commission,
Hartford, Conn.
Deae Mb. Caeey : Thank you for the materials you sent us regarding the real
estate examination study areas and Real Estate Commission responsibilities;
however, you did not respond to four of our five five questions in our letter dated
12/21/71. Those unanswered items were :
1. Our main concern is racism in the real estate institution (priorities, policies,
procedures, practice, attitudes, etc.). Would you please give us an example or a
sample of the kind of question you ask on your personal written examination
which best covers discrimination against individuals because of race, creed, color
national origin, sex, age or ancestry ?
170
2. We are particularly interested in your interpretation of and the criteria you
use for 20-314 (Qualification for License) : (a) License shall be granted only to
persons who bear a good reputation for honesty, truthfulness and fair dealing and
who are competent to transact the business of a real estate broker or real estate
salesman in such manner as to safeguard the interests of the public.
3. (also) {b) ... The commission may require such information with regard
to the applicant as he deems desirable, with due regard to the paramount
interests of the public, as to the honesty, truthfulness, integrity and competency
of the applicant and, where the applicant is a corporation, association or partner-
ship, as to the honesty, truthfulness, integrity and competency of the oflicers of
such corporation or the members of such association or partnership.
4. We would also like to know how you relate your •functioning as a state
commission to the needs of individuals whose dominant language is Spanish.
Will you please clarify your position relative to these points? For your infor-
mation, we are sending copies of this second letter to the Human Rights Com-
mission, Governor Meskill, your Commissioners and other individuals who have
expressed an interest in knowing the results of our inquiry.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Julia Ramos,
Boyd Hinds,
Ben Dixon.
Education/Instbuccion, Inc..
Hartford, Conn., January 5, 1912.
Governor Thomas J. Meskill,
Oovernor's Office,
Capitol Building, Hartford, Conn.
Deah Governor Meskill : We enclose for your information a copy of a letter
we sent the Real Estate Commission (12/21/71), their reply (1/3/72) and our
subsequent response (1/5/72). We also include some printed information about
us and what we are doing.
Our main concern is racism in the real estate "institution", i.e., corporations
organized to produce profits (like real estate companies, insurance companies,
banks, etc.), well-established attitudes (like where one chooses to live, work,
vacation, pray, etc.) and structured roles and relationships (like rich-poor,
educated-non-educated, management-labor etc.) which are accepted as standard
operating procedure for life in Connecticut.
Even a superficial look at Hartford area statistics show that there is a tre-
mendous racial imbalance in the Capitol Region (typical of other cities). The
suburbs have a standard complement of less than one percent non-white popula-
tion. Minority real estate ownership is even less. Minority commercial ownership
is virtually non-existent in the suburbs. The value of a home in Simsbury (non-
white population 4/10"s on one percent) between 1960 and 1970 increased three
times as much in value (87.8%) as a home in Hartford (non-white population
26%). The population of Hartford has dropped more than 4,000 in the last ten
years while the percentage of blacks and Puerto Ricans has increased steadily.
Obviously there are many social/economic problems left behind in the city in
the form of vacant houses, unkept property, sagging values and other ramifica-
tions of segregated education, unequal health/recreation/social services, etc.
The Preamble of the National Association of Real Estate Boards points to the
only definition of the problem which will produce a solution :
"Under all is the land. Upon its wise utilization and widely allocated owner-
ship depend the survival and growth of free institutions and of our civilization.
The Realtor is the instrumentality through which the land resource of the nation
reaches its highest use and through which land ownership attains its widest
distribution. He is a creator of homes, a builder of cities, a developer of indus-
tries and productive farms . . . etc."
The Connecticut Real Estate Commission has been charged by the General
Assembly with issuing licenses to brokers and salesmen, judging qualifications,
determining competency, requesting information to safeguard the interests of the
public, approving real estate courses, etc. The Commission sets the tone and
171
determines the prerequisites, procedures, etc. which will wisely utilize Con-
necticut land and assure its widest distribution. We, therefore, hold them ac-
countable for the existing racial/economic imbalance in housing and real estate
ownership and for instituting corrective measures to respond to the needs of all
citizens in the state of Connecticut.
Please help us to get answers to our questions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ben Dixon,
Julia Ramos,
Boyd Hinds.
Connecticut Civil Liberties Union,
Hartford, Conn., January 21, 1975.
A significant number of state agencies are in violation of a state statute which
requires them to file affirmative action activities in their annual reports to the
governor, according to William Olds, Executive Director of the Connecticut Civil
Liberties Union (CCLU).
The State Code of Fair Practices (Section 4-61K) which was passed in 1969
guarantees equal employment opportunities and requires all state agencies to
review regularly their personnel practices and operations to ensure that the
state is not a party to any agreement or plan which has the effect of sanctioning
discriminatory practices. The law requires all bodies of the state government to
include in their annual reports to the governor activities undertaken each year
to implement the intent of the statute.
However, a review of the Digest of Connecticut Administrative Reports to
the Governor over the past five years shows that most state agencies have totally
ignored the law and have not filed the required reports, according to Olds. He
characterized the failure of the state agencies to carry out the mandate of the
Code of Fair Practices as "government lawlessness which in effect perpetuates
and creates inequalities."
Olds said that former Governor Thomas Meskill had abdicated his responsi-
bility to see that the law was enforced and should have rejected or returned the
reports to each agency until it was in compliance. He said that when the issue
was brought to Meskill's attention he did send a memorandum to each state
agency on July 9, 1974 alerting them to the provisions of the act — and reminding
them of a September 1, 1974 deadline. However, Olds says, "Most agencies chose
to ignore again the requirement and Meskill, by accepting the reports, chose not
to carry out the legal mandate of equal opportunity."
Olds asserted that not only have most state agencies not filed the required
reports, they have also failed to recognize their civil rights responsibilities by
not making use of various mechanisms available to them. Most agencies, he said,
"have adopted a passive role — such as relying solely on the receipt of complaints.
The result is an indifference to equality."
Among the worst offenders in failing to file the required information are : the
Welfare Department; the Department of Transportation; the Department of
Finance and Control; the Department of Motor Vehicles; the Department of
Correction; the Department of Consumer Protection; the Liquor Control Com-
mission; the Department of Children and Youth Services; the Department of
Public Works; the Real Estate Commission; the Banking Department; the
Office of Central Collections ; the Office of State Planning ; the Commission on
Aid to Higher Learning ; the Student Loan Foundation ; the Board of Trustees
of State Technical Colleges; the "Veterans' Home and Hospital; Undercliff
Mental Health Center; and the Alcohol and Drug Dependence Division. The
State Labor Department failed to file the required reports for the past two fiscal
years.
Among those agencies which did comply with the statute are : the Treasurer s
Department; Personnel Department; the Secretary of State's Office; the Com-
mission on Human Rights and Opportunities ; the Office of the Attorney General ;
the University of Connecticut; the Department of Health; the Department of
Mental Health ; the Department of Commerce ; and the Commission for Higher
Education.
47-704—75 12
172
Senator Burdick. Senator Scott? !
Senator Scott. I did not understand which group you were refer- '
ring to on that statement.
Mi-s. KiTowsKi. I had only one copy. I'm sorry. The group is Edu- |
cation/Instruccion, and I gave the copy to the chairman.
Senator Scott. Education/Instruccion ? I
]Mrs. KiTowsKi. That is the name of the group which had received |
commendation letters from the U.S. Department of Justice for its '
work in open opportunities in housing. I
Senator Scott. Now, you have made an extremely good statement, '
Mrs. Kitowski, but we have no identification except that you say you ,
are a citizen, and yet you obviously have great concern in many areas. !
;Mrs. Kitowski. I think if you look on item 2, which for good or evil '
indicates that I received an award from the U.S. Department of En- ;
vironmental Protection recently, that that gives you some identifica-
tion. I am not anxious to publicize the award, but I am anxious to |
clarify where I come from. j
Senator Scott. Well, that is the sort of thing that I was inquiring
about. For example, are you involved actively in health service orga-
nizations, for example ? j
^Mrs. Kitowski. No. j
Senator Scott. You say you are a registered nurse ? ':
]Mrs. Kitowski. That is correct. ;
Senator Scott. So is my daughter, and I wondered whether i
that led to your interest and membership in some of these health j
organizations?
Mrs. Kitowski. I returned to work as a registered nurse, or, possibly
in 1970 or 1971, and I was overwhelmed with the fact that a whole
new discipline has been created in each one of the hospitals, in all of
the urban areas. It is the discipline of respiratory disease and the
treatment of it. ^Yhen I was trained as a nurse in Boston this was not
even a discipline within the hospital. I began to explore what the
causes were felt to be of this increase in respiratory disease, 130 per-
cent increase in emphysema in Connecticut alone in the last 10 years
and I discovered that one of the areas felt to be most significant was
that of automobile pollution. I expect that I just backed into the
combined area of pollution and trying to overcome transportation
problems which had been created by the automobile. Once again, I
think that if someone is going to state that our previous Governor
was responsive, they really have to ask him to explain why, when the
letter came down on August 17th of 1973 from the U.S. Department
of Environmental Protection indicating that areas in the State of
Connecticut were under transportation controls because of this pollu-
tion, leading to this respiratory disease, the Governor did not call a
crash conference of his State Department of Transportation, Labor,
Heolth ; but no departments were notified of that letter.
The State Department of Transportation found out some time later
that that letter had come down, and as late as January, the local top-
ranking official of the Federal Highway Administrs^tion still was un-
aware of it. So I feel that that indicates a lack of responsiveness to
very crushing needs which I saw as a nurse when I returned to work, if
that answers your question.
173
Senator Scott. Yes. It indicates how well informed you are, but it
does not tell me whether you became so well informed simply through
reading the newspapers or through having some activity in some
organization or organizations. I wondered what organizations you
belong to which would explain your interest in public affairs ?
Mrs. KiTowsKi. All right. Even though I am not speaking for it, and
because I would like to be able to speak just as a citizen, I am the co-
ordinator of a group called the "Comiecticut Transportation
Coalition."
Senator Scott. Coordinator of a group called the Connecticut
Transportation what ?
[Mrs. KiTowsKi. Coalition, which consists of perhaps 20 to 25 groups
around the State concerned with reordering priorities in transporta-
tion and attempting to alleviate the environmental effects which have
been felt as a result of poor transportation policies. It is a group
which is perhaps 2 or 3 years old, but I consider them public trans-
portation advocates. ^
Senator Scott. Have you had any correspondence with the agencies
of the State on this matter during the administration of Governor
MeskUl?
Mrs. KiTOwsKi. Yes.
Senator Scott. And that correspondence was not satisfactory to you,
is that right ?
jSIrs. KiTowsKi. I would have to say that I felt that the agencies
were hamstrung, that the Department of Environmental Protection
has its heart in the right place, but its eye on whether or not their
budget is going to be cut because they have taken an unpopular posi-
tion. I think the Department of Transportation, for which I have
a great deal of affection, even though they may not always come out
with my conclusions, is gradually moving into a more enlightened
position regarding transportation. I do not thinly I could say that the
correspondence was unsatisfactory. Some of it did not happen to be
truthful, but all of the correspondence, of which I have perhaps 10
file drawers full — if anybody wants to check it, be my guest — the
correspondence from the Governor's office was the least responsive.
Senator Scott. Are you saying that the Governor did not tell the
truth? I think
Mrs. KiTowsKi. No. No. I was not referring to his letters as being
untruthful. I happen to have been referring to one in the Department
of Transportation. For example, when an attorney from Day, Berry
& Howard wrote to the Department of Transportation asking for them
to give information on this position, which I referred to in item 4,
he received a letter back from the Deputy Commissioner saying that
no such position existed. That is one example of a statement which
did not happen to bear up when he went down and happened to dis-
cover that it was there.
Senator Scott. You appear here in an honest capacity, and you can
appear here as a concerned citizen. But I am asking you perfectly
sincerely to explain what you mean when you say: "Although I do
have oranizational affiliations." You did not go into them and I want
the record to be full.
Mrs. KiTOwsKi. All right. Sure.
174
I have been coordinator of this group. I believe in the EPA state-
ment they indicate that the highway was first publicized in 1969,
with a large newspaper picture on March 26, 1969. 1-291 was planned
to go through the reservoir area, the reservoir that serves 386,000
people in the area. My children brought the picture to my attention
and I, again, somehow backed into that one and became chairman of
the group called The Committee To Save the Reservoir.
Senator Scott. The Committee To Save the Reservoir?
Mrs. KiTOWSKi. Right.
I cite that group, such as that group functions. Although we hap-
pened to win that, and the highway was canceled, I still consider that
one of my original qualifications. That group expanded and began, as
I say, or became a regionwide group, and then a statewide group, work-
ing toward the advocacy of increased public transportation in order
to meet environmental needs.
Senator Scott. Do you belong to some other civic organizations ?
Mrs. KrrowsKi. Yes. I belong to the^-American Civil Liberties Union,
and I belong to the Unitarian Church.
Senator Scott. The Unitarian Church ?
Mrs. KiTowsKi. Right.
Senator Scott. The American Civil Liberties Union? All right. I
am just trying to be sure we get this.
Mrs. KiTOwsKi. I was at one time the coordinator of the Citizens To
Improve Law Enforcement in Hartford, which consisted of a number
of church and civic groups concerned with police misconduct. I am
delighted to say that we now have a very superior police chief in Hart-
ford who is doing an excellent job, and that group simply disbanded
because there was not the need for them to continue this kind of a mon-
itoring process, if you want.
Senator Scott. You have been active in civic life in many areas.
Have you also been active in political life ?
Mrs. KiTowsKi. No.
Senator Scott. You never took any active part in politics at all ?
Mrs KiTowsKi. I do not think that it would be considered legitimate.
"Whatever candidate I seemed to have supported always seemed to have
been somewhat beyond the pale. The reform candidates in the Demo-
cratic Party in Hartford, whom I knew personally, I worked with very
causally. I'm afraid I am not a very dedicated political worker, but it
was a friend — who lost. I do not believe I was even a registered Demo-
crat at that time.
Senator Scott. You were even left of the Democratic Party at that
time ?
Mrs. Kitowski. I have no position. In the last election I voted for,
I believe, two Republicans and three Democrats, and in the previous
election I think it was just the reverse, three Republicans and two
Democrats. I am not the kind of a person that either party really wants
to have. I do not seem to have that kind of a religious feeling about
it.
Senator Scott. Well, that is really a very healthy attitude. Thank
you.
Mrs. Kitowski. Thank you very much.
Senator Burdick. I would like to have you clarify one thing. You
referred to the Governor's appointment of a gentleman to the court
175
against the recommendation of the Connecticut Bar Association. Will
you state who the person was and when the appointment was made?
;Mrs. KiTOwsKi. I am sorry. What did I say ?
Senator Burdick. You said that the Governor appointed someone to
the Connecticut bench.
Mrs. KiTOwsKi. Oh, right. I should have named him. That is for-
mer Republican State Chairman Brian Gaffney, who was appointed
to the bench in Connecticut.
Tliis editorial may show the exact date. He was appointed to the
court for which the bar association in Connecticut had already
Senator Burdick. Can you say approximately when this happened?
'Sirs. KiTowsKi. Just a' minute. Let me look. It does not have the
date on this. I am sorry. If you really would like to know when Brian
Gaffney was appointed to the bench you can ask Governor Meskill, be-
cause I suspect that he knows the date better than I.
Senator Burdick. Is this a recent appointment?
Mrs. KiTowsKT. Yes.
Senator Burdick. And the Bar Association in Connecticut, was this
a recent action on their part ?
iSlrs. KiTOWSKi. Yes.
Senator Burdick. And they were opposed to this nomination ?
Mrs. KiTOWSKi. Yes.
Senator Burdick. We will find out the dates later.
Mrs. KiTOwsKi. Yes. I am sorry I do not have that information.
Senator Burdick. Without objection, your statement and attach-
ments will be made a part of the record.
Senator Hruska. I have no further questions.
Senator Burdick. Thank you.
The subcommittee had planned to conclude this at 12 o'clock today,
as I said in my opening statement. We had hoped to keep that sched-
ule, because the chairman of the subcommittee, who is Senator East-
land, chairman of the full committee, will be calling a subsequent hear-
ing. But I understand that the Governor would like to be heard at this
time. Is that correct ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes ; Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Well, we will let you be heard in full when we
reconvene and, if you wish, we will come back today at 1 :30 and ac-
commodate you at 1 -.30.
[^Vhereupon, at 12 :02 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene
at 1 :30 p.m. the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Scott. The subcommittee will come to order.
Governor, we are very glad to have you back.
Senator Burdick will be here shortly.
Senator Weicker.
TESTIMONY OF LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM
CONNECTICUT
Senator Weicker. Senator, I delighted to be here to introduce
former Governor Meskill to you and to the committee.
176
I would like to make only this opening comment that I have sat
through these hearings and I have been very proud indeed to repre-
sent the State of Connecticut as I have seen the people of Connecticut
comment on this matter. I mean even those that have opposed the
Governor. They have done so carefully and precisely and they have
expressed their point of view.
Fair enough, that is what this system is all about.
By the same token, when it has come to those issues that address
themselves directly to the issues involved with this committee, and
when the Connecticut legislators speak, when the Connecticut la\vA'ers
speak, and the Connecticut prosecutors speak, when the Connecticut
congressional delegation speaks, when the Connecticut members of
the leasing commission that wrote this committee report spoke, when
the witness that apparently was so key in damaging the Governor
spoke, one individual from Connecticut, there seems to be a very
consistent story that comes forth, and the trouble seems to arise only
when issues are raised by virtue of second or thirdhand knov/ledge,
by virtue of newspaper clippings, by virtue of members of the Bar
Association from outside Connecticut who too, in a very incomplete
way, gather their information.
Now, it is my privilege again to have eyeball to eyeball the man who
is the subject of this hearing here in order that again anyone who has
any questions will have the opportunity to direct those questions to
him and get answers directly from him.
With that, I give you Governor Meskill.
Senator Scott, Thank you. Senator Weicker.
Go ahead. Governor, and I note for the record that Senator Burdick
has arrived.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. MESKILL, FORMER GOVERNOR OF
CONNECTICUT, NOMINEE
Mr. Meskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator
Weicker.
I would like first of all to thank President Ford for once again re-
nominating me for this high judicial post, and I would like to thank
the members of this committee for the many hours that they are devot-
ing the confirmation of my nomination.
Heretofore you have heard from witnesses, both yesterday and to-
day, and none of these witnesses were under oath. I would like to be
placed under oath.
Senator Burdick. Do you swear the testimony that you are about to
irive will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing l)iit the truth, so
help you God ?
Mr. Meskill. I do.
Mr. Chairman, the opposition to the confirmation of my nomina-
tion has dealt Avith really three faotoi-s: first, legal experience: second,
judicial temperament; and third, my integrity.
As to the first two matters, legal experience and judicial tempera-
ment, I think that we have had witnesses speaking on my behalf who
have dealt with these matters, I believe, rather completely and objec-
tively, and I think that would be unjudicious of me to be tooting my
own talents or my own temperament.
177
On the matter of integrity, I feel a little bit different, because as
important as this position is to the courts and to the society, and as
important as this position is to me, when I look toward my future,
my reputation is more important to me than any judicial appoint-
ment. Any attacks on my reputation I view with considerable alarm.
I realize that this committee has a heavy responsibility and I com-
mend the members of the committee for their efforts in carrying out
this responsibility. It is a lifetime appointment. The Senate does not
want to make a mistake, and I do not want the Senate to make a mis-
take. Nor do I want to be confirmed under any cloud.
Way back when my nomination was first made by President Nixon,
and the opposition from various sources became known, I told Senator
Weicker, I assured him that in March, when I originally told him
that I was interested in filling this vacancy and asked for his support,
and he was informed, and he informed me that the ABA would op-
pose me, I knew that the opposition would be strong and vigorous. I
knew that I would be subject to the closest scrutiny by an FBI investi-
gation of me, and of everything I have done from the time that I was
a boy. And I told him, and I gave him my assurances, that if there
were anything in my background that would be embarrassing to me
or to my family, or to him for having supported me, I would have
been prudent enough to have stated last March no thanks, I do not
think I want to be a judge.
I would like to give this same assurance to the members of this
committee and to the members of the Senate. I will repeat that there
is nothing in my background, either private background or in my
public life, that would in any way embarrass Senator Weicker. Presi-
dent Ford, or the United States Senate if I am confirmed and
appointed.
The issue of integrity seems to deal primarily with allegations con-
cerning leasing practices in the State of Connecticut. We have heard a
lot of evidence, a lot of testimony, seen a lot of newspaper clippings on
this particular matter. A joint statement was issued by Senator Weicker
and members of the leasing committee back in December which I
would like to read. I am sure it is in someone's files, but I think it
should be in the record, and it says the leasing committee has met
with Senator Weicker and the counsel from the Senate Judiciary
Committee and has endeavored to provide them with whatever facts
it has available concerning leases entered into during Governor
Meskill's administration :
Realizing that this leasing committee is not charged with the legality of
persons' acts, the committee, to the extent its investigation has gone, has ex-
pressed its opinion that it has no evidence of any involvement by Governor
Meskill in any illegal act. The committee entered no statement as to the Gov-
ernor's judgment or propriety, especially as to those issues that may be of
concern to the Senate Committee, the Judiciary Committee of the United States
Senate.
There was a disclaimer by the subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee dealing with leasing in the State of Connecticut which is
quoted on page 16 of the statement submitted to you by the Association
of the Bar of the City of New York and I would like to quote that :
We . . . vpish to emphasize , . . that the sub-committee's sole function was to
investigate leasing procedures and practices and it was neither the duty of the
committee nor the function of the committee to investigate possible wrongdoing
178
by any individuals and the results of this sub-committee's investigation are, in
no way, intended to exonerate or indict any individuals.
I read both of these statements, because while we have seen in the
New York Bar's material and the American Bar's material which was
circulated to the members of this committee earlier, and the testimony
which they gave before this committee, where there were enclosures of
newspaper articles, there were no enclosures of the newspaper articles
that had headlines "Meskill Not Guilty of Any Illegal Acts," or the
New York Times article, "Connecticut Panel Clears Meskill's Name,"
or "Lease Unit Clears Meskill." None of this was mentioned. There
were earlier clippings, however, indicating that something might be
wrong, and something might be wrong with my character, something
might be wrong or lacking as far as integrity is concerned.
The committee has said that it was not looking into acts of illegality
or impropriety, that they were looking into leasing procedures, and
for that reason, while I realized and I respect the decision of this
committee to await the appendices to the report, in view of the fact
that the formal report does not deal with these, the appendices may
be very interesting, and I hope they are, but I really do not feel that
the appendices are going to answer any questions, because when they
come in, the same question can be raised : Well, the committee was not
looking into that, and we still have to look into Governor Meskill's
integrity.
There has been no witness that has testified as yet of any wrong-
doing on my part and I do not believe that there will be any because
there has not been any wrongdoing on my part.
The second statement that I would like to deal with is the illusion
that has been attempted to be created dealing with the situation that
there has been some wrongdoing in leasing in Connecticut, and even
though the Governor was not involved, and even though he may not
have known about specific cases, he allowed it to happen, he condoned
it, he did not do anything about it.
We had testimony earlier from Representative Stevens, a minority
leader of the Connecticut General Assembly, who dealt specifically
with legislative changes during my administration, to wit they im-
proved the leasing procedures of the State. Obviously, we have not
been completely successful, and I certainly hope that the procedures
will be further improved. But, we have not ignored the problem.
I signed the law. I signed into law the legislation which created
improvements in the leasing procedures in 1973. Furthermore, in 1973,
my administration requested the creation of the State commission to
further study building contracting and leasing procedures, and there
is a clipping here. If the committee wishes, I will give it to them. But
unfortunately, this did not pass. It was not acted on favorably by the
general assembly.
And as far as the administrative actions are concerned, control
procedures which we have, checks and balances concerning issuance
of checks uncovered a fraud, at least one fraud involving a lease in the
city of Bridireport. This was one of those situations that I turned over
to be investigated, I believe by the State's attorney. And as a result,
an individual was arrested and was dealt with by the criminal justice
svstem.
179
I halted a community college lease in Hartford T\'hen the attorney
general called to my attention or made a claim that there was some-
thing wrong with the lease and that the State was not getting a fair
shake. So I think it can be said that those things that were brought to
our attention, or to my attention, action was taken.
It was also the impression, or there was the attempt to create the
impression, that I have been unavailable, I have not cooperated with
the people who wish to investigate what was going on. I would like
to just mention that I feel I have been completely cooperative with
every agency, every committee, and every individual who has been
charged with any of the review functions dealing with this nomination
or any of the investigative functions of the general assembly's leasing
committee.
First, the FBI. They spent quite a bit of time with me on that inter-
view, and I cooperated to the best of my ability. I was visited in my
office by the staff and members of the committee, this is the leasing
committee, counsel and assistant counsel, on two occasions. And then
on one other occasion they asked if I wanted to respond either in per-
son or with a written statement, and in that case I responded with a
written statement. I had not been unavailable to that group, and I have
not turned down any requests to testify or to furnish information.
From the ABA I was interviewed by Mr. Connelly back sometime in
the late summer. Maybe it was early September. This was the original
ABA interview that follows the submission of the questionnaire, the
confidential questionnaire to the FBI or to the Justice Department
and to the ABA. I had reservations about being interviewed by the
New York Bar Association. There was a question raised at the Sep-
tember hearing when Mr. Vance sent a telegram complaining about
the fact that I had not submitted to an interview by him, and I stated
at that time I had been advised by the Justice Department that the
only bar association that had any quasi-review function was the Amer-
ican Bar Association, and he advised me at that time not to submit to
such an interview.
At that time the New York Bar pressed very vigorously. I consulted
with Senator Weicker and he advised me that he objected to the review,
analysis, interviewing, rating or anything else of any nominee that
he was supporting except by the forum charged by the Constitution of
this Nation and the statutes of this country with the responsibilities
dealing with the appointment and the confirmation of judges.
And that forum is the Judiciary Committee and the United States
Senate. I have cooperated with this committee in the past. I will co-
operate with this committee in the future. I have great respect for it.
This is the forum, here I am, I am under oath, and, Mr. Chairman, I
am perfectly happy to stay here as long as any member of this com-
mittee has any question he wishes to ask of me.
I would like to resolve any questions that you have in your mind,
because I hope that when the questioning is completed, you will feel
that you can recommend to the full Senate confirmation of my
nomination.
Senator Burdick. Senator ?
Senator Scott. Governor, as I recall when we had the last hearing,
some suggestion was made that we should delay consideration pending
180
a report from this Connecticut leasing committee, and action was de-
layed, not necessarily for that reason, though that was cited, I believe,
as one of the reasons. And now again we are told, after amj)le notice
of this reappointment and hearing, that the Connecticut committee can-
not finish its report until February 1. Do you know any reason for that
delay ?
Mr. IVIeskill. I do not. Senator.
Senator Scott. It would be interesting to see when February 1
comes whether they suggest February 8 or February 15. I know that
you cannot answer, but I am by nature a highly suspicious person.
Mr. IMeskill. I am aware that the committee has had some — and I
only know this from reading the papers — that they have had an exten-
sion of 5 weeks of their legal existence. For what purpose I do not
know.
Senator Scxxtt. Well, I think the record should show that I person-
ally have my own reservations as to whether they will meet the
February 1 deadline for whatever reason or motivation they may
have.
The last witness, I think, Mrs. Kitowski, can you tell me if to your
recollection she ever voiced any complaints directly to you, and if so,
do you recall what they were ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes, Senator, I do. ]\Irs. Kitowski and I walked the
area that would have been involved in the proposed interchange, the
1-291 extension in the Hartford Reservoir Area, during the campaign.
And that was when I first met her. She is very concerned about that
area. She is very concerned about the environment, and she has been
in correspondence, I know, with various State agencies. I do not
believe I have met with her i^ersonally since that time, although I am
not sure. I know that there have been communications back and forth,
and I know I have read of her statements in the press. She is a very
interested lady in what goes on in government and what goes on in
and aromid the State of Connecticut.
Senator Scott. Now, the letter from Professor Levy cites various
reasons why some members of the faculty of the Connecticut Uni-
versity Law School, if that is the right title, have had some disagree-
ments with you as Governor. What was the nature of the matters to
which some of them seem to have taken exception ?
Mr. IMeskill. I think the first justification for their opposition, if
I can call it that, and it has been stated by some witnesses, was the
issue of the University of Connecticut law clinic. And I think it has
been exaggerated somewhat. The law clinic was not closed. There was
a threat of closing it for lack of funds, however. Not a threat from me,
but either in my state of the LTnion message or my budget message, the
first month I was Governor I stated something to the eflfect that we
were not going to fund the clinic if it was going to continue with the
prar-tices at present, and tlie practice that precipitated this was it was
reported to me that the clinic liad used taxpayers' funds to, I believe,
have a i-ed flag made and burned for the purpose of getting arrested,
for the purpose of challenging the State statute and the whole red flag
law that liad been on the books for many years. And my feeling was
at that time, in view of the fact that the State of Connecticut, when I
was inaugurated, was spending $10 million per month more than its
181
revenues at that time, and ^Ae had to make cuts, I felt that this kind
of practice by the laAv clinic was an extravagance ; and I felt that if this
was the kind of activity they were going to get involved in, then they
should not be funded. 'Subsequent to that there were meetings with
people at the law school and we did have a resolution of the problem.
I said I was not opposed to law clinics, legal clinics. I think they can
do a great deal for the education and training of young lawyers. And
we did come to an accommodation. The clinic was never closed.
The other, the second item, and it was not just the law professors,
it v>-as all of the teachers in higher education, I felt that we had to
forego the annual increment which was the pay increase that they
would have gotten that year just by virtue of living, just by virtue of
bein<z on the payroll another year, that that was foregone, we could
not afford it. The following year they got their increment, but the
teachers in higher education felt that they should have gotten a double
increment to catch up because every year they were still losing what
they lost the first year. And they are correct, they were. But it was
just a matter of a State not being able to afford that increment. We also
had evidence that the salary levels of our teachers in higher education,
in all of our institutions, almost all of the levels were the highest in
the country. And I think it was one lever where Yale was higher, one
professorial level, but Connecticut has really been a pacesetter, and
we felt that under the financial situation that we were facing, that
we just could not afford to go higher than we already had that year.
Senator Scott. So the opposition of a number of members of the
faculty of that law school came, whether it is related or not, came from
faculty members who felt that they had lost pay increases, or pay
increments at some point in these negotiations, whether related or
not. they had lost the pay ?
Mr. Meskill. They had, sir.
Senator, I cannot really comment on what a man's motivation
would be.
Senator ScoT-r. I would stay away from the motivation, except to
suggest that they had lost pay, they had a controversy with you, and
then they made an adverse recommendation about you. There is a
sequence of events from which one may draw any conclusion he wishes.
Air. Meskill. Yes, sir. They had good reason to be mad at me.
Senator Scorr. Yes. Thank you.
Senator Burdick. Senator Tunney ?
Senator Tuxxey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is nice to have you before the committee, Governor Meskill.
I was not here at the beginning of your testimony, but did I under-
stand you to say that 3'ou are not going to be answering questions on
anything other than just the question of integrity? Is that correct?
Mr. Meskill. Oh, no, sir. Senator. I will answer any question you
have. I said only that I was not going to comment on my legal quali-
fications in my original statement. I only wanted to make some
remarks aljout the integritv issue.
Senator Tunxey. Fine, I would like to ask a few questions about
legal qualifications and about the charges that have been made by the
association of the Bar of the city of New York with respect to certain
parts of your submissions to the Justice Department, and to the com-
I
182
mittee, so that we can get the record straight. Perhaps let us just go
first to the charges that have been made by the New York Bar.
Mr. Meskill. Excuse me, Senator. May I get something from my
desk to answer these questions ?
Senator Tunney. Yes, certainly. Do you have the statement of the
New York Bar before you ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes, I do, Senator.
Senator Tunney. If you could just. Governor, turn to page 3 of that
statement, in the second paragraph, the bar alleges that :
With respect to one case, Torello v. Carfi, which the candidate listed as a one-
day trial in Superior Court, Hartford, in 1960, we contacted the lawyer who tried
the case for the defendant, Anthony Monterosso, Esq. He informed us that this
case was tried by Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Meskill's law partner, and not by Governor
Meskill. On Saturday, January 18, we asked Governor Meskill by telephone
whether he remembered the case, which we identified for him specifically, and
whether Mr. Monterosso was his adversary. When he said that Mr. Monterosso
was the adversary, we asked him whether he had tried the case. He said that
Mr. Dorsey, his partner, had examined the witnesses but that he. Governor
Meskill, had written out the questions.
Can you indicate to the committee whether this statement by the
New York Bar there is correct ?
Mr. Meskill. It is partially correct, Senator, We did have a con-
versation. I think what is said is correct, but something was left out of
it.
First I would like to say, and I will read to you the direct question
on the ABA questionnaire, but first of all, the questionnaire is confi-
dential. The 10 cases I listed were put into the record at the last liear-
ing by the ABA, and then evidently the record, which is obviously
public information, I assume, is available to anyone, so the New York
Bar perhaps did not have the question to which the cases weie the
answer. So I will read you the question. The question is: "Describe
not more than 10 of the more significant litigated matters which you
handled, and give the citation of the cases, if the cases were reported,"
and then it says to give a capsule summary and et cetera.
My answer in the Torello case was as follows, and incidentally, what
I told the gentleman who called me on Saturday was that it was my
case, and that I brought it into the office, that my recollection was that
my partner had examined most of the witnesses, I was not sure
whether he had examined all of them or not, but that if he had, I was
present, and I managed the case. And what I said in my questionnaire
was, "my partner, Leonard W. Dorsey, and I tried this case for the
plaintiff."
Now, this was to the best of my recollection. When I sent my ques-
tionnaire to Mr. Connally, I enclosed a letter — I'm sorry. I sent it to
Mr. Silverman, and to Mr. Sutro. In the letter to ISIr. Sutro. I said
the information is as complete and comprehensive as I am able to fur-
nish in view of the fact that I am no longer a member of the law firm,
nor do I have easy access to the firm's files or the corporation counsel's
office of the city of New Britain. If there is any other infoTination
that you require, please contact me and I will do my best to furnish
it as expeditiously as possible. This letter was dated JNIarch 18. 1974.
I have never heard from the American Bar Association of any ques-
tion on this, so I assumed that they were satisfied.
183
If I was in error in any of this, then I stand corrected by whatever
the record shows, but I did my best.
Senator Tunnet. As I understand it, that statement that you read
about you and Mr. Dorsey handling the case was the submission that
you made to the American Bar ?
Mr. IMeskill. To the American Bar Association and to the Justice
Department.
Senator Tunnet. They go on to say of that case that :
It was a simple one-day trial in which the plaintiff, represented by the Meskill
firm, claimed that she had bitten on hamburger containing fragments of bone,
and the court dismissed for failure of proof.
Is the fact recited there accurate ?
Mr. Meskill. It is not a very long statement. If you wish I will tell
you what I put in my questionnaire answer :
My partner, Leonard W. Dorsey, and I tried this case for the plaintiff seeking
damages for injuries received when two sharp pieces of bone lodged in her throat
while eating some ground beef she cooked for herself. The plaintiff had selected
the beef from defendants' store, and asked the defendants to trim and grind it
for her. They did so and packaged it for her. We alleged breach of implied war-
ranty of wholesomeness and fitness to be eaten. After a full day of trial, Judge
Alcorn found for the defendants on the theory that since plaintiff unwrapped
the meat at home, stored it 3 days in her refrigerator, and then made meatloaf
out of it, bones might have gotten into it through her negligence. This case was
significant
And I told what I thought the significance of the case was.
Senator Tunnet. Governor, then on page 4 of their statement the
other allegation that was made by the New York bar that I was par-
ticularly interested in was that :
Another case, State v. Cloutier, was listed by Governor Meskill as a one-day
trial in superior court, Hartford, in 1958. A check of the court records shows
that this was not a trial, but a guilty plea. When we asked the Governor about
this on January 18, he told us that he had heard that inquiries were being made
of the court clerk and that he, after a check of his recollection, believed that in
fact the case had been disposed of by a plea, not a trial. His trial experience was
thus even less than represented to the ABA.
Mr. Meskill. Well, I will not address myself to the conclusion, but I
will address the other part of it. The conversation is not correct in that
what I said was that I tried to recollect. First of all, the phone call
took place between Vermont, where I was skiing, and New York or
wherever the lawyer was that was asking the question, and I said that
my recollection was that the trial started, that there were two counts,
and that somewhere during the course of the trial it was halted and
that we pleaded to the second count of fraudulent check, and the other
charge was dismissed, the charge of embezzlement by agents. I know
that I remember doing a brief on it, and I thought I did it for the trial
at the request of the judge. If the record shows that there was not trial
and that the brief was filed prior to trial, we ended up with not start-
ing the trial and pleading to the one charge, and getting a nolle on the
other, then I stand by whatever the record shows. It is a little difficult
for a Governor trying to furnish a confidential questionnaire, to go to
the courthouse and dig out records in March when nobody really is
supposed to know that he is considering a judgeship or being con-
sidered for one. I did the best I could. A^d if I was incorrect, why, I
184
stand by whatever the record shows. It was not my intention to deceive
anyone.
Senator Tunney. I am sure that is true.
You have been alleged to have, during your time as Governor, been
active in attempting to eliminate the ability of legal service agencies
to sue the State in what some assert is a contravention of Constitu-
tional law. Now, that is a matter of speculation, but I would like just
to ask you a few questions with respect to the legal service program
of the State during your term of Governor. It is my understanding
the State department of community affairs in Connecticut is the agency
to which the State paid a one-half non-Federal share of all human
resourses and development programs, including legal services. Is it
not true that on May 26, 1972, you issued a press release indicating that
the department would impose a restrictive condition on all legal-sorv-
ices non-Federal shared grants, including the use of any of the funds
by legal service programs in suits against the State or political sub-
divisions thereof ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes.
Senator Tunney. Is it not true also that while. Governor, you
approved the 1-year extension of the New Haven Legal Assistance
Association sponsorship of VISTA volunteers on, and I quote now,
"on the condition that VISTA volunteers are in no way active in suits
at law against the State ?"
Mr. Meskill. Yes ; Senator, I was. I would like to explain the reason
for this.
The State of Connecticut has, I think, been a pioneer. I cannot give
the statistics, but it was one of the earliest States that supported legal
services for the poor. Our public defender system has been in existence
for quite some time. We have strengthened it. There is testimony by
Representative Stevens earlier on what we did legislatively. Tliere was
an attempt to use public moneys to set up a separate public defender
system under the neighborhood legal services office, or whatever it was,
parallel to the public defender system that was already in existence.
When I questioned this, why do we need two, why don't we. if there
are not enough people, public defenders, to represent the poor, then
let us beef up the public defender staff, but let us not create a parallel
organization. I was told, and I cannot give the names, but I was told
by those who were advocating the separate organization that, in the
eyes oi the minorities, the public defender system was the white man's
public defender, and that the minorities should have their own.
Well, first of all, this is not true. Connecticut is not a racist State.
Government in Connecticut is not a racist Government. We treat peo-
ple with equality under the law, regardless of race, color or creed, and
I felt that it was wrong to further a myth by supporting the establish-
ment of a parallel organization, and thereby acknowledging something
which did not in fact exist; namely, that oiir system was for the whit^
man and that the minorities just did not have the same services.
I have never opposed the funding of legal services programs for the
poor in civil matters. We have been very careful in funding any pro-
grams where we were dealing with, or criminal defenses were con-
cerned, because we already had a system, we already had a program
in effect. That was the distinction.
185
And my recollection is that there was some Federal prohiljition
along the same lines, or that there was at the time. But, be that as it
may, I think that if we were going to fund this program, then Ave
should close out the public defender program. You cannot have both,
or you should not have both.
Senator Tunney. It is my understanding that there were attorneys
involved as VISTA volunteers, in which the attorneys were represent-
ing criminal defendants
INIr. INIeskill. To be honest with you, I do not remember the exact
problem with them, but I think it dealt with what kind of representa-
tion they were going to give, and who they were going to answer to.
Senator Tunney. Your public defender system in Connecticut
involves only criminal cases, does it not ?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct. That is right.
Senator Tunney. It is my understanding that in the New Haven
legal assistance program, VISTA volunteers were also precluded from
taking any civil cases ?
Mr. JVIeskill. The original question was whether the VISTA volun-
teers would be allowed at all, because we already had a program of
legal assistance, both for the criminal indigent, or the accused, ratlier,
and for the poor who needed civil legal assistance. This was something
additional, and I do not remember exactly what the problems were
with the VISTA volunteer program. It did not involve a large number
of attorneys. It seems to me it was probably a half a dozen or so. but
there were problems with the program. And the Commissioner of the
Department of Community Atfairs advised me against it at that time,
and as I say I wish — if I knew the question were coming, I am sure
that I could give you a more complete answer.
Senator Tunney. Did it occur to you, or did anyone mention to you
at the time, that there would be a" possible violation of the code of
ethics for an attorney to take employment on the condition that he
would not represent his clients against a government entity ?
]\Ir. Meskill. No. The thought never came up. We were concerned
about the efforts of the atorneys who were refusing to represent
indigents unless they were allowed, unless the indigents allowed them-
selves to be used as a party plaintiff in an action where the attorney
had a cause that he wanted to litigate in which the client had no
interest. We felt that was unethical, and we were on the watch for
that.
Senator Tunney. But we are talking now about the situation where
VISTA volunteers assumed their employment on the basis that they
would agree not to represent clients in civil matters.
Mr. Meskill. I do not think that was the meaning of the stipulation
in any grant that was given to any Neighborhood Legal Services
Association. The problem that we had — and it was ^ a very serious
problem — was simply whose case is it, whose cause is it? We have
never opposed the use of taxpayers' money to pay for an attorney
to represent an indigent in an action against the State, if it was the
client's cause. What we did op|)ose was a bright young man, who
wants to change the world, coming in and finding a poor man and
savino- to him, I want to use you as a plaintiff because I want to attack
this sfatute. In other words, use it for what they call law reform, which
186
I happen to believe primarily belongs in the legislature. And I think
that the issue here, and it is a very difficult one to handle, Senator,
because I do not know a good way, and we labored over this long and
hard to try to find a way to guarantee that the indigent would have
every right of his protection, including his right to be protected from
the attorney that was trying to use him for a purpose or for a cause
in which the client had no interest at all.
Senator Tunney. In the letter that you wrote to Mr. Eomero A.
Cherry, acting State director of the Connecticut action program, on
September 5, 1965, you approved the one year extension of the New
Haven Legal Assistance Association sponsorship of VISTA volun-
teers, and I am now quoting : "On the condition that VISTA volun-
teers are in no way active in suits of law against the State."
Now, there was no qualification in that letter as to what you were
seeking to avoid.
Mr. Meskill. I do not have the letter in front of me, and I assume
it is as you read. I can only say there evidently had to be some back-
ground, some information on the practices of VISTA volunteers in
areas, or some reason for the Commissioner to call the problem to my
attention for me. This is a letter I signed, I assume. Is that correct ?
Senator Tunney. Yes.
Mr. Meskill. Well, I assume, then, I was advised by my Commis-
sioner that there was a problem, and that the only way we could pro-
tect against it was to put this into the bill. I want it understood that
the VISTA volunteers were not the only lawyers available to the poor
for the legal services in New Haven, whether it was criminal or civil.
Senator Tunney. The ethical consideration that is involved is found
at 5-21, The American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsi-
bility, and I quote from that section :
The obligation of a lawyer to exercise professional judgment solely on behalf
of his client requires that he disregard the desires of others that might impair
his free judgment. The desires of a third person will seldom adversely affect a
lawyer unless that person is in a position to exert strong economic, political or
social pressures upon the lawyer. These influences are often subtle, and a lawyer
subjected to outside pressures should make full disclosure of them to his client ;
and if he or his client believes that the effectiveness of his representation has
been or will be impaired thereby, the lawyer should take proper steps to with-
draw from representation of his client.
Disciplinary rule 2-103 (d) (1) of the ABA provides in part that a
lawyer :
May cooperate in a dignified manner with the legal services activities of any
of the following, providing that his independent professional judgment is
exercised on behalf of his client without interference or control by any organi-
zation or person; (1) a legal aid office . . .
Disciplinary rule 2-107 (b) says:
Lawyers should not permit a person who recommends, employs or pays him to
render legal services for another to direct or regulate his professional judgment
in rendering such legal services.
And the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional
Responsibility, formal opinion 324, states :
Furthermore, just as an individual attorney should not decline representation
of an unpopular client or cause, an attorney member of a legal aid society's
board of directors is under a similar obligation not to reject certain types of
clients or particular kinds of cases merely because of their controversial nature,
187
anticipated adverse community action, or because of a desire to avoid alignment
against public officials, governmental agencies, or influential members of the
community.
Now, it would seem to me that the thrust of your letter — if not
very precise language of the letter — would be to require a VISTA
vohmteer attorney to violate the code of professional ethics.
Mr. Meskill. I do not agree, Senator.
Senator Tunney. You do not think that by telling him that he can
find employment in the VISTA program only so long as, and I quote,
"tliat VISTA volunteers are in no way active in suits at law against
the State," would fall within the purview of that ?
Mr. Meskill. Not at all. In fact, I think evidently the VISTA
program requires a gubernatorial approval, or otherwise it would not
have come to me for any kind of an approval, and it was a question of
whether we would allow them in or not. As I said before, there had
evidently been a problem. I do not remember what it was, but there
was something that concerned the Commissioner greatly about the
activities of VISTA volunteers in other areas, and we did have other
attorneys available for the indigent. And it was evidently to prohibit
or to provide against having a problem that others had had with them,
and we decided to let them in for a limited purpose. I do not think that
canon, I think that canon was put in the ABA list to prohibit a lawyer
from putting himself in the situation where he had divided loyalties.
Senator Tunnet. The disciplinary rule that I read, 5-107 (b) says:
Lavpyers should not permit a person vpho recommends, employs or pays him to
render legal services to another, to direct or regulate his professional judgment
in rendering such legal services.
It would seem to me that by putting a stipulation on a VISTA vol-
unteer lawyer that he could not bring a case against the State, in effect
5''ou are regulating his professional judgment in rendering legal
services.
Mr. Meskill. I do not think so, any more than the prohibition
against an attorney going into the Federal court if he has not been
admitted to the court would be considered a violation of the standard.
If you would like some background on the problem we had with
VISTA volunteers, or the problem we were trying to avoid with
VISTA volunteers, I will be glad to furnish it to you.
Senator Tunxet. Fine. I would like to have that information be-
cause I cannot help but think, in my own reading of the disciplinary
rule and then the condition that you imposed, that it was putting limits
upon the ability of an attorney to represent his client.
We have had in other States a similar question raised by public
officials. I think that many public officials have taken umbridge at the
fact that Government-sponsored programs, using the taxpayers' dol-
lars, were in effect paying attorneys for bringing actions on the part
of clients against the State and they have wanted to see a change in the
law. I know a number of public officials spoke to me about seeking a
change in the law to preclude that, to prevent that, and I personally
never felt that that was right simply because I felt that it was a vio-
lation of the Canon of Ethics. I have some personal experience in
trying to evaluate this particular problem and I would respectfully
disagree with the interpretation that you give today.
47-704—7.5 13
188
But I would like to have more information about the background
as to why you felt that it was necessary to do that.
Mr. ]\Ieskill. I am also concerned about a violation of the Canon
of Ethics concerning basically a client whose case is being litigated,
and I think really it gets to the problem to make sure that it is the
client's case and not the lawyer's case, and the client is not being used
by the lawver to bring about some kind of social change that is really
the lawyer's philosophy and not a matter of protecting a client's
interests.
Senator Tunnet. I have just a few questions with regard to
qualifications.
It is my understanding that questions on the leasing are going to be
put off until after we have heard from the State ?
Senator Burdick. That is correct, for the record.
Senator Tunney. Just a few questions on qualifications, Governor.
I think that it is clear that it would be very unfair for any group,
whether it were the ABA or any other, to establish as a qualification
for membership on the Federal^ judiciary that a person had gone to
Harvard, Yale, Columbia, et cetera, law school. I think that it would
be very unfair to say that a person who has had experience in public
life should automatically be precluded. Clearly that has not been the
tradition and. as other witnesses have testified before the committee,
there is a leveling influence upon the court in having men and women
who has been in political life has been placed on the Federal courts,
understanding, however, that in almost all of the cases where a person
who has been in political life has been placed on the Federal courts,
at least in the last decade or so, they have had extensive legal experi-
ence prior or subsequent to the time that they became public officials.
For instance, one of the cases that is used as an example of a politician
having gone on the court is Governor Kerner. I disassociate his sub-
sequent problems which I do not think are in any way relevant to
what we are discussing here.
ISIr. Meskill. I certainly hope not.
Senator Tunney. I use Governor Kerner simply because he was a
Governoi- and was placed on the circuit court. He is the only example
I know of of a Governor being placed on the circuit court. Governor
Kerner was. it is my understanding, a U.S. attorney prior to the time
he became Governor, and it is my understanding that he was also a
judge in the State court system prior to the time that he went on the
bench. So ho had extensive legal experience.
The thing that concerns me is that in the activities that you will be
having as a member of the second circuit you will be faced with prob-
lems of law dealing with commercial transactions, patent law, adnnr-
alty law. and antitrust law, all of whicli are incredibly compacted, all
of which assume a legal scholarship in the field of law, and the capacity
to analyze quite (juicklv wdiat the legal subtleties are so that it would
be possible to keep up with the caseload. Now in the second circuit, 10
years ago, there were only 900 cases that were heard. Only 900. It has
doubled in the last 10 years. Xow it is 1,800 cases. Every judge is ex-
pected to handle at least 150 cases, knowing that some of those cases
that come before the court are handled by senior judges.
189
I am deeply concerned that a person who has not been involved in
the practice of law for a long time, and who has not had any judicial
experience, is suddenly going to find himself involved in having to
decide the rights of human beings and of corporations involving hun-
dreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, and in my view it could be
overwhelming.
"With no disrespect to you or to your intellect or to your IQ, which
I am sure is very high, it just seems to me that a person who goes on the
court would have to have a background in law that would give him the
capacity to move in and take charge and be able to handle his caseload
and make the necessary analysis of the cases so that the rights of the
individuals before the couil are responsibly and responsively
adjudicated.
I know that you have had a few cases in j^our career, but your legal
background is not extensive other than the fact that you have been a
member of the bar for a long period of time and you have had a very
distinguished career in politics. But it does not seem to me that a po-
litical career gives to a person the capacity to solve these complex is-
sues of laAv any more than being a doctor and a hospital administrator
for 15 years would give you the qualifications to go into the operating
room and perform surgery.
I would just like to have you respond, if you care to, to that.
Mr. Meskill. I know that the post I seek is a prestigious one and a
difficult one. I think I am up to it. I am a young man. I think I learn
fast, and I hope that the members of this committee will not overlook
the fact that from 1967 until 1971 I was a member of the House Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, a member of the Subcommittee on Claims, in
which we sat and heard hundreds of claims against the Federal Gov-
ernment, and that the committee handled patent, admiralty, copyright
law, bankruptcy law, all of the laws dealing with the courts, and the
judges, and the criminal laws. I do not claim to be an expert in any
field, Senator, but I do feel that very quickly I can carry my weight, if
the Senate confirms me.
Senator Tuxxet. Governor, during the time that you were a mem-
ber of the House Judiciary Committee, did you do any legal research
and write any memorandums of law or legal opinions which would
correspond to the kind of discipline that you will have on the second
circuit, which is a circuit, as all circuit courts are, that is almost exclu-
sively cerebral and has very little to do with personal relationships,
one man to another, such as j^ou might find in the political milieu ?
]Mr. Meskill. As you know. Senator, the staff does most of the work
when it comes to writing, and hopefully there will be law clerks to do
a great deal of the research, and they are very helpful to the Judges
in their task as well.
Senator Tuxx^et. "Well, thank you very much. Governor. I appre-
ciate the fact that in answering the questions with respect to the
charges made by the New York Bar that you were forthright and you
appeared to stand on the record and indicated why, if there was an
error in your submission to the ABA, that it was as a result of a faulty
memory, and difficulty as Governor in doing your homework, rather
than any attempt to mislead the ABA as to what 3'our prior legal ex-
perience had been.
190
Thank you, Mr, Chaii-man.
Senator Burdick. Governor, as I explained when this hearing
opened today, and this was my agreement with the minority, the com-
mittee will be called again after February 1, when the appendix is
supxjosed to be available, and for that reason I will not ask you any
questions in that area.
I really think it is to your benefit and to ours that we do that. That
may present an entirely different story in a different light. I think it
would be well for all of us to have everything at that time so that we
can finally conclude this hearing.
I will touch upon a few things at this time that do not deal with
that.
One is the question of 3'our legal experience. I will not go over that
very muc-h because we went over that in the first hearing as you recall.
But, as you stated, you submitted what you thought were the 10 most
important cases you had handled in your legal lifetime, and they are
listed on page 25 of the first printed hearing. The New York Bar wit-
ness testified as to two of them, and to make the record entirely clear,
in State v. Gloutier, which you listed as embezzlement and fraudulent
issue of check with a one-day trial, that was concluded by a plea of
guilty, is this correct ?
Mr. Meskill. If that is what the record shows, Senator. I stand by
what tlie record shows. My recollection was at the time I filled out the
questionnaire, as the questionnaire reads.
Senator Burdick. This is what the witness testified to this morning.
Mr. Meskill. I am sorry, Senator. That is not what
Senator Burdick. Yes ; he did.
Mr. Meskill. You mean, yesterday ?
Senator Burdick. "When the representatives of the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York testified. It was yesterday.
Mr. Meskill. What I said was his testimony was not complete. He
left out part of my explanation.
Senator Burdick. Well, here is what he said :
Another case, State v. Cloutier, was listed by Governor Meskill as a one-day
trial in Superior Court, Hartford, in 1958. A check of the court records shows that
this was not a trial, but a guilty plea. When we asked the Governor about this on
January 18, he told us that he had heard that inquiries were being made of the
court clerk and that he, after a check of his recollection, believed that in fact the
case had been disposed of by a plea, not a trial. His trial experience was thus
even less than represented to the ABA.
Is this wrong ?
Mr. Meskill. That is what he told me over the phone, and I said to
him that if that is what the record shows, then obviously the records
are correct. But, what I said was, my recollection was that we started
the trial and that at some point therein, it was altered, and it was a
nolle on one count, a plea entered in the other.
Senator Burdick. I just want to bring these 10 up to date.
In Torello v. Car-fi^ the gentleman who testified yesterday informed
us that this was a case which was tried by Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Meskill's
law partner, and not by Governor Meskill.
Is tliat correct ?
Mr. Meskill. That is not. It is, but with this explanation, Senator.
The question on the questionnaire is what cases have you handled, and
191
not what cases have you tried, and my answer was my partner, Leonard
W. Dorsey and I tried this case. My recollection was he examined most
of the witnesses and I thought I examined some. It was my case. I
wrote the questions. And this is my recollection, so that I felt my
answer to that questionnaire was accurate.
Senator IKtrdick. I am not trying to confuse you. I want to know
whether you tried the case or did not. That is all I want to know.
Mr. Meskill. I handled the case, let me put it that way.
Senator Burdick. Did you try the case in court ?
i\Ir. Meskill. The question was did I handle
Senator BrRDicK. I am asking you straight out, did you try that
case yourself in court ?
Mr. Meskill. I believe I tried part of that case with my partner.
Senator Burdick. Well, then, he is wrong. He informed us that this
case was tried by JSIr. Dorsey, Mr. Meskill's law partner, and not by
Governor ]\Ieskiil.
Mr. Meskill. That is not what I told him. I told him
Senator Burdick. Well, j'our recollection is that you tried part
o.fit?
Mr. Meskill. That is my recollection.
Senator Burdick. The court records wall show who tried the case, I
presume?
Mr. JMeskill. Right.
Senator Burdick. On the other eight cases, I will not list them
because we have them listed before, but did you try them yourself ?
[The list of cases referred to follows :]
Case Nature of case Trial/appeal
1. Dunbar V.Dunbar, Super. Ct., New Britain.. Divorce 1-day tr/a 1(1958)
2. MatterofCloutjer, U.S. d.c, Connecticut Banl<ruptcy 2-day trial (1958)
3. Groman v. New Britain, Super. Ct., New Britain... Negligence (fall on sidewalk) 1-day trial (1959)
4. State v. Williams, Super. Ct., Hartford Indecent assault 1-day trial (1958)
5. State v. Noel, Circuit Ct., West Hartford ,... Reckless driving. 1-day trial— appeal
to appellant
division 7 circuit
ct.(1961)
6. Kosakowski v. Carlton, Circuit Ct., New Britain... Breach of implied warranty in sale of painL.. 2-day trial— appeal
to appellant divi-
sion (1%3)
7. Zackinv. New Britain, Super Ct., New Britain Negligence (property damage from sidewalk. 1-day trial (1960)
construction).
8. Barretov. New Britain, Super. Ct., New Britain... Negligence (fall on sidev/alk) 2-day trial (1961)
9. Statev.Cloutier, Super. Ct., Hartford Embezzlement and fraudulent issue of ctieck. 1-day trial (1958)
10. Torello v. Carfi, Super. Ct., Hartford Breach of implied warranty in sale of food.... 1-day trial (1960)
Mr. ]\Ieskill. Unless there is an indication that someone else was
with me on the case, and I will have to look at them. I do not want to
give an answer that is not accurate.
Senator Burdick. All right, look at them.
Mr. Meskill. Dunhar v. Duribar I tried myself.
Senator Burdick. That was a 1-day divorce case ?
Mr. Meskill. That is right, a contested divorce.
The Oloutier bankruptc}^ case, a contested bankruptcy, I tried
myself.
Senator Burdick. "Was that on a claim ?
Mr. Meskill. A discharge from a bankruptcj^ allocation and false
financial statement having been filed.
192 ^
Senator Burdick. "What about the next one, the negligence, falling
on the sidewalk ?
Mr. Meskill. That was my own.
Williams was my own.
Senator Burdick. The indecent assault, 1 day ?
Mr. Meskill. That was my own.
Senator Burdick. What about the reckless driving, 1 day ?
Mr. Meskill. That w^as with Mr. Dorsey.
Senator Burdick. You did not try it ?
Mr. Meskill. That was a trial and my recollection was that there
was an appeal in this case as well. ]
Senator Burdick. You did not try that case ?
Mr. ISIeskill. I was cocounsel with my partner. I am not sure <i
whether I tried the trial of the appeal, but I know I was active in the I
trial of that case. I
Senator Burdick. Were you in the courtroom on it ? ]
Mr. Meskill. I was active in the trial, I was in the courtroom. j
Senator Burdick. Fine. i
Mr. Meskill. I know I had sampled witnesses and argued, and ;
whether or not my partner had examined any witnesses, I do not ;
remember. I do not believe he did. I think he was with me on that one.
Senator Burdick. What about the next case, Kosakoioski? \
ISIr. Meskill. That was my own. And I tried that alone. ;
Senator Burdick. That was a sale of paint ?
Mr. IMeskill. That is correct. '
Senator Burdick. The next one, Zackin? ^
INIr. Meskill. I tried that myself. |
Senator Burdick. The sidewalk construction case ? *
Mr. Meskill. That is correct. '
Senator Burdick. The next is a fall on the sidewalk, Barreto v. New I
Britain^ did you try that too ? i
Mr. Meskill. That was one w^hen probably I was the assistant |
corporation counsel and I was defending for the city. |
Senator Burdick. All right. None of those, however, were jury
cases ?
Mr. Meskill. None of the ones that I listed. The jury cases I handled '
were I felt not — did not present interesting facts of law. They were
typical, routine speeding, negligence, and this sort of thing. '
Senator Burdick. One more question in another area. Testimony '
by the last witness before lunch indicated that you had appointed a
man by the name of Gaffney as a State court judge. l
Mr. Meskill. That is correct. i
Senator Burdick. And what relation does he bear to the Gaffney I
we run across in these leasing questions ? ]
^Ir. Meskill. He is the same lawyer. j
Senator Burdick. The same man ? I
]\Ir. Meskill. The same man. \
Senator Burdick. A\Tien was this appointment made?
ISIr. ISIeskill. Either October or November. It might have even been
September. He has been on the bench about 3 months. Senator. j
Senator Burdick. The lady this forenoon testified that Mr. Gaffney
was not approved by the Bar Association of Connecticut.
193
]Mr. Meskill. He was approved by the Bar Association of the State
of Connecticut for appointment to tlie court of common please, which
is the court directly below the superior court. At that time, there were
three courts of general jurisdiction, the circuit court, the court of
common pleas, and tlie superior court, and he had been approved for
appointment to the court of common pleas. And at the time he had
been approved for the court of common pleas, the same bar association
that gave him such an approval was asking that we merge the court
of common pleas with the superior court. I appointed him to the
superior court. The legislature, instead of merging the court of
common pleas with the superior court, saw fit to merge the circuit
court with the court of common pleas.
Senator Burdick. Well, do I understand then that the Connecticut
Bar has approved your appointment ?
Mr. Meskill. They have not. They have not. They did not approve
him for that court. They did approve him for the court of common
pleas.
Senator Burdick. Did they oppose him for that court ?
Mr. Meskill. That is not the way it happens. The practice has been
that before the Governor, and once again this is no hard and fast rule,
but I have always submitted the names of people that I would like
to appoint or am considering appointing to the bar association for
their evaluation, and I would say that in probably 99 percent of the
cases, I accepted their evaluation; but in cases where I felt I knew
more about the individual than they did, in some cases I weighed that
as well.
But, they did, my recollection is, they did express disapproval after
the appointment. The only approval they have made prior, or any
statement they have made, to my recollection prior to the appointment,
was they approved him for the court of common plea period.
Senator Burdick. Well, then, what is the fact, did they or did they
not refuse to approve him for the superior court ?
Mr. Meskill. They did not approve him for the superior court.
Senator Burdick. And was that based on lack of qualifications ?
Mr. jMeskill. I do not know. They do not answer that way. They
just come back with a list and say the following people are approved
for the following courts and list them, and then they say the follow-
ing are not approved for any court. This is the way they respond.
Senator Burdick. As I understand, and you can state whether this
is correct or not, he was approved for a court no higher than common
pleas?
Mr. Meskill. That was the way it was reported in the papers, but
tliey do not say "no higher than." They say "he is approved for a cer-
tain court."
Senator Burdick. But the superior court is higher than common
pleas?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. Well, I think that is all until after February 1.
Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Meskill. Thank you, Senator.
r'^^Tiereupon, at 2 :50 p.m., the hearing was recessed, subject to the
call of the Chair.] ''
NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. MESKILL
TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 1975
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room
2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Quentin N. Burdick
presiding.
Present : Senators Burdick, Hart, Kennedy, Tunney, Hruska, Scott
of Pennsylvania, and Mathias.
Also present : Peter M. Stockett, Francis C. Rosenberger, and Hite
McLean of the committee staff.
Also present: Staff members representing Senators: William P.
Westphal and William J. Weller (Senator Burdick), Dennis C.
Theleii (Senator McClellan), Burton Wides (Senator Hart), Thomas
Sussman (Senator Kennedy), J. William Heckman (Senator Bayh),
Jane L. Frank (Senator Tunney), Irene R. Margolis (Senator
Abourezk), J. C. Argetsinger (Senator Hruska), Dennis Unkovic
(Senator Scott of Pennsylvania), and C. W. (Quincy) Rodgers, Jr.
(Senator Mathias).
Senator Burdick. This is a resumption of the subcommittee hearing
on the nomination of Thomas J. Meskill to be a U.S. circuit judge
for the second circuit.
At the hearing on Thursday, January 23, 1975, there was made a
part of the record the final report without appendixes of the subcom-
mittee on leasing of the Connecticut General Assembly's Joint Com-
mittee on Appropriations.
[The material referred to appears at page 2 of the printed hearings.]
There has now been received the appendix to that report and, with-
out objection, it will be made a part of the record.
[The material referred to follows.]
Appendix to the Report of the Sub-Committee on Leasing of the Connecticxtt
General Assembly's 1974 Joint Committee on Appropriations
fob press release no sooner than 6 :30 P.M. SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 15, 1975
1. 1985 State Street, Hamden, Conn.
2. Training Hill Road, Hamden, Conn.
3. Ill Whitney Avenue, Hamden, Conn.
4. 575 Main Street, Ansonia, Conn.
5. 1862 East Main Street, Bridgeport, Conn,
fi. 59-61 East Avenue, Norwalk, Conn.
(195)
196
7. 731 West Avenue, Norwalk, Conn.
8. 333 Wilson Avenue, Norwalk, Conn.
9. 20 Summer Street, Stamford, Conn.
10. Prospect Street Extension, Thomaston, Conn.
11. Industrial Drive, Waterford (with attached letter).
12. 405 Main Street, Danbury, Conn.
13. 139 Charles Street, Meriden, Conn.
14. 69 Linden Street, Waterbury, Conn,
l.j. 79 Linden Street, Waterbury, Conn.
16. 118 Prospect Street, Waterbury, Conn.
17. Group Homes.
18. 770-770 Chapel Street, New Haven, Conn.
19. 535 Boston Avenue, Bridgeport, Conn.
20. 26-36 North Avenue, Bridgeport, Conn.
21. 59 North Street, Bristol, Conn.
22. 633 Washington Street, Middletown, Conn.
23. 94 Court Street, Middletown, Conn.
24. 117 Main Street, Extension, Middletown, Conn.
25. 222 Main Street Extension, Middletown, Conn.
26. 20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Conn.
27. 1290 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield, Conn.
28. 160 Pascone Place, Newington, Conn.
29. Route 800, Winchester ( Winsted Motor Vehicle Department).
30. Route 800, Winchester (Winsted Highway Garage).
31. Route 44, Canterbury, Conn.
32. Route 2, Colchester, Conn.
33. 11 Asylum Street, Hartford, Conn.
34. 110 Bartholomew Avenue, Hartford, Conn.
35. 340 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Conn.
30. 1179 Main Street, Hartford, Conn,
37. 61 Woodland Street, Hartford, Conn.
38. 90 Washington Street, Hartford, Conn.
39. 170 Bank Street, New London, Conn.
40. 1107 Cromwell Avenue, Rocky Hill, Conn.
1985 State Street, Hamden, Conn.
Lessor: State Leasing, Inc. — Mr. Eugene DeMatteo, President and Treasurer:
Mr. Sidney Zolot, Vice President and Secretary ; Mr. Robert J. Murray, Asst.
Secretary ; and Mr. Arthur Barbieri and Mr. Eugene DeMatteo, Stockholders.
Lessee Agencv : Motor Vehicle Department.
Terms : 3-1-71 to 2-28-86. $84,682.92 from 3-1-71 to 3-1-72 for 17,828 Square
Feet. .$106,875 from 3-10-72 to 2-28-86 for 22,500 Square Feet.
Anali/ftis. — This lease was the subject of a Public Hearing held by this sub-
committee on December 17, 1974.
The ]Motor Vehicle Department in New Haven was seeking new quarters for
two reasons : (1) The building they were occupying had a problem with the floor,
and structural repairs had to be made. (2) There were also inadequate parking
facilities at this previous location. At this time the Motor Vehicle Department
occupied 10.000 square feet of first floor oflUce space at 200 Bassett Street in
New Haven at an annual lease rate of $25,000. The facilities at Rassett Street
became exceedingly difficult to operate because of the problems enumerated above.
We agree with Commissioner Kozlowski when he stated in a memo dated May 10,
1972 that steps should have been taken to terminate the Motor Vehicle Depart-
ment Lease on Bassett Street. This, however, was not done.
The Department of Public Works and the Department of Motor Vehicles
stated that they looked at many sites in and around the New Haven area but that
for one reason or another the sites were unacceptable. Since the Bassett Street
location presented a parking problem, it was essential that any new facility pro-
vide ample parking. Thus, a requirement for approximately one hundred (100)
cars was established. It was also determined that the construction of a testing
lane building was necessarv for the inspection of motor vehicles. The location at
Bassett Street had no testing lane and motor vehicle inspections were conducted
in the open, in a parking lot, or out by the street.
197
On February 25, I960, the Chief of the Department of Public Works Leasing
Division, Mr. Chester Zaniewslci, sent a memo to George Wallace, Assistant Di-
rector of Registry for the Motor Vehicle Department, and enclosed a plot plan
showing a site which was previously offered to the State for possible development
as a Motor Vehicle Branch Office. This plot plan of the property now known as
19S5 State Street was sent to Mr. Wallace in order to assist him in considering
how the Motor Vehicle facility could be located on this site.
On August 1, 1969, the Department of Public Works received a lease proposal
from Mr. Eugene DeMatteo to construct a building for use by the Motor Vehicle
Department and other agencies. Mr. DeMatteo at that time stated that the plot
plan was on file with the Public Works Department.
On October 2, 1969, Department of Public Works Commissioner Charles
Sweeney approved Mr. DeMatteo's proposal to build a Motor Vehicle Office at
that site. It was not until SV2 months later that Mr. DeMatteo bought this land.
It should be noted that New Haven Democratic Town Chairman Mr. Arthur
Barbieri has a 50% interest in this leasehold which he said he acquired in lieu
of a real estate commission on the deal.
Since the Department of Motor Vehicles on February 25, 1969 received the plot
plan of a site which had previously been offered and apparently not accepted, we
cannot understand why Mr. DeMatteo's lease proposal, based on the .same parcel,
was later accepted on August 1, 1969.
The Management Section of the Budget Division received a request for space
and indicated that 13,520 square feet of .space would be adequate for the Depart-
ment of Motor Vehicles' needs. This Section further indicated that 17,828 square
feet of space would be excessive and that 22,500 square feet would be totally
unnecessary.
When the Department of Motor Vehicles moved out of the Bassett Street
location in March of 1971, they left 10,000 square feet of space that remained
vacant until January 1, 1973, at which time the Adult Probation Department
moved in and occupied 6,480 square feet of office space. That left vacant approxi-
mately 2,724 square feet of space. This space still lies vacant. The State has paid
approximately $28,000 for this vacant space and it will continue to pay approxi-
mately $7,407 per year until this lease expires or the space is filled. It has also
cost the Department of Public Works $27,000 to renovate the floor space which
the Adult Probation Department occupied at Bassett Street.
The Motor Vehicle Department Lease for 1985 State Street increased from
17.828 square feet to 22.500 square feet effective March 1, 1972. The extra 4,700
.square feet of space remained vacant for ten months until the Department of
Public Works moved its Construction Field Office into the building and occupied
1,740 square feet of space. It cost the State approximately $18,604 for that vacant
space for those ten months. The remaining 2,500 square feet of space, which is
still vacant, has cost the State an additional $23,000 to date. Thus, the total
amount paid for vacant space at 1985 State Street is approximately $41,000.
To summarize briefly, it has cost the State the following amounts to move the
Department of Motor Vehicles from Bassett Street to 1985 State Street:
Vacant space to date at Ba.ssett St $28, 000. 00
Vacant space to date at 1985 State St 41, 000. 00
Renovations at Bassett St 27,000.00
Total 96, 000. 00
Continued vacancy could cost the following :
Bassett St. (per year) $7,407.00
1985 State St. (per year) 11,875.00
Total (per year) 19,282.00
On February 4, 1971 Governor Meskill asked Motor Vehicle Commissioner
John Tynan to give him a complete explanation as to why the New Haven Branch
Office was to be located in Hamden. Commissioner Tynan turned this request
over to Mr. Chester Zaniewski of the Leasing Division and requested that he
review the matter and advise the Governor directly. Commissioner Tynan also
asked that he be sent a copy of the Governor's reply so that he could complete
his file on this matter.
198
The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, Robert Leuba, in a letter to Commissioner
Edward Kozlowski of the Department of Public Works dated October 29, 1971
stated that the Motor Vehicle Department would be pleased at the opportunity
to vacate the premises and relocate to more suitable quarters in the general
area, if the Attorney General advised that there was some basis for terminating
the lease.
Early in 1973, Deputy Motor Vehicle Commissioner Mati Koiva assigned Or-
lando Santini to identify the problem at the Motor Vehicle Department location
in Hamden and to propose solutions to ameliorate the traffic conditions. On
June 28, 1973, Mr. Orlando Santini sent a memo to Deputy Commissioner Mati
Koiva in which he stated that he had reviewed the problem at the Hamden
OflSce and found it to be a very critical and embarrassing situation due to the
traffic congestion which had been posing a public hazard for the past two years,
Mr. Santini's recommendation was to relocate the Hamden Motor Vehicle Office
to another location which would be more suitable to its needs. He further stated
that though this recommendation might be considered radical, it was the only
one that would fully solve the problem.
Our real estate expert, Mr. Norman Benedict, stated that the rental rate is
rea.sonable.
Training Hill Road, Middletown, Conn.
Lessor : Central Trust Company — William Mack, Trustee ; beneficiaries : Eugene
DeMatteo and his minor children.
Lessee Agency : The Board of Trustees for Regional Community Colleges, Middle-
town Community College.
Terms : This lease is actually a purchase contract. The contractor agreed to
lease land from Connecticut Valley Hospital and to build thereon three
buildings, together with appurtenant site improvements, as specified by the
State. 5-30-72 to 5-29-02
Analysis. — The Middlesex Community College was seeking advice regarding
its campus development. They had presented in detail their specifications for a
campus to include all categories of building space, installed equipment, and
furnishings. They solicited free planning advice because funds were not avail-
able to defray the costs involved. Despite this monetary problem, a few con-
tractors and architects visited the College at its request. Some of these profes-
sionals were referred to the Central Office.
The DeMatteo Construction Company had spent considerable hours of their
own time from 1969 to 1972 preparing, presenting, and discussing with the Col-
lege plans for a preengineered, reinforced concrete permanent campus. Along
with an architect, the Company had developed a concept which has been used
as the basis for college campus planning in general.
The College has selected the DeMatteo Construction Company to construct
the buildings and had sent a letter to Public Works Commissioner Manafort.
Commissioner Manafort had in turn sent the letter to Attorney General Killian
on January 24, 1972 to see if his Department could proceed on a lease purchase
basis with Mr. DeMatteo's company.
On March 24, 1972, a public notice inviting lease proposals for construction of
three 2-story buildings was put in the paper. The proposals were to be accepted
up until 10 a.m. April 11, 1972. This allowed any bidder only 17 days to develop a
concept and complete the proposal. This appears to be very short notice for
anyone else to complete a proposal, especially when one considers the fact that
the DeMatteo Construction Company had been working on theirs for two years.
Consequently, this sub-committee questions whether there was truly a competi-
tive factor to this bidding process.
There are many other areas that this sub-committee's staff advises need
further study with respect to this lease purchase. This project, as well as the
other community colleges, are extremely complex. Consequently, we have only
scratched the surface with respect to the community college leases due to our
budgetary and time restrictions. Based on a preliminary review, we recommend
that a further in-depth study be made as to the acquisition and negotiation of
most or all of the communitv college leases.
199
111 Wlutiiey Avenue, New Haven, Conn.
Lessor: lU Whitney Trust, Eugene DeMatteo, Trustee beneficiaries: Minor
c'liilclren of Eugene DeMatteo.
Lessee Agency : South Central Community College, Administrative Offices.
Terms: 8-25-70 to 8-24-77. $40,932.00 Per Annum. 10,512 Square Feet of Office
Space.
Analysis. — This lease was the sub.1ect of a Public Hearing held by this sub-
conuuittee on December 17, 1974.
Our real estate expert, Mr. Norman Benedict, testified at the Hearing that this
property has a reported area of 10,512 square feet. This can only be accounted
for if a partially wet basement, basement boiler room, and the thickness of the
walls of this converted house are added. The lease calls for this rental space
to be within a throe story building. However to accomplish this, the basement
area and the three upper floors would have to be included. Even without con-
sidering the problem of the basement, Mr. Benedict believes that this rental is
high, despite substantial offstreet parking.
575 Main Street, Ansonia, Conn.
Lessor: Community Development Company — Mr. Ralph DiNardo, Mr. Frank
DiNardo, Mr. Robert DiNardo, and Mr. Chester Zaniewski.
Lessee Agency : State Labor Department.
Terms : Lease approved by Attorney General on 5-9-74. Lease will become
effective 210 calendar days after this date. $28,700 Per Annum. 5,800 Square
Feet.
AnalysL'^. — This lease was the subject of Public Hearings held by this sub-
committee on rJecember 11th and 12th, 1974.
The Labor Department's official request for this space was filed by the De-
partment of Public AVorks on July 13, 1973. However, according to the testimony
before our sub-committee, this request for space left the Labor Department bound
for the Department of Public Works sometime in January of 1973. Whether this
so-called "Exhibit A" form was waylaid somewhere between the Department
of Public Works and the Labor Department, or whether the form was at the
Department of Public Works but was not filed for six months, remains an enigma.
Regardless, on May 8, 1973, two months before the Department of Pultlic Works
had filed the Labor Department's request for space, the Community Develop-
ment Company made a lease proposal for a facility to be newly constructed for
the Labor Department in the redevelopment area of Ansonia. Apparently, the
Community Development Company was able to prepare a detailed proposal at
such an early date because of Mr. Chester Zaniewski's involvement as a partner.
Mr. Zaniewski, the former Leasing Chief of the Department of Public Works,
had the knowledge not only of the State's future leasing needs but also of the
Labor Department's particular criteria for a location.
With Mr. Zaniewski's specialized input, the Community Development Com-
pany was in a position to offer the State the best location for this facility long
before any other prospective lessor could do so. The Department of Public Works
could not explain to this sub-committee why its office entertained a lease pro-
posal for a Labor Department before such Department requested space for a new
facility.
While the Department of Public Works was contemplating this proposal, the
Leasing Advertising Statute became law on July 1, 1973. Because of this statute,
all proposals for prospective leases had to be dropped since the Department of
Public Works now had to advertise in the appropriate newspapers concerning
State leasing needs. After the' insertion of the advertisement there had to be a
sixty day waiting period before consideration was given to any responding lessors.
The Department of Public Works received a few responses from its advertise-
ment, one being the resubmittal of a proposal by the Community Development
Company and another being a proposal by Mr. Frank Loda on behalf of the
Anaconda Brass Company. The Anaconda Brass Company's proposal was sig-
nificantly cheaper in price and offered more facilities than the Community De-
velopment Company's proposal. Mr. Loda testified before this sub-committee that
200
he felt that his proposal had not been given adequate consideration. However,
based on a comparative study conducted by our real estate expert it was con-
cluded that the two facilities were comparable proposals. After interviews with
Labor Department officials, who told the sub-committee staff that the Community
Development Company's location was superior to the Anaconda Brass Company's
location and that the latter building would need substantial renovation to con-
form to the Department's uses, this sub-committee has concluded that the accept-
ance of the Community Development Company's proposal was probably economi-
cally justifiable.
The lease proposal by the Community Development Company was eventually
amended, I'educing the number of parking spaces from 35 to 17. We are not critical
of the decrease in the number of spaces since the Labor Department told our
subcommittee that 17 spaces was all they actually needed. However, we have
noted that there has been no resultant decrease in the price. The architect for
the les.sor explained in a letter to the Department of Public Works that the grad-
ing of the area where the other 18 spaces were to be located would have cost the
same if not more. Cognizant of the possible self-serving nature of this statement,
we Questioned Department of Public Works at the public hearing as to why there
wei-e no negotiations to decrease the price. At that time the Department of Pub-
lic Works could offer no explanations.
It should be mentioned that the Attorney General's office in the normal course
of their review of this lease noted a flaw in the tax escalation clause which
could have potentially cost the State additional money. The lease proposal
stated that the State would pick up any additional tax increases in excess of the
base tax year of October 1, 1974. The latter wording could have conceivably cost
the State of Connecticut a significant amount of money if the construction of the
building had not been completed by October 1, 1974. However, the Department of
Public Works, upon the Attorney General's advice, promptly corrected the error.
It should also be noted that the Department of Finance and Control originally
returned this lease without their approval because they felt the new Ansonia Labor
Department should be housed together with the Ansonia Motor "Vehicle Depart-
ment, which was also looking for new quarters about this time. The Labor
Department rejected this idea for several reasons and the Department of Finance
and Control subsequently agreed with the Labor Department's appraisal of the
situation.
It has troubled this sub-committee that even at this date, with the facility sub-
stantially complete, title still does not rest with the lessor. Presently the title
holder is a Mr. Frank Brokowski of Ansonia. Though this situation is due in part
to a technicality of the City of Ansonia's Redevelopment Agency Law, we feel that
the State should have gotten some guarantee that the title would eventually flow-
to the lessor.
During the course of our investigation of the Labor Department Lease in An-
sonia, we were contacted by then State Senator William Powanda of Seymour.
He told the sub-committee staff in an interview, and later under oath, about his
contact with Mr. Frank DiNardo of the Community Development Company con-
cerning the Motor "Vehicle Lease in Ansonia. Senator Powanda stated that he
first met Mr. Frank DiNardo when the former had run out of gas on the high-
way. Mr. Frank DiNardo, .seeing the State license plate, stopped and gave the
Senator a ride to a nearby gas station. At this time, Mr. Frank DiNardo told the
Senator that he was a real estate developer and an active contributor to the
State Republican Party. Thereafter, Mr. Frank DiNardo called Senator Powanda
several times and on occasion came to his office unannounced. At this point, the
Cf>mmunity Development Company's proposal for the Ansonia Labor Department
was in the final stages of approval. However, it setms that Mr. DiNardo was very
interested in acquiring the new lease for the Ansonia Motor Vehicle Department.
The Senator stated that everytime he saw or talked with Mr. Frank DiNardo
(which he estimated to be around six to eight times) the latter made implications
of dealing below-board with respect to acquiring leases with the State.
Specifically with respect to the Motor Vehicle Lease in Ansonia, Mr. DiNardo
in the Senator's own words "dangled bait" in the legislator's face. He told the
Senator that if he could swing the lease Mr. DiNardo's way there could be some-
thing in it for the Senator. He further said that unlike the way things wery
handled in Wa.shington, no one would ever know about it. The Senator also
stated that Mr. DiNardo was able to monitor, and even tried to interfere, with
the eventual successful proposal for the Ansonia Motor Vehicle Lease.
i
201
Before Senator Powanda testified to the above mentioned statements, Mr.
Frank DiNardo under oath was asked whether he had ever talked to any elected
State officials about this or any other lease. He responded in the negative. Mr.
Frank DiNardo was not present when Senator Powanda testified before this sub-
committee. Consequently, he was not called back to the stand to respond to Sena-
tor Powanda's remarks.
The legal staff of this sub-committee will assess the testimony of both Senator
Powanda and Mr. Frank DiNardo to see whether there have been any violations
of criminal statutes.
Our real estate expert notes that this property's rental is somewhat high,
though not excessively so. A typical rental in the area at the time that this lease
was entered into was $4.00 per square foot, whereas this property is leased at $4.95
per square foot. However, this building was tailored to the State's needs and
includes substantial off-street parking and air-conditioning.
1862 East Main Street, Bridgeport, Conn.
Lessor : SKD Construction Company — Peter DiNardo, S. Kenneth DiNardo, and
Alfred Lenoci.
Lessee Agency : Human Rights and Opportunities ; The Department of Correc-
tions ; and the Labor Department.
Terms :
Human Rights and Opportunities. — 1970 to 1980. $5,800 Per Amium. 1,225
Square Feet.
Department of Corrections.— (a) 1974 to 1975. $3,400 Per Annum. 731
Square Feet, (b) 1970 to 1980. $4,100 Per Annum. 880 Square Feet.
Labor Department.— 1970 to 1980. $6,600 Per Annum. 1,400 Square Feet.
Analysis. — These particular leases were the subject of a Public hearing held
before this sub-committee on December 11, 1974.
The building is presently occupied by three agencies under four separate leases
for a total of approximately $20,000 per year. Our qualms with respect to the
leases entered into at this address focus on the period of time before the first lease
was negotiated. This property was owned by the Lincoln National Life Insurance
Company and being leased to the Sperry Rand Corporation when Mr. Peter Di-
Nardo became interested in the building as a possibility to fulfill the State's
leasing needs. There was a prominent "For Lease" sign on the building.
However, at this point in time the Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
did not want to sell the building. They were only interested in offering it on the
public market for lease purposes. Also, the Rand Corporation, the lessee, wanted
to sublease their interest (which had fifteen years to run) in the building. It is
questionable why the State did not, upon a search for space, locate the building
itself and negotiate directly either with the owner or the lessee of the structure.
Mr. Peter DiNardo told our sub-committee that he secured a binder on this
property for investment purposes. He then talked to a parole officer at the earlier
Department of Corrections facility in Bridgeport who told him of the need for
a new location in the city. Thereupon, Mr. DiNardo called Mr. Chester A.
Zaniewski, the then Leasing Chief of the Department of Public Works, whom
he had dealt with from time to time with respect to other lease proposals. Mr.
DiNardo asked Mr. Zaniewski to come down to Bridgeport to look at the build-
ing in question. Mr. Zaniew.ski did view the premises and mentioned to Mr.
DiNardo that he was favorably disposed towards the facility for State leasing
purposes. He also told Mr. DiNardo that in addition to the Corrections Depart-
ment, the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and the Department
of Community Affairs also needed space.
There are several indications that Mr. Zaniewski gave favored consideration
to Mr. DiNardo's property at 1862 East Main Street. First, Mr. Zaniewski had
his leasing agent, Mr. William Barrone, look at the building with the agencies
who needed space. Mr. Barrone also looked at 1470 Barnum Avenue, however,
he never went inside that particular building. Therefore, at this junction it
appears as though the 1470 Barnum Avenue location was not given any serious
consideration (later the State does enter into a lease at 1470 Barnum Avenue
for another State Agency). Second, there was a memo in the Department of
Public Works files in which the Department of Community Affairs mentions that
they did not ask for a long-term commitment for a lease at 1862 East Main
Street.
202
Thus, it seems that they were perplexed as to the Department of Public
Works" rationale in negotiating such a commitment on their behalf. Third, the
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities inspected the building at 1470
Barnum Avenue and found the space suitable. However, Mr. Zaniewski notes
to Mr. Barrone in a letter taken from the Department of Public Works files that
he (Mr. Zaniewski) "would rather move them into 1862 East Main Street if
possible". Fourth, there was also a memo in the Department of Public Works
tiles which shows Mr. Zaniewski writing to the agencies once they are in the
building to see if they need more space. When they all replied in the negative,
Mr. Zaniewski asked Mr. Barrone to see if any agency in the State would need
space in the Bridgeport area. Normally this zealousness would be commendable
on the part of a Department of Public Works official. However, the fact that this
sort of activity has not been seen in any other lease file, coupled witli the above
mentioned indications, leads this sub-committee to conclude that Mr. DiNardo's
building was given favored treatment.
Our real estate expert, Mr. Norman Benedict, made the following conclusions
about the rental rate paid out by these three agencies: 1) The Commission on
Human Rights and Opportunities lease was a little higher than was typical
of the real estate market at the time. However, it was still within a reasonable
range to indicate no unfairness to the State. 2) The rental rate paid by the
Corrections Department is favorable to the State, while the effective rental paid
by the Labor Department is almost generous.
59-61 East Avenue, Norwalk, Conn.
Lessor : Bast Avenue Realty — Peter DiNardo, President ; Nancy DiNardo, Sec-
retary; .Josephine DiNardo, Treasurer
Lessee Agencies : Dept. of Education — Vocational Rehabilitation Dept. and
Department of Motor Vehicles
Terms :
Department of Education— Vocational RchaMlitation Division. — 2-1-69 to
11-30-74 (Rental). $2,047 Per Annum. 455 Square Feet.
Department of Motor Vehicles.— 12-1-6S to 11-30-83 (Rental). $15,800
Per Annum. 5,000 Square Feet.
Analysis. — These are leases whose original initiation period antedated 1960.
Though the resolution establishing this sub-committee directed our investiga-
tion to leases entered into after 1960, we felt obliged to study these leases be-
cause they had been renewed quite recently. We have found no irregularities in
either the previous leases or the renewals.
731 West Avenue, Norwalk, Conn.
Lessor : SKD Construction Company — Peter DiNardo, S. Kenneth DiNardo, and
Alfred Lenoci
Lessee Agency : State Labor Department
Terms: 10 year lease approved by the Attorney General on 10-29-74. Lease in-
ception will occur 210 calendar days after this date. $34,999 Per Annum. 7,000
Square Feet.
Analysis. — This lease came to our attention in the latter stages of our investi-
gation. Con.sequently, we did not have sufficient time to do a complete study of
the negotiation and acquisition of this leasehold. However, we did thoroughly
investigate the Department of Public Works files with respect to this lease, as
well as conduct interviews with the apiiropriate Labor Department and De-
partment of Public Works officials. Based on those sources of information, we
have reached the following conclusions :
1. The SKD Construction Company did make a proposal .some SVo months
before the Labor Department requested space of the Department of Public
Works.
2. The Labor Department was favorably impressed with the site selected.
3. It is questionable whether the Department of Public Works m.ide aii
adequate site search.
4. Several high ranking Labor Department officials were curious as to how
the DiNardo Brothers (both of SKD Construction and Community Develop-
203
ment Company) were able to submit proposals offering the most suitable lo-
cations to their department in Norwalk, Ansonia, and Stamford, all within
a I'l' year period.
The information garnered concerning this lease was not given to our real estate
expert in time for him to make an informed evaluation. However, it does appear
vn its face to be a reasonable rental rate for a Labor Department lease in a newly
constructed facility.
333 Wilson Avenue, Norwalk, Conn.
Lessor : Messrs. Robert, Peter, Ralph and Frank DiXardo and Mr. Alfred Lenoci.
Lessee Agency : The Board of Trustees for Regional Community Colleges Nor-
walk Community College.
Terms : 9-1-71 to 8-31-81. $350,826.00 Per Annum. Option to purchase at market
value at the end of the fifth or tenth year.
Analysis. — The first indication in the Department of Public Works files that
this property was offered for sale or lease was a letter in the files from Mr. Lewis
Mintz, a Norwalk realtor. This letter was a sequel to a telephone conversation
on December 19, 1970 regarding the possible use of the Sperry Rand facility in
Norwalk. Although this was the first indication in the files that this property had
been ofl:ered for sale or lease, there was a note written on the letter stating, "This
has been offered to me previously by others and I have already inspected the
property. Advise him so.". This note was signed by Mr. Chester Zaniewski, leas-
ing chief of the Department of Public Works.
The files, however, do not document Mr. Zaniewski's statement. As a matter of
fact, the little information that is available in the files concerns attempts to
obtain a lease from the City of Norwalk for the Roger Ludlow School. It seems.
however, that the Community College had been looking for new quarters for
over a year. Therefore, the reason the State did not deal directly with the Sperry
Rand Corp. when this property became available has still not been explained.
On February 9, 1971, Mr. Frank DiNardo sent a lease proposal outline for the
property on 333 Wilson Avenue to the Department of Public Works. He informed
our staff that at that time he had a 1% binder on the property.
Eventually, the City of Norwalk requested the removal of the Community
College from the Brian McMahon High School because of the heavy student
load which was far in excess of the building's designed use. Prior to the Janu-
ary 1971 Board of Education Meeting, when it was requested that the Commu-
nity College be removed from the High School, the Board of Education was in-
formed that the College was planning to utilize the Sperry Rand Building on
Wilson Avenue. Our investigation indicates that the College had very few options
open to them if they wished to continue operating, as there were no other pro-
posals in the Department of Public Works files at this time. Thus they were
essentially "locked into" the Sperry Rand property.
The lease proposal outline was sent to the Department of Finance and Con-
trol on March 12, 1971 with a letter from Mr. Chester Zaniewski. Mr. Zaniewski
stated at this time that, "the proponent in this matter currently holds a valid
agreement to buy, which he was successful in acquiring in competition with
approximately six (6) other interested people, most of whom had other uses
in mind upon acquisition. This oflSce has conducted somewhat delicate negotia-
tions in order to assure ourselves that the ultimate purchaser would give prefer-
ence to leasing these facilities to the State for use by the Community College.".
We have not had an opportunity to sufficiently assess this statement since none
of the information mentioned in the statement could be found in the Depart-
ment of Public Works files.
On March 19, 1971, the lease proposal was approved by the Department of
Finance and Control with the proviso that alterations were not to exceed $100,000.
There was not enough funding to even begin the renovations. Although the De-
partment of Public Works and the Trustees of the Community College were
aware of this, they still began what was to be Phase I of four phases. These
phases ultimately cost the State approximately $560,000 for total renovations.
The Executive Officer of the Board of Trustees of Regional Community Colleges,
Searle Charles, in a memo dated October 14, 1971 and addressed to Department
of Public Works Commissioner Edward Kozlowski, stated that at no time was his
staff, or the staff of Norwalk Community College, asked to make a complete
47-704—75 14
204
lavout with cost estimates before the final decision to lease the Sperry Rand
facilities was made. The $180,000 concept ($100,000 provided by the State and
$80 000 provided by the lessor) for renovations did not originate with the
Community Colleges. They did agree, however, to proceed on this basis and do as
much as they could accomplish, rather than have the entire project scrapped.
Mr Charles pointed out that the final series of negotiations did not involve him-
self, the President of Norwalk Community College, or the Chairman of the Board.
He felt that this matter had become a political one and that the final terms were
set forth by individuals other than the college executives.
The original agreement called for the lessee to pay as additional rental the
total cost of alterations as verified by the Department of Public Works. Instead,
the Department of Public Works paid for the alterations based on an estimate
of the cost of the work to be done.
Our real estate expert states that in his opinion the lease tends to be on the
high side, with very little space being truly comparable for alternate occupancy
by the State of Connecticut.
20 Summer Street, Stamford, Conn.
Lessor : The Community Development Company — Mr. Frank DiNardo, Mr. Robert
DiXardo, Mr. Ralph DiNardo, and Mr. Chester Zauiewski.
Lessee Agency : Labor Department.
Terms : 9-1-73 to 8-31-83. $42,470.00 Per Annum. 10,600 Square Feet.
Anali/.ns. — This lease was the subject of Public Hearings held before this
Subcommittee on December 11 and December 12, 1974. The two main problem
areas regarding this lease were the partnership arrangement between the DiNardo
Brothers and the former Head of the Department of Public Works Leasing
Division, Mr. Chester Zaniewski, as well as some of the irregularities concerning
parking lot facilities guaranteed by the lessor to the State at this Stamford
address.
Mr. Zaniewski, shortly after leaving State service, entered into a twenty-five
percent (25%) partnership interest in this lease with Messrs. Frank, Robert
and Ralph DiNardo. (It should be noted that Mr. Zaniewski while serving as the
Head of the Leasing Division negotiated the Norwalk Community College Lease
between Mr. Frank DiNardo and the State of Connecticut. This lease was also
subject to investigation by our subcommittee staff.) After Mr. Zaniewski, a
licensed real estate broker, left the State employ, he decided to broker some deals
with various people, including people whom he had negotiated leases with on
behalf of the State. One of the first people he entered into a business relationship
with was Mr. Frank DiNardo.
This subcommittee was given three divergent accounts by these two gentlemen
as to the basis for Mr. Zaniewski's twenty-five percent (25%) interest in the
Summer Street lease. One was that Mr. Zaniewski was being given consideration
for his knowledge of the State's future leasing needs. Another was that he was
being paid for his help in securing a mortgage for this property on behalf of
the DiNardo Brothers. Finally, Mr. DiNardo and Mr. Zaniewski with the benefit
of combined recollections said that the equity position granted the latter was in
lieu of his real estate commission.
Regardless of the reason for his partnership interest, it is clear that Mr. Za-
niewski's participation in this lease put the Community Development Company
in a position significantly more advantageous than any other lessor. Mr. Zaniew-
ski's private knowledge of the State's leasing needs placed him in a unique posi-
tion to advise the Community Development Company as to the exact sort of
location that the Labor Department would desire. Though Mr. Zaniewski's
financial interest and activity with respect to this lease were not in violation
of any existing statutes, we do feel that his participation effectively preempted
other citizens of the State from making competitive proposals for a Labor
Department in the Stamford area.
The Labor Department was evicted from its earlier leasehold at Washington
Street, Stamford because of the inadequate parking facilities at that location
which caused a safety hazard. Consequently, one of the Labor Department's
main concerns when looking for new space in Stamford was to find a location
with ample parking. Under the terms of the lease at 20 Summer Street, the
landlord promised to furnish off-street parking in a lot "adjacent to the lease
premises for not less than thirty cars".
205
To date, the landlord has furnished some of the parking in a lot adjacent to the
premises, with the rest of the parking being located across the street. However,
this sub-committee has concluded that these parking facilities are not guaranteed
to the State for its use over the entire ten-year term of the lease as purported
to be under the lease agreement. Title to these lots belongs to the Stamford
Urban Renewal Commission and the operational jurisdiction lies wnth the
Stamford Parking Authority. The relevant concern of the State is that these
lots are subject to recall by the Urban Renewal Commission upon one month's
notice.
The evolution of the acquisition of these particular parking spaces indicates a
conflict of interest on the part of the co-real estate broker for this deal, Mr. Max
Friedman. He apparently approached the DiNardos sometime after they had
already taken an option out on the 20 Summer Street property and told them
of the State's need for a new Labor Department location. Mr. Friedman was
aware of this need, at least in part, because of a conversation he had had with
State Representative .James Biufiham. Mr. Bingham, a long-time friend of Mr.
Friedman, told our staff that he had only given Mr. Friedman the sort of informa-
tion that he would have told any constituent who inquired about a prospective
State lease. The DiNardos, who already knew of the State's need because of
Mr. Zaniewski's input, still hired Mr. Friedman as a co-broker, apparently to
camouflage Mr. Zaniewski's participation. The utilization of Mr. Friedman's
services as a broker also provided another benefit to the Com.munity Develop-
ment Company. Mr. Max Friedman was Chairman of the Stamford Parking
Authority when this lease was negotiated. At this time the parking lots presently
used by the State Labor Department were owned and operated by the Stamford
Urban Renewal Commission. Sometime after Mr. Friedman became record
broker for the deal and before the lease proposal was accepted by the State,
operational jurisdiction for these lots was transferred from the Urban Renewal
Commission to the Parking Authority.
The Corporation Counsel's OflBce of Stamford became suspicious about this
parking lot jurisdictional switch and wrote a letter to Department of Public
Works Commissioner Paul Manafort in December of 1973. At that time, the Cor-
poration Counsel asked Commissioner Manafort for a copy of the lease. Even
though this information is available to the public and should have been sent forth-
with, it was not. Instead, Commissioner Manafort sent a copy of the letter to At-
torney Paul Shapero of the Stamford law firm of Bingham and Shapero, who
repre.sented the DiNardos with respect to financing the 20 Summer Street deal.
Frustrated after his attempt to secure the lease from either Commissioner Mana-
fort or Attorney Shapero, the Stamford Corporation Counsel, Mr. Joel Freedman,
had to forgo his inquiry until he could elicit more information. When our sub-
committee began its investigation of this particular lease, we contacted Mr. Joel
Freedman and appraised him of what we considered to be an irregularity con-
cerning the parking lot acquisition. Upon his request, we forwarded to him a
copy of the lease and provided him with the information that Mr. Max Friedman
was the record co-broker for the 20 Summer Street Lease. Shortly thereafter, a
meeting was held with Mr. Joel Freedman, Stamford Mayor Frederick Lenz, Jr.
and Mr. Max Friedman. The result of that meeting was the resignation of Mr.
Max Friedman as Chairman of the Stamford Parking Authority.
It should be noted that our real estate expert considered the rental rate at 20
Summer Street to be lower than comparable rentals in the Stamford area.
Prospect Street Extension, Thomaston, Conn.
Lessor : Prospect-Carter Associates — Mr. Henry F. Dodd and Mr. James Casey.
Lessee Agency : Department of Transportation Highway Garage Facilitv.
Terms: 1-1-71 to 12-31-85. $74,760 Per Annum. Option to purchase, $335,000
Per Annum. Option to renew, $74,760 Per Annum.
Analysis. — This lease was the subject of a Public Hearing held by this sub-
committee on November 26, 1974. This analysis should be prefaced with a factual
reminder that leasing procedures did not begin to solidify until October 1967, the
date of Governor Dempsey's policy letter with respect to leasing procedures. Final
establishment of leasing procedures was not completed until November of 1968
when Finance and Control also issued a policy letter assuring that established
leasing procedures were in effect. Since some of the events regarding this high-
way garage lease took place prior to or during the above dates, they may not be
206
considered violations of leasing practices per se. However, they still appear to
fall below the reasonable business practices which have always been expected of
our State officials.
Eighteen months before the Department of Transportation requested space
for a highway garage, Mr. Elmer Morgan, a maintenance official in the High-
way Department, viewed several sites in the Thomaston area with Mr. Henry F.
Dodd. In an interview with our sub-committee, Mr. Dodd said that he had been
a landlord of a State Highway Garage on Rowley Street in Winsted since 19.^)6.
Since he felt that the State was a good tenant, Mr. Dodd decided that he wanted
to build a new highway garage if, and when, such a need ever developed.
He said that he was constantly questioning Mr. Elmer Morgan, whose brother
■was a foreman in Mr. Dodd's place of business, about where and when there
would be such a need. According to Mr. Dodd sdinetime in early 1967 Mr. Morgan
came to him and told him of the need for a State highway garage around the
Thomaston area. Mr. Dodd looked at some sites in Thomaston. and after narrow-
ing down the choices, he had both Mr. Morgan and Mr. Frank Buckley (Mr. Mor-
gan's sui>erior) look at the present site in May of 1967. The gentlemen from the
Higliway Dei)artment gave a positive response concerning the use of this site
as a highway garage facility. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Dodd purchased the land
where the present facility is now situated. It should be noted here that Mr.
Morgan's testimony conflicts with that of Mr. Dodd's on this matter. Mr. Morgan
testified that he never, on his own initiative, told Mr. Dodd of the need for a
highway garage. Rather, he testified that Mr. Frank Buckley, Chief of Property
Control of the Highway Department at the time, gave him the order to look at a
site in Thomaston with Mr. Dodd. Mr. Morgan did not know why Mr. Buckley
(now deceased) issued such a directive.
Some six months after he purchased the land and some seven months before
the Department of Transportation requested space, Mr. Dodd hart a meeting
with Mr. Nicholas Juliano of the Department of Transportation's Wethersfield
Office. "Sir. Juliano told this sub-committee in an interview that Mr. Dodd came
in unannounced and that he advised Mr. Dodd to talk to Mr. William Wade, who
was Mr. Buckley's successor. Mr. Dodd wrote to Mr. Wade on two occasions but
never got a reply. On August 21, 1968, Mr. Wade sent in a request for space for
a new Department of Transportation Highway Garage in Thomaston to Finance
and Control (which was then the normal procedure). He then sent this notice to
the Department of Public Works on September 3. 1968 and mentioned that the
Department of Transportation had made their own preliminary search and found
a potential site controlled by a Mr. Benjamin Z. Schulman of Hartford. From
September 3, 1969 until February 18, 1969, there is no correspondence in the
Department of Public Works file. When the file resumes again, Mr. Schulman is
never mentioned and the State is negotiating only with Mr. Henry Dodd.
In the course of our investigation of over fifty leases, this sub-committee has
never observed a gap in the Department of Public Works files for such a sub-
stantial period of time. Neither the Department of Public Works nor the Depart-
ment of Transportation could explain the lack of correspondence in any of their
files between those two dates. The sub-committee staff had great difficulty con-
tacting Mr. Benjamin Schulman. Finally, contact was made sometime shortly
before the Public Hearings began. In a telephone interview, Mr. Schulman said
that he could not remember controlling any property down in Thomaston nor
being contacted by State officials v.ith respect to a highway garage in the Thomas-
txm area. However, he said it was possible that he could have been operating for
a principal who was interested in acquiring property for a highway garage to
be located in that general area. However, he had no present recollection of such
a situation.
The lack of definite leasing procedures notwithstanding, this sub-committee
must conclude that Mr. Dodd's access to early information through the Highway
Dei>artinent severely limited any bargaining leverage that the Department of
Public Works might have l)een able to exert.
The least proposal price was eventually amended downwards, but even so, it
was rejected by Mr. Sherwood Jeter. Jr. and Mr. Wilbur Purrington of the
Citizens Advisory Council on Public Works. Also, the then Finance and Control
Commissioner, Leo Donohue, would not approve the lease propo.sal until the
option purchase price was reduced by $200,000. Here we are critical of the
Department of Public Works for not at least negotiating on their owti accord a
lower oi)tion purcha.se price.
207
This sub-committee is very critical of the site chosen for this Department of
Transportation Highway Garage. The edifice is situated atop a hill which has an
extremely steep grade. It was reported to our sub-committee that during the
winter. State employees who operate the highway trucks cannot get to their
vehicles until the City of Thomaston sands the approach to the State garage.
It has also been reported to this sub-committee that during the winter, sand and
salt are taken from another State property down by the Xaugatuck River rather
than from the new Department of Transportation Facility because of the prob-
lems incurred in maneuvering up the hill. We were also told by Thomaston city
officials that they were called by a Department of Transportation employee
during the first few days that the facility was open. He asked them if there was
another access route to the garage with less of an incline since he could not
negotiate this hill with a truckload of supplies.
Another part of our investigation of this lease centered on an apparent attempt
by Sir. Dodd to influence a city official to change the assessment of the structure.
If Mr. Dodd had succeeded, he would have shifted the burden of additional tax in-
creases onto the State of Connecticut. According to the testimony of Mr. George
Dolan, the then Chairman of the Thomaston Board of Assessors, Mr. Dodd called
him shortly after the Garage was completed in June of 1971. Mr. Dodd asked Mr.
Dolan if he would assess his building before October 1, 1971, offering to pay Mr.
Dolan for his time. The latter said that he would do this because it was part
of his job and that he would not accept the money. The Board of Assessors did
in fact complete the assessment before the October 1st date. Sometime before
October 1st, Mr. Dodd again contacted Mr. Dolan and asked him if he could
lower the tax assessment due to Mr. Dodd's financial situation. Mr. Dolan said
he would have to talk to the rest of the Board to see if this was possible. That
same night, Mr. Dolan talked to the Board and they all decided to check the lease
recorded on the town records.
When they read the lease, they noticed the tax escalation clause which would
obligate the State to pick up any increase in the assessment after October 1, 1971.
After this discovery, Mr. Dolan told Mr. Dodd that the Board would under no
eondition lower the assessment. Later Mr. Dolan had Mr. Patsy Piscopo, the
then Deputy Banking Commissioner, hand deliver a letter to either the Depart-
ment of Transportation or the Governor's Office. The letter was general in nature,
mentioning that Mr. Dolan felt something was awry with this lease and that it
should be looked into by State officials. Neither the Governor's OflSce nor the
Department of Transportation have any record of such a letter being received.
Mr. Dodd had been asked earlier during his testimony whether he had ever
talked to the Town Assessor in Thomaston. At that point he answered in the
negative. However, after Mr. Dolan testified. Mr. Dodd took the witness stand
once again. During the second part of his testimony, Mr. Dodd said his memory
was refreshed and that he had in fact had two encounters with Mr. Dolan. How-
ever, Mr. Dodd denied that he had tried to do anything either illegal or improper.
Another focus of our concern was the partnership agreement between ^Nlr.
Henry Dodd nnd Mr. James Casey, entered into after the negotiation of this
lease had been completed. Mr. Casey, who has an equal fifty percent (50%)
interest with Mr. Dodd. served as Commissioner of Consumer Protection from
.January of 1966 through May of 1970. Mr. Casey testified that Mr. Dodd first
approached him concerning a partnership intere.st in this lease around May of
1970. At this time, Mr. Ca.sey said he had decided to resign his Commissionership,
although he could not remember if he had officially resigned it at this point.
It seems Mr. Dodd came to Mr. Casey because they were long-time friends. At
this juncture Mr. Dodd had already had a letter of commitment for the Garage,
but he could not secure financing even though he had an executive position in a
Hartford bank. Mr. Dodd offered Mr. Casey a partnership in this lease because
he felt that the latter could secure a mortgage because of his political con-
tacts. Mr. Casey did in fact secure two mortgages on their behalf, one in 1970
and the other in 1971, though Mr. Casey did not siam either mortgage. Even
though the partnership agreement was effective in 1970. the land was not
transferred from Mr. Dodd to the partnership until almost two and one-half
years after the lease was signed. When asked by our sub-committee staff whether
the delay in the transfer was to hide Mr. Casey's role in this lease, it was denied
by both gentlemen. Mr. Casey explained that the transfer was dilatory because
Mr. Dodd had been in the hospital for several months durins this period and
their respective lawyers had nev«»r eotten around to making the transfer
until 1972.
208
Mr. Casey said it was "entirely possible" that he had talked to Mr. Dodd
about the Garage previous to May 1970 and that it was also possible that he
had called Mr. Chester Zaniewski of the Department of Public Works on Mr.
Dodd's behalf during the negotiation of the lease. Mr. Zaniew.ski echoed these
remarks to our staff, saying that it was possible that Mr. Casey had interceded
on Mr. Dodd's behalf. However, he, like Mr. Casey, could not specifically re-
member whether this in fact had occurred.
Even though it was not a violation of any statute or regulation, this sub-
committee is troubled by the partnership arrangement formed between Mr.
Henry Dodd and Mr. Chester Zaniewski after the latter left State service.
Presently, they have a joint partnership interest in a parcel of land in Winsted
which has been offered to the State as a parking lot for Northwestern Com-
munity College. To date, no action has been taken on this lease proposal.
Our real estate expert reported that the rental paid on this lease is high
when compared to local industrial rates in regional public utility garages. The
State is paying $6.66 per square foot whereas the mean rental rate according to
our expert should be $2.52 per square foot.
Industrial Drive (Intersection of Route Ho and Connecticut Turnpike),
Waterford, Conn.
Lessor : Frank E. Downes Construction Company — Frank E. Downes, President
and Treasurer ; John E. Downes, Vice President and Secretary ; and Michael
Timura, Vice President.
Lessee Agency : Department of Transportation Highway Garage Maintenance
Facility and Salt Storage Shed.
Terms : 7-1-73 to 6-30-88. $64,500 Per Annum. Option to purchase, $404,777 or
renewal at $47,748 Per Annum. 13,022 Square Feet.
Analysis. — This lease was the subject of a Public Hearing held on Septem-
ber 7, 1972 under the auspices of the General Assembly's State and Urban De-
velopment Committee chaired by State Senator Joseph Lieberman. This lease
was also considered by our subcommittee at a Public Hearing held on Decem-
ber 3, 1974.
Mr. John E. Downes testified in 1972, and subsequently told our staff in 1974,
the following: He ran into Mr. Howard Dickinson, Department of Transporta-
tion's Chief of Maintenance, sometime in 1970. Mr. John Downes had known
Mr. Dickinson for many years because of the latter's involvement in construc-
tion and maintenance for the State Highway Department. (Mr. Dickinson testi-
fied to the contrary, stating that he had never known Mr. Downes before this
encounter. ) Mr. Downes told Mr. Dickinson that his construction company would
be interested in a leasing venture with the State and that Mr. Dickinson should
keep him informed as to any subsequent needs the State might develop. Some-
time around early 1971, Mr. Dickinson told Mr. John Downes that the Depart-
ment of Transportation would need a garage with about ten acres of land
somewhere in the vicinity of the New London-Waterford area.
He also advised Mr. Downes to look at an existing garage in order to get an
idea as to required specifications. Mr. John Downes then directed Mr. Edward
Murray, a realtor from New Britain, to comb the New London-Waterford area
for a potential site. Mr. Murray located a few. including the present site, around
May or June of 1971. Sometime in June of 1971, Mr. John Downes, Mr. Edward
Murray, Mr. Howard Dickinson, and another unidentified lower echelon Depart-
ment of Transportation official went to look at the present site. Upon viewing the
premises, Mr. Dickinson told Mr. Downes that it was a suitable location for the
proposed highway garage. In October of 1971, Mr. John Downes called Depart-
ment of Public Works Commissioner Edward Kozlowski telling him that he was
aware of the Department of Transportation's need for a highway garage and
that he had a parcel of land available in Waterford. It should be noted that at
this time the Department of Transportation had not given the Department of
Public Works an official request for space and that the Downes Construction
Company had not yet taken an option on the property.
Shortly thereafter, the following sequence of events transpired within two
weeks : The Department of Transportation requested space from the Depart-
ment of Public Works for a highway garage in the Waterford area : Mr. John E.
Downes submitted a detailed lease proposal to the Department of Public Works
for a highway garage in the Waterford area : the Frank E. Downes Construc-
tion Company took out an option on the parcel in question.
209
The then Department of Transportation Commissioner A. Earl Wood's ver-
sion of the events preceding the lease acauisition by the Downes Construction
Company, told to our staff in 1974, is different than that of Mr. John E. Downes.
Commissioner Wood's version is as follows : Around the spring or early summer
of 1971 he received a telephone call from Mr. J. Brian Gaffney, the Republican
Party State Chairman and Representative from New Britain at that time. Mr.
Gaffney told Commissioner Wood that a constituent of his from New Britain had
a lease with the Motor Vehicle Department there which was being taken by the
Department of Transportation as a right of way. The constituent wanted to re-
invest in a building which could be leased to the State. (Commissioner Wood was
clear in emphasizing that he was never told by Mr. Gaffney that the constituent
was his uncle. The Commissioner also stated that Mr. Gaffney was one of the
Republican Party members who had an active role in the screening of his ap-
pointment, an event which had taken place shortly before the Chairman's phone
call to him. ) dimmissioner AVood said that shortly after Mr. Gaffney's phone
call he had a meeting with Mr. Frank E. Downes at the Department of Trans-
portation OfSce.
(Mr. Frank E. Downes is the president of the construction company bearing
his name, the uncle of Mr. J. Brian Gaffney, and the father of John E. Downes.)
At this meeting Commissioner Wood told Frank Downes of the need for a high-
way garage in Waterford. Mr. Frank Downes later called Commissioner Wood
expressing a definite interest in this proposed garage. This Commissioner then
assigned Mr. Howard Dickinson, who was privy to all information relative to
the centralization of proposed new highway garages in the State, to go to Water-
ford and look at the site which Commissioner Wood thought the Frank E. Downes
Construction Company had an option on. (Mr. Howard Dickinson was to later
testify that this was the first time in forty years of service with the Highway
Department that he had ever been requested by a Commissioner to aid a pro-
spective lessor in the selection of a site).
In 1972, Commissioner Wood sent to the General Assembly's State and Urban
Development Committee sworn testimony which he described as a "full and
complete statement" concerning the events preceeding the leasing of this high-
way garage. In this particular testimony Commissioner Wood did not mention
that the then State Republican Party Chairman, J. Brian Gaffney, had given
him a call with regard to this matter. He also stated in his 1972 testimony that
his first meeting with Mr. Frank E. Downes was in October of 1971. Conse-
quently, tliere is an apparent discrepancy I)etween the testimony of Mr. John E.
Downes and that of former Department of Transportation Commissioner A.
Earl Wood, as well as a further discrepancy between Commissioner Wood's 1974
version of the events and his sworn testimony before the 1972 Legislative
Hearing.
Department of Public Works Commissioner Edward Kozlowski, when told by
this siib-committee's staff about the events which took place before his Depart-
ment received Department of Transportation's request for space, remarked that
he was unaware of the Department of Transportation's early activity with the
lessors in both the Waterford and Winsted Highway Garage Leases (see the
Winsted Highway Garage Analysis). He went on to say that he had suspected
that the lessors had obtained inside information since detailed proposals came in
so soon after the official request for space was received by the Department of
Public Works. He asserted that this was unfair and that it undermined the
Department of Public Works' authority and ability to provide the State with
fair rentals. He specifically stated that he had never told Governor Meskill di-
rectly about these situations but that he would have done so if another such
incident occurred.
With respect to the AVaterford Lease, Commissioner Kozlowski noted that he
had discovered through grapevine conversations in the Department of Public
Works that Mr. Frank E. Downes was a relative of Mr. J. Brian Gaffney. Shortly
thereafter, he received a call from Mr. Gaffney. At that time the Commissioner
asked Mr. Gaffney if the granting of a State lease to his relative would prove
embarrassing to him. The then State Republican Party Chairman said that it
would not prove embarras.sing to him and that as long as the lease was fair he
didn't feel that his relatives should be precluded from doing business with the
State.
Based on all the testimony received, this sub-committee has drawn the following
conclusions with respect to the Waterford Highway Garage Lease: 1) The
Downes Construction Company knew at least four and a half months (4%)
210
before the Department of Transportation requested space from the Department of
Public Works that there would be a need for a highway garage in the Waterford
area. The lessor was also made aware of the general specifications and require-
ments of such a facility. 2) Department of Transportation officials viewed this
site with the prospective lessor several months before the request for space came
into the Department of Public Works. At such time, these State officials gave Mr.
John E. Downes a favorable assessment of the land for the construction of a
highway garage facility. 3 ) The Downes Construction Company made a lease pro-
posal to the Department of Public Works without having any legal interest in the
land upon which the proposal was based. 4) This advance knowledge on the part
of the lessor not only deprived the original landowner, as well as any other citi-
zen, of the opportunity to make a competitive lease proposal, but also severely
diminished the Department of Public Works' authority and responsibility to
negotiate a fair rental. 5) Our real estate expert noted that this property's rental
rate of $5.43 per square foot is high when compared to local industrial rates of
regional public utility garages.
Another issue raised during the hearing phase of our investigation was whether
or not Governor Thomas Meskill had ever had any discussions with anyone
concerning this lease. Back on November 4, 1974, an interview was conducted
between Governor Meskill and this sub-committee's staff. At that time the Gov-
ernor noted that he had only been involved with two particular State leases —
one being the potential lease with respect to the Phoenix Building at 61 Wood-
land Street in Hartford and the other being the forged lease at 535 Boston
Avenue in Bridgeport. At that time, Governor Meskill was specifically told of this
sub-committee's findings with respect to the Waterford Lease. The Governor
was asked if he was aware of the events described in the scenario above. He
replied that he was not aware of those events. He was then specifically asked
if he had ever had any discussions with Mr. Gaffney or anyone else regarding
this lease, llie Governor responded in the negative.
Sometime shortly after our Public Hearing of December 3, 1974, State Senator
George Gunther publicly reiterated a statement he had made some two and a half
(2^/^) years ago — that he had had a conversation with Governor Meskill about
the Waterford Lease back in the spring of 1972. This subcommittee decided to
invite Senator Gunther to testify before it concerning this statement. Tlie Senator
accepted our invitation and testified before our sub-committee on December 13,
1974. He testified to the following: 1) He had received an anonymous telephone
call wherein he was told about the Downes lease proposal and given a detailed
breakdown of the figures. Senator Gunther estimated that this conversation had
occurred around April or May of 1972.
2) Shortly after this call, Senator Gunther inadvertently met the then Republi-
can Party State Chairman, J. Brian Gaffney, in the hallway of the State Legisla-
ture. At this time he showed Mr. Gaffney a slip of paper containing the figures
which the anonymous phone caller had given him and asked Mr. Gaffney if he
knew about this lease proposal. Mr. Gaffney replied that he knew his uncle, Mr.
Frank E. Downes, had applied for a lease but that he would have to check
Senator Gunther's figures to see if they were accurate. A few minutes later he
told Senator Gunther that the figures were correct. Senator Gunther said he
then asked Mr. Gaffney to stop the lease but the latter replied "well this is the
way we do things." Sometime later, Mr. Gaffney called Senator Gunther and
asked him what his intentions were if the lease were approved. Senator Gunther
advised Mr. Gaffney that he would "go public" with the figures. Mr. Gaffney
.stated at this point that he could not stop the lease because he was already
committed. 3) Around May 11, 1972 Senator Gunther asked Mr. .John Doyle, the
liaison l)etween Governor Meskill and the Legislature, to arrange a meeting with
the Gov«'rnor regarding the Waterford Lease. At this time, he gave the list of
figiires to Mr. Doyle. For over a week the Senator received no response from
the Governor's Office. Senator Gunther then saw Mr. Doyle one day in the
State Capitol and said that if he (Senator Gunther) did not see the Governor,
he would make the Downes lease proposal public information. Mr. Doyle then
made an appointment for the Senator to meet with Governor Meskill on May 23,
1972. 4) Governor IMeskill and Senatdr Gunther met on May 23, 1972 for approxi-
mately ten minutes.
The Senator mentioned the DowTies Lease specifically to the Governor to which
the Governor is said to have remarked "whafs wrong with it?'' The Governor then
asked the Senator what he would do if the lease were approved. Senator Gunther
211
replied that lie would "go public." Governor Meskill retorted "What? . . . You're
going to do the Democrats" dirty work?" Senator Gunther responded that he
"didn't consider it dirty work." The Governor at this point said that he would
look into the lease. 5) Senator Gunther wrote a public letter to Governor Mes-
kill on June 1, 1972 detailing the Downes Lease Proposal and asking him to stop
it. The Senator also asked for a complete review of "any other pending leases
of this nature." (See attached letter). 6) Senator Gunther also testified that
he had told United States Senator Lowell Weicker about this lease and about
Senator Gunther's meeting with Governor Meskill concerning it. Senator Weicker,
however, in his testimony before this sub-committee on December 16, 1974
denied ever having discussed any leases with Senator Gunther.
After Senator Gunther concluded testifying before our sub-committee, Gov-
ernor Meskill's Office asked the sub-committee and its staff to join him in his
office to discuss his recollections of the May 23, 1972 meeting. He told us that he
recalled the meeting as being one of the strangest that he had ever^had. He said
that Senator Gunther came to his office very upset declaring that there was a
problem in the Governor's administration. Governor Meskill went on to say that
Senator Gunther declined to name the departments involved in this matter nor
any of the individuals, whereupon the Governor said to the Senator "If you
don't tell me what's wrong what can I do about it?'" The Governor said at this
point the Senator just left his office. Governor Meskill denied Senator Gunther's
version of their May 23rd meeting and asserted that there was no mention of
the Downes Lease or any other lease.
On December 16, 1974, John Doyle was interviewed by a subcommittee staff
member. At that time he talked about a meeting he had had a few days previous
with Governor Meskill. Mr. Doyle stated that at this meeting with Governor
Meskill he and the Governor had tried to recollect the specifics of the May 23,
1972 meeting. According to Mr. Doyle, Governor Meskill had recalled Senator
Gunther making allegations about Mr. Gaffney at the May 23, 1972 meeting.
Mr. Doyle also initially indicated that Governor Meskill did tell him that the
May 23rd meeting with Senator Gunther centered around a lease :
Altschuler. Did Governor Meskill say that the talk was about a lease or
had you briefed him that there was a lease involved . . . two years ago?
Doyle. Yes.
However, later in this same interview Mr. Doyle said :
DoTLE. I don't know if he used the term lease ... I just don't remember
. . . He probably did.
Regardless of the text of the May 23rd meeting, it is clear that upon receipt of
Senator Gunther's June 1, 1972 letter, Governor Meskill was made aware of the
terms and the lessor involved in the Waterford Highway Garage Lease. How-
ever, Governor Meskill indicated that since a letter of commitment was signed
and countersigned by May 19, 1972, he felt he was not in a legal position to stop
this lease after this date since he considered such a document to be binding
on the parties involved. It is also clear that after the September 7, 1972 Public
Hearing conducted by the State and Urban Development Committee, which re-
ceived substantial media coverage, the Governor knew or should have known,
that the Downes Construction Company had obtained a lease based on early
information which was in violation of the established leasing procedures.
Retyped verbatim on February 13, 1975 by Senator Gunther's Office.
Certified by : Richard P. Altschttler, Deputy Counsel.
State of Connecticut,
Senate,
State Capitol, Hartford,
June 1, 1972.
Governor Thomas Meskill,
State Capitol,
Hartford, Conn.
Dear Goaternob Meskill: For several years now I have been very critical
of some of the policies of the State of Connecticut in "leasing" and have been
very vocal about the need for a change. I have felt that the taxpayers of the State
have been taking a beating, financially, on some of these leases. The procedure
is not illegal, is not established by the legislature, but has been a policy of the
Public Works Dept. with little or no opposition.
212
Just because the Democratic administration has established this policy, is no
reason why the Republican administration should continue it. When I ran for
office I pledged to try to eliminate the area of leasing that I am talking about ;
the giving of letters of intent, on a non-bid basis, for construction and leasing
of state buildings. One of the examples I used several years ago was the item
which appeared as a news story just last week, pointing out just one example of
where 100% plus, financing was obtained with a certificate of intent for a state
highway garage. The lessor then was given a 15 year lease which amortized the
entire cost of the building within the first S to 10 years, giving 5 years of rent as
a net profit and the building owned by the lessor. If the State then wished to
purchase the building they could pay the lessor the original cost. An excellent
business deal for the lessor, but darn poor business for the taxpayers of the State.
Especially, when the equity of the state enabled the individual to finance and
build the structure with little or no investment on his part.
A day or two after that new.s story, a small item appeared in the newspaper
indicating that you were going to look into this matter of leasing. I would like
to call to your attention some information, relative to leasing pending in the
state, that I feel fits into this same policy and should be stopped. I understand
that a Frank Downes is presently negotiating with the Public Works Dept. of the
State of Connecticut to build, and lease, a State Highway Garage on Route 85 in
Waterford. The State requirements are for a 12,000 sq. ft. garage with a 1000 sq. ft.
salt storage bin, to be built on an 8 acre parcel of land. The ultimate lease will
pay this lessor $64.-500.00 per year, for 15 years, at which time the State will
have the option to buy the building for $408,000, or continue to lease at $42,000
per year.
If my mathematics is correct the State of Conn, could end up paying $967,500.00
for this lease over the next 15 years and at that time elect to purchase the building
for $408,000 or continue to lease at $42,000 per year. This is a potential outlay of
$1,.375,500.00 of taxpayers money. I feel this is abusive and intolerable and because
the precedent has been established by the previous administration, doesn't make it
right for the present administration to continue it.
It is my understanding that this lease is in the final stages of approval and I
ask you to take what steps are necessary to stop this contract. In addition, I feel
a complete review of any other pending leases, of this nature, be reviewed and a
new sensible policy, including opening these leases up to public bid, should be
initiated by the Public Works Dept. on any state building need. If my memory
serves me well, we are presently paying out seven million dollars per year on
leases in the state. Not all of them are this type of "boondoggle" that we have
inherited. On the other hand I don't think we should add to this unsound, abusive
practice.
I had hoped that with a change in administration that we would see the end
of this type of leasing in Conn, but I cannot sit idly by and allow a practice that
I feel is wrong continue. Inasmuch as the Public Works Dept. is a branch of the
executive, and is answerable to you. I would ask that you take immediate action to
stop any leases of this nature.
Very truly yours,
Db. G. L. Guntheb.
405 Main Street, Danbury, Conn.
Lessor: Prospect Corporation — Mr. Anthony A. Ficca, President and Treasurer;
Mrs. Mary D. Ficca, Secretary ; Mrs. Ernestine Santore, Vice President.
Lessee Agency : Welfare Department.
Terms: 3-1-69 to 2-29-84. $39,000 Per Annum. Option to purchase at $310,000.
10,000 Square Feet.
Analysis. — Mr. Anthony A. Ficca, individually or as a main principal in a
corporation, has negotiated several leases with the State of Connecticut since
the early 1950's. It was incumbent upon this sub-committee to study several of
Mr. Ficca's more recent leases because of his status as a multiple lessor. The
fact that a les.sor has negiotiated several leases with the State does not in and
of itself imply an irregularity. However, this sub-committee felt obliged to
thoroughly investigate those leases of multiple lessors that involved significant
rental expenditures by the State.
213
Upon a complete evaluation of five separate buildings owned individually or
principally by Mr. Ficca and leased to the State, we have found no irregularities.
Our real estate expert advises us that the lease rentals in question have been
negotiated in the reasonable range of comparable rentals.
139 Charles Street, Meriden, Conn.
Lessor: Ihe Maranthony Corporation — Mr. Anthony A. Ficca, President and
Treasurer; Mrs. Mary D. Ficca, Secretary; and Mrs. Celestino Montanile,
Vice President.
Lessee Agency :
Welfare Department.— S-1-Q7 to 2-28-77. $16,249 Per Annum. 5,000 Square
Feet.
Health Departmen.t.—d-l-61 to 8-31-77. $16,249 Per Annum. 5,500 Square
Feet.
Analysis. — "See 405 Main Street, Danbury, Connecticut."
69 Linden Street, Waterbury, Conn.
Lessor: The Maranthony Corporation — Mr. Anthony A. Ficca, President and
Treasurer; Mrs. Mary D. Ficca, Secretary; and Mrs. Celestino Montanile,
Vice President.
Lessee Agency : Workmen's Compensation Commission.
Terms : 7-1-72 to 6-30-87. $13,046 Per Annum. 2,509 Square Feet. Renewed lease.
,l?(fl?(/5is.— "See 405 Main Street, Danbury, Connecticut".
79 Linden Street, Waterbury, Conn.
Les.sor: The Maranthony Corporation — Mr. Anthony A. Ficca, President and
Treasurer ; Mrs. Mary D. Ficca, Secretary ; and Mrs. Celestino Montanile,
Vice President.
Lessee Agencies :
Welfare Department.— (a) 1st and 2nd Floor: 6-5-65 to 6-5-75. $36,121
Per Annum. 10,175 Square Feet, (b) 2nd Floor : 12-1-72 to 6-30-75. $8,994.12
Per Annum. 2,277 Square Feet.
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. — 6-1-70 to 5-31-75.
$4,368 Per Annum. 5 Year Option at $4,700 Per Annum. 1,106 Square Feet.
Analysis. — "See 405 Main Street, Danbury, Connecticut."
118 Prospect Street, Waterbury, Conn.
Lessor: The Maranthony Corporation — Mr. Anthony A. Ficca, President and
Treasurer : Mrs. Mary D. Ficca, Secretary ; and Mrs. Celestino Montanile,
Vice President.
Lessee Agency : Welfare Department— Parking Spaces.
Terms : 5-1-69 to 6-30-75. $2,760.00 Per Annum.
Analysis. — This sub-committee investigated any possible irregularities in either
the negotiation or the acquisition of the lease of this parking lot. We have found
no irregularities and are advised by our expert that the rental rate charged was
well within the reasonable range.
Group Homes in Connecticut
This sub-committee's staff has completed a tentative study of the negotiation
and acquisition of group homes leased by the State's Mental Health Department.
We interviewed two lessors of a group home facility, as well as Mr. Albert Feld-
man. who is the Department of Public Works Leasing Agent responsible for
group home leases. The State has to date entered into five leases for group homes
and had anticipated negotiating up to fifty leases before a recent government
cutback. This reduction by the federal government notwithstanding, there are
seventeen more potential leases l)eing explored by the Department of Public
Works. Our staff did not have the time to conduct as thorough a probe of this
area as is required. However, based on even the limited scope of our investiga-
tion into this area, this sub-committee feels that there is a potential problem area
214
in the leasing of .sucli facilities. Therefore, our suhK'omniittee would strongly
suggest a further and more detailed study of the acquisition and negotiation of
group homes in order to delineate and prevent any possihle abuses.
770-776 Chapel Street, New Haven, Conn.
Lessor: 770 Chapel Street Associates— Mr. Harry Komisar (26.6%) ; Mr. Julius
Komisar (26.6%); Mrs. Belle Sherman (26.6%); Mrs. Arthur Barbieri
(10%) : and Mr. Eugene DeMatteo (10%).
Lessee Agencies : Workmen's Compensation Department, Labor Department —
Unemployment Division, Judicial Department, Family Relations Division,
Chief Public Defender's Office.
Terms :
Workmen's Compensation Dep^— 9-1-69 to S-31-84. $12,750 Per Annum.
3,000 Square Feet.
Labor Department — Unemployment Division. — 11-1-69 to 10-31-84. $48,450
Per Annum. 11,400 Square Feet.
Judicial Department. — 4-1-70 to 3-31-85. $9,000 Per Annum. 1,800 Square
Feet.
Family Relations Division.— 6-1-70 to 6-30-S5. $16,999 Per Annum. 4,000
Square Feet.
Chief Public Defender's Office.— 12-1-10 to 11-30-75. $7,850 Per Annum.
1,570 Square Feet.
Atwljjsis. — This merged building in the heart of Downtown New Haven houses
five State agencies which are paying a total rental of approximately $96,000
per year. It should be noted from the outset that this .sub-committee authorized
travel expenditures for a staff member to interview Mr. Harry Komisar, who
resides in Florida, if the latter was indisposed towards holding an interview in
Connecticut. When contacted by this sub-committee, Mr. Komisar indicated that
he would be traveling to Connecticut and would meet with our staff sometime in
October of 1974. When he returned to Connecticut, Mr. Komisar failed to contact
the staff. By that time, the sub-committee felt it was fruitless for the staff to
interview Mr. Komisar in Florida as it would have interrupted the preparation
of the public hearing phase of our investigation. Consequently, we relied on
interviews with the other lessors, State officials, and Department of Public Works
documents to probe this particular lease address. A combination of these avenues
of information proved to be sufficient for our purposes.
The other personalities in the lessor corporation who are worthy of mention
are Mr. Arthur Barbieri and Mr. Eugene DeMatteo. Mr. Barbieri is the New
Haven Democratic Town Chairman and has control of 10% of this building by
virtue of his wife's legal interest in the facility. Mr. Eugene DeMatteo, a multiple
lessor with the State, has a 10% interest in his own name. In an interview with
the sub-committee's staff, Mr. Barbieri explained his role in this project. Mr.
Barbieri said that he acted as the realtor for the 770 Chapel Street Building
and in that capacity advised Mr. Komisar of the State's need for space. He also
stated that in lieu of his real estate commission he had received a 20% interest
in the building, placed in his wife's name. Mr. Barbieri then transferred half of
this interest over to Mr. DeMatteo since the latter had been in other business
ventures with him and he wanted him included in this particular building.
It should be noted that according to our investigation, Mr. Barbieri's aware-
ness of the State's need for space was without the benefit of an official request
by the first State agency in the building — the Workmen's Compensation Depart-
ment. Mr. Barbieri explained this by saying that it was conmion knowledge
that Workmen's Compensation was leaving their old lea.sehold. It should be men-
tioned that Mr. DeMatteo's recounting of his interest in the building varies from
Mr. Barbieri's. Mr. DelMatteo stated that he was given a 10% interest by Mr.
Komisar directly in return for his professional services as a construction man-
ager for the renovation of this building.
In our search of the Department of Public Works files concerning the Work-
men's Compensation Lease at 770 Chapel Street in New Haven, the sub-committee
found no documentation of this agency's official request for space. In fact, the
entire negotiation of this lease was apparently done in a highly informal manner,
violative of established leasing procedures. Mr. Chester Zaniewski, Leasing Chief
of the Dei)artment of Public Works, gave Workmen's Compensation Commis-
sioner Harry Koletsky prints of the projjosed office layout at 770 Chapel Street
215
two mouths before a lease pioposul was offered by Mr. Kouiisar. It is apparent
from Air. Komisar's lease proposal that he was confident that his building would
l)e selected by the State for this lease. His propos«al on December 17, 1968 to
Mr. Zaniewski of the Department of Public Works stated that "AYe hereby agree
to leasing to the State . . . 3,000 square feet of space . . .". This document reads
more like an acceptance of a letter of commitment than just an offer by a pro-
spective lessor. All of these events taken together strongly suggest to this sub-
committee that tlie 770 Chapel Street location was given favored consideration
by the State.
It should be mentioned here tliat our staff uncovered an internal Department
of Public Works memo dated March 9, 1971 concerning possible confusion over the
tax escalation clause. Our sub-committee staff is presently looking into the sit-
uation to see if the State has made overpayment of taxes to either the lessor or
the City of New Haven.
Our inquiry into the Labor Department's lease at this address also suggested
that Mr. Komisar's facility was given special treatment by the State. The Labor
Department was giving active and sole consideration to this building three months
before Mr. Komisar olTered a proposal. In fact, four months before a letter of
commitment was signed, Mr. Komisar was being referred to as the lessor in both
Department of Public Works and Department of Labor documents.
With respect to the lease signed with the Chief Public Defender's Office, Mr.
Komisar made a proposal before there was any documented request from the
Court. AVe also saw no indication of any alternative sites having been considered
by the Department of Public Works.
Regarding the other leases in the building, it is sufficient to say that once Mr.
Komisar leased space in this facility to the first State agency, he apparently had
access to information regarding other State leasing needs which was not avail-
able to the genei'al public. This sub-committee is not critical of the Department
of Public Works for being satisfied with a particular location of one of its lease-
holds and thereby trying to package several other facilities into the same fa-
cility. However, it is critical of the practice whereby an existing lessor is put in a
more favorable position than any other citizen of the State regarding State
leasing needs.
Our real estate expert reported that the Workmen's Compensation Lease w^as
high when it was negotiated, though over the passage of time it has become a
fair rental. The rates of the other four leases, which comprise seven-eighths
(%ths) of the total rental payments, were well within the overall New Haven
office rental market.
535 Boston Avenue, Bridgeport, Conn.
Proposed Lcsisor. — The L Group — Mr. Michael Licamele.
Analifsis. — This was the aborted lease in which Mr. Thomas O'Mara, the then
Chief of the Leasing Division of the Department of Public Works, forged Deputy
Attorney General C. Perrie Phillips" signature in order to expedite the approval
process. The sub-committee staff did a thorough study of the events surrounding
this lease proposal. Our staff interviewed the Chief State Attorney and carefully
read his report as well as a State Police file concerning this lease offering. We
are .satisfied that this matter was equitably resolved in the courts and that any
further study of this lease proposal was not germane to the main charge of this
sub-committee.
26-36 North Avenue, Bridgeport. Conn.
Lessor : The L Group, Mr. Michael Licamele.
Lessee Agency : State Welfare Department.
Terms : 10-1-72 to 9-30-77. $7,500 Per Annum.
Analysis. — Our sub-committee conducted a study of this emergency Welfare
Housing two family structure, in part, as an extension of our investigation of
the aborted lease at 535 Boston Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
According to Mr. Norton and his staff at the Welfare Department, this facility
did not have utilities furnished for over nine months, forcing the State to leave
the premises unoccupied. Under the terms of this lease, the utilities are to be pro-
vided by the lessor. In spite of the fact that the premises were uninhabitable and
left vacant, the State still paid rent to the lessor for the nine month period
216
It is the conclusion of this sub-committee that the Attorney General's Office
should conduct their own investigation into these circumstances, in order to de-
termine if the State can recoup the payment made over the period in which the
Welfare families could not occupy the premises.
Another facet of this lease that caused concern was the lack of sufficient docu-
mentation in the Department of Public Works files showing a search for an alter-
native site. The real estate broker for this lease was Mrs. Diane Mytko of the
Dean Real Estate Company. She has been a longtime personal friend of the
then Department of Public Works Commissioner Edward Kozlowski. We feel
that in order to avoid the taint of possible allegations of favoritism shown with
respect to certain sites, the Department of Public Works in all instances should
keep a detailed written account of alternative proposals received or solicited.
It should be noted that our real estate expert declared the rental rate to be
fair.
59 North Main Street, Bristol, Conn.
Lessor : The Lauretti Corporation, Rocco Lauretti, Frank Lauretti, Jr., Donna
Lanretti.
Lessee Agency : Labor Department, Employment Security Division.
Terms: 1-1-72 to 12-31-76. $45,000 Per Annum. 10,000 Square Feet of Office
Space.
Analysis. — In our interview with Mr. Lauretti we found him to be very co-
operative, providing us with all the requested information. There were no appar-
ent irregularities in this lease. The leasing procedures seemed to be followed by
the Public Works Department and the lessor.
Our real estate expert concluded that considering the services and parking
provided by the lessor, the rental is equitable.
633 Washington Street, Middletown, Conn.
Lessor : The Lauretti Corporation — Rocco Lauretti, Frank Lauretti. Jr., Donna
Lauretti.
Lessee Agency : Department of Motor Vehicles.
Terms: 5-1.5-73 to .5-14-88. $42,000 Per Annum. 7,500 Square Feet of Office
Space. 2,500 Square Feet of Testing Lane.
Amended Lease. — 7-1-74 to 5-14-88. $75,375 Per Annum. 15.000 Square
Feet of Office Space. 2,500 Square Feet of Testing Lane. Option to purchase
at the end of the initial lease term for the sum of $600,000.
Analysis. — The Department of Motor Vehicles requested that the Public Works
Department search for new office space of approximately 7,500 square feet
plus 2,500 square feet for a test lane. The Lauretti Corp. offered to lease to the
State a building which contained 15,000 square feet (to be used for office space)
and in addition would construct a new 2,500 square foot test lane.
The State entered into a lease with the Lauretti Corp. for 7,500 square feet
of office space and a 2,500 square foot test lane to be used by the Department
of Motor Vehicles. (In addition, the State committed itself to lease the addi-
tional 7,500 square feet of office space no later than one year after the effective
date of this lease. The intention was that this additional space would be used
by some other State agency. However, the Public Works Department was un-
able to find any other State agency that required office space in the area.
An amended lease was drawn on November 1. 1974, effective July 1, 1974.
and the State began making payments for this additional 7,500 square feet of
space at a cost of $33,375 per annum. The State has made rental payments of
$19,468.75 covering the period of time from July 1, 1974 through Jan. 31, 1975
for this 7.500 scjuare feet of unoccupied office .space.
We were informed by personnel of the Public Works Department in January
of 1975 that they knew of no State agency that could utilize this space in the
near future. Our sub-committee has concluded that in this instance the Depart-
ment of Public Works unwisely committed significant State expenditures for
lease space in advance of any requested agency need.
Our real estate expert said that the overall square footage rental rate is within
a reasonable range. However, it appears somewhat on the high side in view of
the expenses assumed by the State of Connecticut as lessee and the strength
which a long-term lease to the State of Connecticut gives the lessor via leverage
for possible future refinancing.
217
94 Court Street, Middletown, Conn.
Lessor: Marino Professional Building, Inc., Carmelo J. Marino, President.
Lessee Agency : Workmen's Comi)ensation-Division of Workmen's Rehabilitation.
Terms: 4-1-71 to 3-31-76, $6,657.36 Per Annum, 1,434 Square Feet of Office
Space. One 5-.vear option at $6,657.36 per year.
Analysis. — In our interview with Mr. Marino, we found him to be very coopera-
tive, providing us with all of the requested information. There were no apparent
irregularities in the acquisition and negotiation of this lease. The leasing proce-
dures seemed to be followed by both the Public Works Department and the
lessor.
Our real estate expert noted that the rental was studied with reference to the
real estate market at about the time of the consummaion of this lease. It is his
opinion that this rental is leaseable and fair to the State of Connecticut.
117 Main Street Extension, Middletown, Conn.
Le.«sor : Carmelo J. Marino.
Le>see Agency : State Welfare Department.
Terms : 10 Years from 1-1-70 to 12-31-79. $97,500.00 Per Annum.
Analysis.— -This lease dates back to 1951 when it was being rented by the Labor
Department. The property transferred title several times until Mr. Carmelo
Marino reobtained the property on March 30, 1967.
The Welfare Department had need for an additional 10,000 square feet of space
and it was suggested that the additional space be provided by constructing two
additional floors of 5,000 square feet each. On 9-7-67 the lessor sent in his lease
proposal for 20,000 square feet at $4.50 per square foot. On 2-1-68 the Depart-
ment of Public Works accepted the lease proposal for 20,000 square feet at $4.50
per square foot and on 2-9-68 the lessor countersigned the letter indicating his
acceptance.
On July 3, 1969 Mr. M. B. Bauer, Chief of the Bureau of Business Administra-
tion of the Department of Welfare, responded to Mr. Chester Zaniewski's inquiry
as to whether the Welfare Department could utilize an additional 4,000 square
feet. Mr. Bauer replied that the committed space of 5,000 square feet on each floor
was adequate for his Department's needs and that the monies appropriated by
the Legislature provided very little beyond the present level of operations. Mr.
Bauer went on to say that under the circumstances program expansion was not
possible and resulting .space requirements would not increase. In spite of this
evahiation by the Welfare Department the new lease proposal outline was
accepted on March 1, 1970 for 24,000 square feet.
However, the agency insisted that they would pay $4.50 per square foot for
only 20,000 square feet. A compromise was then reached whereby the extra 4,000
square feet was to be at a lower rate (2,000 square feet at $2.25 per square foot
and another 2.000 square feet at $1.50 per square foot). This situation occurred
because the lessor submitted a proposal to add 10,000 square feet to an existing
10,000 square foot building. However, he subsequently constructed an addition to
this .structure that totaled 14,000 square feet.
Furthermore, on January 4, 1972 the Welfare Department indicated that an
entire floor containing 6,000 square feet of space was not required by this agency.
This space remained idle for over one year, during which time, the State paid
approximately $27,000 for this vacant square footage. It should be noted that the
Welfare Department subsequently relocated two units from its Central Office into
this previously vacant space.
We cannot envision any rationale for the Department of Public Works accept-
ing a new lease proposal based on an extra 4,000 square feet when it had already
approved a lease proposal which more than satisfied the requesting agency's need.
In this instance, it appears that the Department of Pnlilic Works was being
generous to the landlord at the expense of the taxpayers of this State.
Our real estate expert reported that the rental rate paid by the State for this
leased property is fair by comparison to the rental market.
222 Main Street Extension, Middletown, Conn.
Lessor : Marino Main Realty, Inc. — Carmelo J. Marino, President and Treasurer ;
Rosalie G. Marino, Vice President ; and Anthony S. Marino, Secretary.
Lessee Agency : Juvenile Court.
Terms : 6-1-71 to 5-31-86. $14,400 Per Annum. 3,000 Square Feet of Office Space.
218
Analysis. — On April 22, 1970 Marino Main Realty, Inc. submitted a proposal to
construct a one story building which would contain approximately 2,550 square
feet and which would be leased to the State for an initial fifteen year term at
the annual rate of $4.80 per square foot.
The lease proposal outline, which was for 2,550 square feet of office space to
be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by the
Juvenile Court and the State Public Works Department, was approved in May
and June of 1970 by Judge John McLinden of the Juvenile Court Second District,
Commissioner Charles I. Sweeney of the Public Works Department, Commissioner
Leo V. Donohue of Finance and Control, and the Citizens Advisory Council.
On July 9, 1970, Public Works Commissioner Charles I. Sweeney signed a letter
of commitment authorizing Marino Main Realty, Inc. to construct a Juvenile
Court Building for lease to the State of Connecticut which would contain
approximately 2,550 square feet of space. Also specified was the fact that the
final plans had to be prepared by a State licensed architect or engineer, and that
they had to be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Preliminary plans dated November 18, 1970 and final plans dated December 19.
1970 were subsequently approved by Mr. Carmelo Marino, Judge John F.
McLinden of the Juvenile Court, and by the Department of Public Works. Both
the preliminary plans and the final plans showed an interior rentable area of
3.162 square feet and the building was constructed immediately upon approval
of the plans.
The Juvenile Court occupied the building on May 29, 1971 and the lessor de-
manded to be paid rent at the agreed upon rate for the entire 3,162 square feet,
ignoring the lease based on 2,550 square feet.
After negotiations with the Department of Public Works, the lessor reduced
his demand and was willing to be paid at the rate of $4.80 per square foot for a
compromise area of 3,000 square feet. An amended lease proposal outline was
prepared for 3,000 square feet, having all the required approvals.
It should be noted that any changes which materially affect the original pro-
posal, as was the case here, should be resubmitted to the approval process prior
to any further action or agreement with the prospective lessor, particularly where
it involves the construction of facilities which are the result of a State commit-
ment beyond the original proposal submitted. It appears that in this case the
original letter of commitment authorized 2.550 square feet. Anything beyond
that total leased space should have been submitted for the required approvals
before construction and not presented as an "after the fact" request for approval.
Our real estate expert concluded that this is a competitive rental. The build-
ing was constructed to State specifications for its special use as a court facility.
20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Conn.
Lessor : Gam-Beek-Savin — Mr. Frank Beckerman ; Mr. Harry Gample ; Mr.
Herbert Savin ; Mr. Marvin Savin ; Mr. T. James Murray.
Lessee Agency : State Treasurer's Office.
Terms: 6-1-73 to 2-14-74. $62,918 Per Annum. 12,375 Square Feet of Office
Space. 162 Square Feet of Basement Storage Space.
Analysis. — This particular space at 20 Trinity Street in Hartford was originally
leased by the Continental Casualty Company to the Royal Globe Insurance
Company. On October 5, 1972, Mr. Howard Greenblatt, Vice President of Con-
tinental Casualty Company, wrote a letter to Department of Public Works Com-
missioner Paul J. Manafort asking if the State would be interested in this build-
ing on a purchase or a lease basis. Mr. Greenblatt never received a response from
Corami.ssioncr Manafort concerning this letter. On March 15, 1973, Royal Insur-
ance Company assigned its interest in the lease with Continental to Messrs. Harry
Gampel, Herbert Savin. Marvin Savin, and Frank Beckerman. At this point, tlie
lease had a balance of 17i/l> months remaining until it terminated. On April 25.
1973. T. .Tames Murray, acting with power of attorney for the latter group, offered
the State this space formerly occupied by the Royal Globe Insurance Company.
This proposal was accepted by the State on May 11, 1973. This sub-committee is
puzzled by the fact that the State quickly negotiated a subleasehold with a lessee,
when it had earlier ignored a lease proposal by the lessor.
We first inquired of the Gam-Beck-Savin Group why they had taken an assign-
ment of the Royal Globe Insurance Company's lease. In particular, we asked if
they predicated their acquisition of the interest in the Royal Globe Lease on some
219
information that the State would have a need for such space. They told our
subcommittee staff that their acquisition of a lease and subsequent sub-lease to the
State at 20 Trinity Street was tangential to their main purpose. That purpose,
according to their testimony, was to free the Royal Globe Insurance Company
from 20 Trinity Street so that it could enter into a lease at 60 Washington Street,
a new office building owned by the Gam-Beck-Savin Group. They specifically de-
nied having an early access to information concerning the State's leasing needs
with respect to the Treasury Department. Mr. Murray told our staff that after
they accomplished their main aim of moving Royal Globe into 60 Washington
Street, they felt that the 20 Trinity Street location would be a logical place for a
State agency to lease space, since it was across from the State Capitol. This group
had Mr. Bernard Mussman, the real estate broker for the sub-lease, inquire of
the Department of Public Works at this time as to whether they would need
space. It was apparently at this time that the Department of Public Works noti-
fied the prospective sub-lessor's agent that there could be a State agency lease
requirement for this building.
The sub-committee staff asked Mr. Murray why all his correspondence to the
State, before the sub-lease was approved, was under the letterhead of "T. James
Murray Associates", whereas after the sub-lease was finalized, the correspondence
was on Mr. Gampel's stationery. Mr. Murray stated that this was normal business
practice on his part since disclosure of his particular principals would adversely
affect their negotiating power. Though this may be accepted business practices in
the private sector, we feel it should be incumbent upon the Department of Public
Works to ascertain all the principals involved in a lease proposal made to the
State.
Commissioner Manafort and his key aides at the time that this lease was
negotiated told our staff that it was not their policy to inquire into all principals
involved in a lease proposal and consequently did not do so in this case. Neither
the Commissioner nor his staff could offer any definite explanations as to why
they negotiated a sub-lease with a lessee who had been assigned the lease, rather
than the lessor who had made an earlier offer. They posed the explanation that
the Department of Public Works ignored the original proposal by the lessor
because the need for a space did not exist at that time.
We are satisfied that the State is paying a reasonable rental at 20 Trinity
Street based on our real estate expert's report. However, we are critical of the
Department of Public Works' failure to respond to the lessor's proposal and to
ascertain the principals involved in this eventual sub-lease.
1290 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield, Conn.
Lessor : Mrs. T. James Murray ; Mrs. Harry Gampel.
Lessee Agency : Commission on Special Revenue.
Terms : 12-1-72 to 11-30-77. $110,490 Per Annum. 5 Year Option to Renew at
$5.60 Per Square Foot. 21,750 Square Feet ($5.08 Per Square Foot).
Analysis. — This particular building is legally owned by the wives of Mr. T.
James Murray and Mr. Harry Gampel. These gentlemen acknowledged at our
staff interview that for all intents and purposes they controlled the building
while their wives were just nominal titleholders. According to Mr. Murray, he
was contacted by Mr. William Wade, Chief of the Off-Track Betting Division of
the Special Revenue Commission, and told that he was looking for a potential
site for the Special Commission on Revenue. Mr. Wade told Mr. Murray that
he happened to notice the 1290 location one day while he was dining across the
street at a restaurant. He then called Mr. Murray, whose telephone number was
listed on the building itself. Special Revenue Commissioner Joseph Burns was
then brought down to the site by Mr. Wade and was apparently impressed with
the location. Shortly thereafter, Commissioner Kozlowski was sent a lease pro-
posal by Mr. Murray eight days after the Special Revenue Commission formally
requested space from the Department of Public Works. Tliis is another classic
example of the u.ser agency contacting a prospective lessor in advance of their
official request for space to the Department of Public Works. This, of course,
was a violation of the established leasing procedures.
Around the same time that Mr. Wade approached Mr. Murray, Mr. Gampel had
given the listing of this facility to Mr. Bernard Mussman. Mr. Mus.sman, a New
Britain realtor, told our staff that while brokering another successful State
lease propo.sal with the State Commerce Department, he frequently visited the
Department of Public Works. During one of these visits, he was told by some
47-704 O - 75 - 15
220
state employee of Special Revenue's need for lease space. Mr. Mussman could
not specifically remember which Department of Public Works employee had
passed on this information. Mr. Mussman then went back to Mr. Gampel to ad-
vise him of the State's need to house this Commission, but by this time Mr.
AVade had already contacted :Mr. Murray. In spite of this, Mr. Mussman was
still paid a commission by Mr. Gampel for his efforts in regard to this lease. The
fact that Mr. Wade made inquiries about the Wethersfield location around the
same time as Mr. Mussman's relay of the Commission's need to Mr. Gampel, was
characterized as a coincidence by Messrs. Murray, Gampel, and Mussman in a
joint staff interview.
It is evident from our inquiry into this lease that the then Deputy Public Works
Commissioner Manafort played a substantial role in the negotiations. In fact, Mr.
Manafort personally rejected one of the alternative sites. Based on our overall
investigation, we can state that it is a rarity when the Deputy Commissioner of
Public Works assumes a major role in the site selection and negotiation of a
leasehold.
This activity would in the normal course of events be left to the Leasing Divi-
sion, with the Commissioner's and Deputy Commissioner's Offices reserving their
input until after the Leasing Division had developed and negotiated a lease pro-
posal. Mr. Manafort has a legal interest in some commercial proijerty on the
Silas Deane Highway in Rocky Hill, Connecticut with Mr. Lawrence Davidson,
Governor Thomas Meskill, and Mr. Bernard Mussman. Even though this interest
has been described by these gentlemen as a "blind partnership", we are still
troubled by the degree of participation in this lease by Mr. Manafort, due to his
business relationship with Mr. Mussman. Our concern is supported by the fact
that Mr. Mussman apparently received early information from the Department of
Public Works which enabled him to earn a commission from the lessor.
Tlie original lease proposal was rejected by the Department of Finance and
Control because the price requested by the prospective lessor and the square foot-
age requested by the agency were considered to be excessive. There was a delay
of four months until a new lease proposal was drawn up and accepted. It was
during this time that Commissioner Burns of the Commission on Special Rev-
enue castigated Commissioner Carlson of Finance and Control for what the
former considered to be a serious lack of communication between the two agencies
with respect to this lease. Governor Meskill was sent a copy of this letter which
alluded to the general problems without mentioning the prospective lessor or
the 1290 Silas Deane location. This situation was rectified soon after and ap-
parently the Governor never got involved.
Our real estate expert is satisfied that the rental paid by the State on the
Headquarters of the Commission on Special Revenues is below the competitive
range for similar available real estate.
160 Pascone Place, Newington, Conn.
Lessor: Riverview Realty, Inc.— Angelo Tomasso, Jr., President and Director;
Victor F. Tomasso, Treasurer and Director; William .T. Tomasso, Vice
President and Director ; Stockholders : Angelo Tomasso. Victor F. Tomasso,
William J. Tomasso, Lucia T. Scheer.
Lessee Agency : Department of Transportation.
Terms : 5-1-74 to 4-30-94. .$203,700 Per Annum. One 20 Yr. Option at $202,869
Per Annum. Option to purchase at the end of the initial lease terms for
$1,104,000.
Analysis.— This lease was the subject of a Public Hearing held bv this sub-
committee on December 4, 1974 and December 5, 1974.
The Department of Transportation had some of its employees working in a
facility where the sanitary conditions were intolerable. In an effort to correct
this situation and affect a consolidation whereby similar cla.^sified employees
would continue working together. Commissioner Wood decided that the Depart-
ment needed another location. The Commissioner discussed this need with ^Ir.
Howard Dickinson, who within one month reported back to him that there was
a vacant building in Newington on the Berlin Turnpike.
Mr. Dickinson took Commissioner Wood to see that building and at that time
told the Commissioner that the building was a "Tomas.so deal". Commissioner
Wood indicated that if the building could be renovated and adequate parking
be provided it would be satisfactory. Commissioner Wood informed us that the
221
visit was made in December of 1&72 or early January of 1973 at the latest. Both
dates are before the Riverview Realty Company obtained an option on the
property.
On February 20, 1973, the Department of Transportation made a request for
space to the Department of Public Works asking for approximately 40,000 square
feet of space in a single facility in metropolitan Hartford with parking for
450 cars. On March 26, 1973, the Department of Public Works received a letter
of offering from Riverview Realty Company which indicated that it had 42,000
square feet of completely renovated office space, with parking for more than 300
cars, available for lease in Newington. This unsolicited offer fairly well matched
the request made by the Department of Transportation and was the same build-
ing which Commissioner Wood had inspected in December or January of 1973.
On April 12, 1973, Commissioner Paul Manafort of the Department of Public
Works sent a memo to Commissioner Wood of the Department of Transportation
stating that he would appreciate it if Commissioner Wood would take a look at
a building that had been offered for lease on the Berlin Turnpike in Newington.
Based on this sub-committee's overall investigation, we regard it as highly un-
usual for the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works to write another
Commissioner requesting that he look at a particular property for potential
lease use.
There were two other proposals that were in the file but Commissioner Wood
informed this sub-committee that he was not asked to look at any other sites
nor was he aware of these other proposals. These other proposals were offered
at a square footage rate which was less than the initial proposal of the Riverview
Realty Company.
As regards the renovation costs, Mr. Tomasso indicated in staff interview that
his construction cost for the renovations was in excess of one million dollars,
yet the estimated construction cost per two applications for building permits
taken out in the Town of Newington was only $170,000. The State in part bases
its negotiated rental rate on this information. Consequently, any significant over-
statement of the construction cost distorts the true value upon which the State
computes a fair rental.
The sub-committee's staff contacted the Newington Town Hall on two occas-
sions and inquired as to the discrepancy between the figure given the staff and
that given the State. The Newington Building Inspector informed us upon our
second call that his office had just asked Riverview Realty Company to double
check its figures. The status of that situation is still unresolved.
This sub-committee is critical of the advanced information and assistance given
the lessor by a high ranking Department of Transportation official. The events
leading up to the lease with the Riverview Realty Company demonstrate a clear
cut violation of the established leasing procedures of the State. Such violation
clearly neutralized any serious competition by another lessor. In fact, the pre-
vious landowner told this sub-committee that if he had had any notion that the
State was interested in this property, he would have made a lease proposal to
the State.
The sub-committee is also critical of the then Deputy Commissioner Paul
Manafort's involvement in this lease. As stated above, it is unusual, though not
improper per se. for a Deputy Commissioner to become personally involved in
the selection of a site and the negotiation of a lease. Because of Mr. Manafort's
long personal association with Mr. Angelo Tomasso, the sub-committee feels
that he should have refrained from providing the particular input that he did
with repsect to the Newington location.
Lastly, the sub-committee also finds fault with the State's rapid approval of
the Riverview Realty Company Lease Proposal. Though our intention is to
streamline the leasing process and disfavor bureaucratic delay, we believe that
this proix)sal was acted upon so rapidly as to preclude a reasoned deliberation.
The fact that the Department of Transportation was in an intolerable situation
is appreciated. However, this could have been rectified by an earlier request for
space by that agency. Also, the difference between a two day approval versus a
two or four week approval is not significant enough to sacrifice a reasonable con-
sideration of the proposal by the agencies involved. Furthermore, this sub-com-
mittee is not sympathetic to the explanation that another consideration was given
to this matter in order to avoid the effect of the newly promulgated advertising
statute. The Legislature purposefully enacted that Statute in order to curb some*
of the problems that we have seen in this lease's selection and negotiation. The
222
state agencies concerned should be chastised if they tried to take advantage of
the time lag between the passage and enactment of that remedial Statute.
Based on a comparable rental study done by this sub-committee's real estate
expert, the rental paid by the State for the 160 Pascone Place property appears
to be reasonable. However, this type of study is ineffective in showing an accurate
appraisal of the reasonableness of that particular rental rate as there were no
comparable rental properties in terms of structure and location. The 160 Pascone
Place facility is a reconverted semi-partitioned, warehouse lying on a wide open
space in Newington. However, our real estate expert could only find modern
office building space several miles away to compare with the Department of
Transportation's building.
It should be noted that our real estate expert did a study of the building at 160
Pascone Place in order to determine what savings, if any, the State would have
incurred if it had directly purchased and renovated this piece of property. The
results of that study showed that the State would have saved over one million
dollars over a fifteen (15) year period if it had purchased and renovated the 160
Pascone Place facility itself instead of leasing it from the Riverview Realty
Company.
The only reasonable way to gauge the State's rental expenditures at 160
Pascone Place was to employ a cost analysis study which considered the cost of
purchase and construction as well as the investment return. This type of study
was done for this sub-committee by two contractors, who operating independently
of one another concluded that the renovation cost should have been no more than
$600,000 or $800,000 on the part of Riverview Realty Company. Yet, Riverview
Realty Company mentioned at a staff interview that they had advised the State
that they had put approximately $1.2 million into the renovation of the 160
Pascone Place facility. Thus it appears that the Riverview Realty Company
grossly overstated its renovation cost, a figure which the State uses to compute
a fair rental rate.
It should also be noted that Riverview Realty Company's refusal to comply
with this sub-committee's subpoena to provide it with pertinent information
regarding all three of its leases with the State has impeded our body from being
able to fully analyze these case studies. Similarly, that Company's refusal to
comply with the subcommittee's subpoena has stymied our efforts to recommend
legislation that will aid in the determination of fair rental procedures for the
State's leasing system.
Route 800, Winchester (Winsted), Conn.
Lessor: Riverview Realty Inc. — Angelo Tomasso, Jr., President and Director;
Victor F. Tomasso, Treasurer and Director ; and William J. Tomasso, Vice
President and Secretary and Director ; Stockholders : Angelo Tomasso, Jr.
Victor F. Tomasso, William J. Tomasso, and Lucia Scheer.
Lessee Agency : Department of Motor Vehicles.
Terms : 12-15-73 to 12-14-93. .$41,649.96 Per Annum. 8,500 Square Feet— Office
Space and Test Lane. One 20-Year Option at $38,250 Per Annum. Option to
purchase at the end of the initial term for the sum of $239,063.
Analysis. — On October 18, 1972 Motor Vehicle Commissioner Robert C. Leuba
wrote a memo to Public Works Commissioner Paul J. Manafort informing him
that the lease of the Motor Vehicle Branch Office in Torrington was soon to
expire (the lease expired on 5-31-73 and that the Department was considering
a probable relocation). Commissioner Leuba stated in his memo that he had made
a careful analysis of the general area and that it appeared to him that the area
in question could be more advantageously served by a location around Winsted
near Route 8. He further stated that his survey of the Winsted area indicated
that the site presently being developed for a highway garage in Winsted might
also be "very suitable" for a IMotor Veliicle Department Office. Commissioner
Leuba requested that the Leasing Division get some kind of a proposal for an
office at this site.
It is questionable why the Motor Vehicle Department moved out of Torrington,
which is a populous area, and relocated their facility in what could be described
as a "country location" in Winsted. According to the 1972 Register and Manual,
the estimated population of Winsted was 11.100. P^qually important is the fact
that this site is subject to flooding conditions (see Route 800, Winsted Highway
Garage analy.sis) .
223
Fiffures obtained from the Motor Vehicle Department showed that for the first
six months of operation issuance of licenses and registrations was considerably
less than for a comparable period of time in the Torrington Oflice.
In telephone interviews with three other proponents, we were informed that
after submitting their proposals for a new Motor A^ehicle Department Office they
had no further contact with the Leasing Division. There was no documentation
in the I'ublic Woi'ks Department files to indicate that these proposals were in-
vestigated or given any consideration.
Our real estate expert has determined from his study of competitive real
estate office rentals that the unit rental at which this property is leased is
reasonable after appropriate adjustments are made for comparison of the
appraised property to the local real estate market, with reasonably duplicate
lessor-lessee service provided.
Route 800, Winchester (Winsted), Conn.
Lessor: Rivei-view Realty Inc. — Angelo Tomasso, Ji'., President and Director;
Victor F. Tomasso, Treasurer and Director ; and William J. Tomasso, Vice
President, Secretary and Director ; Stockholders : Angelo Tomasso, Jr., Victor
F. Tomasso, William J. Tomasso, and Lucia T. Scheer.
Lessee Agency : Department of Transportation, Highway Garage, Maintenance
Facilitv and Salt Storage Shed.
Terms : 6-1-73 to 5-31-88. $165,000 Per Annum. Option to Purchase $882,500.
Option to renew at $120,000 Per Annum. 31,900 Square Feet.
Atiahjsis. — This lease was the subject of public hearings held by this sub-
committee on December 4th and December 5th, 1974.
Mr. Howard Dickinson, a former Department of Transportation Oflicial, testified
before this sub-committee that he had known Mr. Angelo Tomasso for many years
because of their mutual involvement in the construction and maintenance of State
highways. Mr. Dickinson, privy to the State's needs and propo.sed locations for
new highway garages, approached Mr. Tomasso on his own initiative, advising
him of the need for a highway garage in the Winsted area. The Riverview Realty
Company, on this advice, picked out some possible sites for the prospective garage.
Sometime in the early Summer of 1971, Mr. Dickinson went out to view these
sites with Riverview Realty representatives and gave a favorable assessment of
the present site. Tliese events transpired at least eight months before the Depart-
ment of Transportation made an oflicial request for space to the Department of
Public Works.
This enabled the Riverview Realty Company to offer a detailed lease proposal
to the Department of Public Works some three weeks after the Department of
Transportation made their official request for space. This early information
directed by a State Department of Transportation employee clearly foreclosed
the opportunity of any other prespective lessor to make a proposal that would
have been given adequate consideration by the proper State authorities.
Mr. David Battistoni of Winsted testified before our sub-committee document-
ing his futile attempt to make a competitive lease proposal for this highway
garage. Mr. Battistoni, who owned a parcel in the area, knew about the need for
a highway garage by virtue of the publicly distributed Etherington Report which
suggested a consolidation of highway garage facilities in this area. Based on this
self -informed notion, he called the Department of Public Works, where he was
told that he could look up the specifications for this proposed garage in the Town
Records where existing highway garages were situated. He proceeded to do this
and shortly thereafter submitted a proposal to the Department of Public Works.
Soon after, the Department of Public Works Leasing Agent came to Mr. Battis-
toni's site and advised him that the location was geographically and topographi-
cally excellent. The official also told Mr. Battistoni at that time that the De-
partment of Public Works would be in further contact with him. However, after
this visit, Mr. Battistoni heard nothing from the Department of Public Works.
So, on February 9, 1972, he personally went to the Wethersfield Headquarters of
the Department of Transportation.
He talked to Mr. Kelsey, who told him that the Department of Transportation
was not actively looking for a site at that time. A letter dated February 16, 1972
from the Department of Transportation basically affirmed Mr. Kelsey's statement.
Mr. Battistoni then wrote to Mr. Thomas Coates, Administrator for the Ether-
ington Report, advising him of his proposal. Mr. Coates wrote back on March 20,
224
1972, saying that lie would get Mr. Battistoni's proposal to the responsible per-
sons in the Department of Transportation. This was the last Mr. Battistoni
heard from the State regarding his lease offer.
Former Department of Transportation Commissioner A. Earl Wood testified
that he was unaware of Mr. Dickinson's contact with Mr. Tomasso, and that he
had never known about Mr. Battistoni's proposal. He further stated that at the
time Mr. Battistoni was told by Department of Transportation officials that there
was no active consideration of such a garage, there was, in fact, a serious effort
being made by the Department of Transportation to look for a site for a highway
garage in the Winsted area. The former Commissioner could not explain the
Department of Transportation's erroneous response to Mr. Battistoni's attempts
to offer a proposal to the State.
It is the conclusion of this sub-committee that Mr. Battistoni, relying on public
information and making every effort to follow proper leasing procedures, was
dissuaded by State officials in his attempt to secure a lease with the State of
Connecticut.
The present site has been the subject of much controversy. There is concern by
this sub-committee, as well as others, that the location of this site in a flood
plain makes it susceptible to inundation. In fact, our sub-committee has learned
that the Town on AVinsted had banned construction on this site for several years
after a severe flood in the 1950s and that this site was flooded in December of
1973. Noteworthy is a staff interview with Mr. Henry Dodd, landlord of the previ-
ous State garage in Winsted. He stated that he was planning to make a proposal
for the new Department of Transportation facility in Winsted, but that he could
not find suitable land within the Town limits. He went on to remark that while
he had looked at the precent location, he had never given it serious consideration
since he was confident the State would never lease a facility in such a flood-prone
location.
Our inquiry into this lease also revealed that the Riverview Realty Company
did not secure title to the property until two months after a letter of commitment
was issued. This is anoher example of the failure of the Department of Public
Works to check the true title of a site involving a State leasehold. Though this
is not a violation of State procedure, it is certainly something less than the
standard of good business practices expected of State officials.
It should be mentioned that Senator Gunther's June 1, 1972 letter to Governor
Meskill (See Waterford Garage Analysis) in addition to referring to the Water-
ford Highway Garage also advised the Chief Executive to conduct a "complete
review of any other pending leases of this nature". At the time that this letter was
received, Riverview Realty's lease proposal for the Winsted Highway Garage
had already been offered to the Department of Public Works. However, the letter
of commitment for this facility was not issued until August 18, 1972.
Our real estate expert noted that the leasing of this property at $5.93 per
square foot is a high rental when compared to local industrial rates and I'egional
public utility garages. Riverview Realty had its own appraiser offer testimony
to this sub-committee concerning this facility's rental rate. This appraisal will
be indued, along with our files, in the State Library.
Route 44, Canterbury, Conn.
Lessor : S & C Realty Company — John Stula, Rubin Cohen.
Lessee Agency : Department of Transportation. Highway Garage and Mainte-
nance Facility.
Terms : 1-1-68 to 12-31-82. $14,606.00 Per Annum. 4,000 Square Feet.
Analysis. — The principals in this highway garage lease are I\Ir. John Stula
and Mr. Rubin Cohen, who are also landlords in two other State highway garage
facilities leased to the Department of Transportation in jNIarlborough and Col-
chester (See separate analysis concerning the Colchester lease). Mr. Cohen, a
former Democratic State Representative and former Chairman of the Appropria-
tions Committee of the General Assembly, had been a long-time friend of Mr.
John O'Connor, former Leasing Chief of the State in the early 1960's. It was Mr.
O'Connor who informed Mr. Cohen about the need for a garage in Marlborough,
then Mr. Frank Buckley, Chief of Property Control of the Highway Department,
negotiated a modest rental ($1.36 per .square foot) directly with Mr. Cohen and
his partners. Because he was a landlord of such a facility and due to his many
years as a State Representative, Mr. Cohen knew many State Highway employ-
225
ees. He told our staff that he was approached by such as employee (whom he
could not identify) who informed him of the State's need for a highway garage in
Canterbury. Then Mr. Cohen approached Mr. Chester Zaniewski, Chief of the
Leasing Division of the Department of I'ublic Works, and former assistant to Mr.
John O'Connor, and told him that he had some property he would like to lease
to the State for a garage in Canterbury. The Department of Public AVorks had
received another proposal for this garage from a Mrs. Eleanor Cote.
Mrs. Cote had written to the Department of Public Works back in 1964, say-
ing that she had heard there was going to be a need for a highway garage in
Canterbury. Apparently, she was privy to some information that was a bit pre-
mature, since the Department of Public Works was not actively considering such
a facility at that time. However, Mr. Zaniewski got in touch with her in 1966
when serious consideration of such a garage was being contemplated. Mr. Zaniew-
ski remembered that Mrs. Cote had some political connections and he was con-
vinced that she had had some access to inside information based on those
connections.
Therefore, in 1966, IMr. Zaniewski had both Mrs. Cote and Mr. Cohen's pro-
posals before him, apparently due to early information. He recommended to
the Department of Transportation that Mr. Cohen's proposal be accepted because
he said it was more economical and the other proposal was subject to a salt
pollution problem. The Department of Transportation went along with Mr.
Zaniewski's suggestion, however, Mr. Cohen's proposal was delayed for over
eight months because the Department of Transporation had changed its specifi-
cations. This change required more land than Mr. Cohen's proposal offered. The
delay, apparently, was an attempt to give Mr. Cohen and his associate an oppor-
tunity to purchase the additional acreage. By the time that they had acquired
the extra 100 feet which was required by the new specifications, their new lease
proposal had jumped in price by $9,000 per year. The Department of Transporta-
tion balked at this increase but Mr. Zaniewski explained to them that the rapid
increase in construction costs, mortgage and tax rates, etc. over the past year,
as well as the lei?sor's extra costs for the additional 100 feet, justified this charge.
The Department of Transportation's only apparent recourse at this point was to
eliminate $39,000 from the highway garage's design in order to cut costs. Based
on the Department of Transportation's internal reduction, the S&C Realty Com-
pany raised the rental rate to $3,000 per annum rather than the original $9,000
per annum increase.
Even though there were no established leasing procedures during the negotia-
tions of this lease, we are still critical of the early information given by a State
Highway Department employee to Mr. Rubin Cohen, who at that time was a
powerful Democratic legislator. This advance knowledge clearly put Mr. Cohen
and Mr. Stula in a far more advantageous position than any other prospective
lessor. Common sense dictates that Mr. Cohen's friendships with Mr. Zaniewski's
former boss and predecessor, as well as Mr. Cohen's status as a multi-term
legislator, seriously decreased the potential of an arms-length negotiation posture
vis-a-vis the lessor and the Department of Public Works.
We are also critical of the Department of Public Works' failure to actively
solicit other proposals for this garage, especially during the eight months delay
caused Jby the insufficient size of Mr. Cohen's proposed site. This sub-committee
feels that the Department of Public Works should have scanned the area for
an adequately sized lot. The failure of the Department of Public Works to take
any action during this time caused the State to pay a significant increase in the
rental rate and forced a sacrifice of almost $40,000 in the design of this facility.
It should be mentioned that our real estate expert has concluded that though
the rental is high for this garage, it is not unreasonably so.
Route 2, Colchester, Conn.
Lessor : S&C Realty Company — Mr. John Stula and Mr. Rubin Cohen.
Lessee Agency : Department of Transportation Highway Garage Maintenance
facility and Salt Storage Shed.
Terms : 12-1.5-69 to 12-14-84. $58,123 Per Annum. Option to Purchase— $325,000
Per Annum. Option to Renew— $339,499 Per Annum. 12,341 Square Feet.
Analysis. — This is another Department of Transportation highway garage
facility leased to the State by Mr. Rubin Cohen and Mr. John Stula of S&C
Realty Company. The Department of Public Works did not get a request for
226
space from the Department of Transportation until February 19, 1968. However,
Mr. Rubin Cohen told our sub-committee staff that he had shown a Department
of Transportation official three sites before the Department of Public Works
became involved in the negotiations for this garage. He further stated that this
Department of Transportation official, Mr. John Urbanik, chose one out of the
three as a favorable site.
During the course of our investigation, the staff noticed a letter sent from
Mr. William Wade, Director of Property Control of the Highway Department
to Finance Commissioner Conkling on January 20, 1968. This letter mentioned
that the Department of Transportation had had an informal meeting with Mr.
John Stula concerning a lease for a highway garage in this area before November
21, 1967. At first glance this meeting may appear as evidence of a clear cut
deviation from leasing practices.
Rather than an admission that leasing practices were violated, Mr. Wade's
letter is really an explanation that such practices were not violated. That memo
was to advise Commissioner Conkling that negotations with INIr. Cohen's as.so-
ciate were previous to the Finance Commissioners general letter of November 21,
1967, which began to establish the leasing procedures.
Even though this lease was negotiated before there was a normative leasing
pattern, we still must conclude that the Highway Department by having one of
its officials aid Mr. Cohen in selection of a site, deviated from normal good busi-
ness practices expected of State employees. The Department of Transportation's
actions gave Mr. Cohen a distinct advantage over any other prospective lessor,
while crucially weakening the Department of Public Works' negotiating leverage.
We must also fault the Department of Transportation for its failure to include a
salt .hed in the original design of this structure. The shed was mentioned by
the Highway Department to the Department of Public Works five months after
the lease proposal was made and three and one half months after the letter of
commitment was issued. It then took the Highway Department another two
months to decide whether the shed was really necessary. When the decision was
finally made that it was a necessary part of the structure, an amended lease
proposal was composed, coming some ten months after the original lease proposal
was made. During this ten month time frame, constniction and related costs had
dramatically increased. Consequently, this lengthy delay in the project due to
the reconsideration of the salt shed cost the State a significant amount of money.
It should also be noted that the S & C Realty Company made a lease proposal
to the Department of Public Works two months before it had acquired interest
in the land. We are critical of the Department of Public Works for giving .serious
consideration to a proposal made by a proponent who had no legal interest in the
land upon which the proposal was based. Further, the Department of Public
Works apparently gratuitiously accepted the water charges for the garage.
Under the terms of the lease, the State is now obligated to pay for water. How- •
ever, there was no mention of this being the lessee's responsibility in either the
lease proposal, amended lease proposal, or the letter of commitment.
This sub-committee is also critical of Mr. Rubin Cohen's role as a lessor of
three State highway garages. His status as a longtime State legislator and as
Chairman of the General Assembly's Appropriations Committee (which among
other things earmarks funds for State leasing expenditures) had to have serioiisly
hindered the ability of the State to negotiate with him on an arms-length basis.
Our real estate expert has determined that the rental rate for this garage is
excessive.
11 Asylum Street, Hartford, Conn.
Lessor : Empire Realty Management Company — Allan Schaefer, Yale Citrin,
Stephen Halpern, and Rudolph DiPalnia.
Lessee Agencies : State Board of Accountancy. Labor Department — Unemploy-
ment Compensation Div.
Terms :
State Board of Accountancy. — 7-1-69 to 7-6-74 (Presently a tenant on a
hold-over basis). $1,060.44 Per Annum. 353 Square Feet.
Lahor Dcpt. — Unemployment Compensation Div. — 5-1-71 to 4-30-76.
$2,712 Per Annum. 775 Square Feet.
Analysis. — This building houses two State agencies under separate sub-lease
agreements with the Empire Realty Company. The latter enterprise is com-
prised of Mr. Allan Schaefer, his brother-in-law Mr. Yale Citrin and Mr. Citrin's
business partners. Empire Realty Company took an assignment of a lease from
the owner of this building, the Central Realty Company, on March 1, 1965. It
227
was not until July of 1969, the Empire Realty Company sub-leased its interest
to the State Board of Accountancy.
This sub-committee has found no irregularities in the negotiation or acquisition
of these leased premises.
110 Bartholomew Avenue, Hartford, Conn.
Lessor : Belmont Realty Company — Allan Schaefer and Yale Citrin.
Lessee Agency : State Welfare Department.
Terms : 2-1-74 to 1-31-89. $236,199.96 Per Annum. 60,000 Square Feet of Office
Space.
At the end of the intial lease term. Lessee shall have an option to pur-
chase at a price to be determined in the following manner : Lessee and
Lessor shall each appoint one appraiser to establish an appropriate value of
said property. Said value as determined by these appraisals .shall be the
purchase price and, in the event that they cannot agree, a third appraiser
shall be appointed whose evaluation shall then become the purchase price.
Analysis. — The original lease proposal outline called for 200 parking spaces
and was approved by all the appropriate State departments. The Department
of Finance and Control approved it, adding a notation which stated that park-
ing for 300 cars should be provided in the lease with no resultant increase in
cost. Over 300 parking spaces were being used by the Department of Welfare
at its offices at 1000 Asylum Street in Hartfold at the time these proposal out-
lines were submited. The end result was that the letter of commitment from the
Department of Public Works to the lessor of this facility stated that the latter
should furnish lighted paved parking for not less than 200 ears. The letter of
commitment also provided that if the State would furnish land owned by the
City of Hartford or the State of Connecticut and within the vicinity of this
facility, the lessor would agree to furnish, at his own expense, additional paved
lighted parking for not less than 100 cars.
It was realized by all concerned that the only additional adjacent land avail-
able was presently owned by the State of Connecticut and the City of Hartford
on the westerly side of Route 1-84. It was further recognized that it was the
intention of the Department of Public Works to obtain jurisdiction over that
area and have the landlord, at his expense, provide the additional parking for
100 cars which Finance and Control had requested.
The Department of Public Works was informed by the Property Management
Division of the Department of Transportation that its request for jurisdiction
over this area had been denied on the basis that there were plantings in the
area which were designed as noise buffers. The Department of Public Works was
also informed that the City of Hartford's property west of 1-84 could not be used
for other than park purposes. Inasmuch as the State could not provide the land
neces.sary to accommodate an additional 100 car parking area and thus save the
lessor from having to expend funds to improve said land for parking, it was
agreed that the rental would be reduced from $237,000 per year to $236,199 per
year. This reduction resulted in an annual saving of $800 which represents the
estimated cost ($12,000) of preparing an area to accommodate 100 cars for park-
ing purposes. However, a reduction in the rent did not solve the parking problem.
More than 425 employees work at this facility and 50 State vehicles must park
there. Thus, State parking is either restricted or prohibited and it has only been
due to a lack of enforcement of City parking regulations that a major crisis has
been averted. During the winter, however, these regulations change and the
parking rules are more strictly enforced. Therefore, some additional parking
is absolutely essential.
Another problem with respect to the lease at 110 Bartholomew Avenue is the
simultaneous payments of the Welfare Department on two leaseholds. On Janu-
ary 29, 1974, the Department of Public Works accepted for lease by the Depart-
ment of Welfare the premises at 110 Bartholomew Avenue in Hartford. In turn,
the Department of Public Works authorized rental payments to begin February 1,
1974. However, the Department of Welfare did not completely move out of its
offices at 1000 Asylum Avenue in Hartford until July 1, 1974. Thus, because of
what appears to have been a lack of planning and coordination on the part of the
Department of Welfare and the Department of Public Works, rental payments
were made for both locations for the same months. If the Department of Welfare
had completely moved out of its offices at 1000 Asylum Avenue by the end of
February 1974, the State would have saved $91,589.02 in rental payments made
to the Security Insurance Company for the months of March through July.
228
340 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Conn.
Lessor : Capitol and Broad Company — Allan Schaefer and Yale Citrin.
Lessee Agencies :
1. Department of Corrections.
2. Budget Division of Finance and Control.
3. Commission on Arts.
4. Personnel and Administration.
5. Commission on Higher Education.
All of these departments have been consolidated into one lease.
Terms: 6-1-70 to 5-31-85. $388,295 Per Annum. 104,195 .Sciuare Feet.
Analysis. — This building was the subject of a Public Hearing held by this suu-
committee on November 25, 1974.
The facility at 340 Capitol Avenue houses five State agencies which had negoti-
ated separate leases starting as far back as 1968. For efficiency sake, on June 1,
1970, all five leases were consolidated into one document, the terms of which are
delineated above.
One irregularity concerning this lease is the advance contact between the Chief
of the Leasing Division of the Department of Public Works and the prospective
lessor. Mr. Chester Zaniewski, the Chief of Leasing, personally viewed the 340
Capitol Avenue property with Mr. Allan Schaefer before the latter had any
legal interest in the property. According to Mr Schaefer, he brought the Chief
of Leasing over to the property with the specific intention of obtaining his
evaluation of this property for State leasing purposes. Mr. Zaniewski told Mr.
Schaefer at that time that he would consider a proposal if Mr. Schaefer renovated
the structure in the same way as he had his building at 1179 Main Street and if
the State subsequently developed a need.
However, Mr. Zaniewski gave the sub-committee a different account. He told
us that he had contacted Mr. Schaefer because of the anticipated demand for
lease space due to the substantial growth of various agencies. According to Mr.
Zaniewski, Mr. Harry Gampel had just purchased 00 Washington Street in
Hartford and had offered it to the State on a lease basis. Mr. Zaniewski stated
that he had begun looking for other buildings in order to set up a competitive
basis for this expected clamoring for facilities by the various State Departments.
Mr. Zaniewski said that he had noticed the 340 Capitol Avenue property as a
viable possibility since it was directly across from the State Capitol. Based on
Mr. Schaefer's renovation of 1179 Main Street in Hartford for the Department
of Community Affairs, Mr. Zaniewski decided to contact him to see if he would
be interested in buying and renovating the 340 Capitol Avenue building. Both
Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Zaniewski asserted that at this point no commitment was
given by either party concerning State leases. Regardless of who initiated the
meeting at 340 Capitol Avenue, it was a deviation from the accepted leasing
procedures to have had such an early and significant contact between a prospec-
tive lessor and a State leasing official.
After Mr. Schaefer bought the building, he began some renovations since at
this point he had been given a commitment for two State leases for two floors
of the building. Those leases were for the Budget Division of the Department of
Finance and Control and for the Department of Corrections.
After Mr. Schaefer consummated the lease proposal for tlie Department of
Corrections, he did not receive any other commitments from the State for some
time. According to Mr. Schaefer's own words, he then became desperate and
panicky ; whereupon Mr. Zaniewski put together a package for him whereby
various small State agencies would be moved into the remaining two floors. Mr.
Schaefer said that he had put a lot of pressure on Mr. Zaniewski at this time
to put more agencies in his building. However, while Mr. Zaniewski admitted this,
he stated that he had finally put the agencies into Mr. Schaefer's building be-
cause it was convenient and run by a reliable landlord. After his building was
occupied by the various State agencies, Mr. Schaefer built an additional 4,000
square foot onto each floor because he felt that after this temporary lag in the
State's space needs was over there would be a resurgence of State agency lease
requests. Eventually Mr. Schaefer leased the newly constructed 16,000 square
feet of space to the various State agencies which were already in the building.
Mr. Paul Pomerantz was one of the brokers for the sale of the 340 Capitol
Avenue building to Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Citrin (his brother-in-law). He also
told our staff that he had aided in the negotiation of the lea.se. Because Mr.
Pomerantz was a former Democratic State Central Committeeman, this sub-
committee carefully probed his role with respect to the 340 Capitol Avenue Lease
229
in order to see if he had exerted any political influence on Mr. Schaefer's behalf.
The sub-committee found no evidence to support such a conclusion. Instead, it
appears that the substantial part of the negotiations were carried on directly
between ;Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Zaniewski.
Another focal point in the investigation of this lease revolves around the tax
escalation clause. It is the conclusion of this sub-committee that there has been
a substantial overpayment by the State due to an irregularity in the computa-
tion of this clause. On April 18. 1968, Mr. Allan Schaefer purchased property at
340 Capitol Avenue in Hartford, Connecticut. This property consisted of a four-
story building of 87.000 square feet situated on approximately three quarter
(%) acres of land. The building was constructed between 1900 and 1905 and
was formerly used as a factory. On the grand list of July 1, 1968, this property
had an assessed value of $277,180.00 (Land and Building). Mr. Schaefer in-
formed us that the cost of the renovations at 340 Capitol Avenue was $1,300,000.00.
On the grand list of July 1. 1969, this building was assessed for $359,710.00
(Building only), which is an increase of $139,730.00 over the assessment on the
grand list of July 1, 1968. There is some question as to whether tbe renovations
were fully completed by July 1, 1969 and that the assessed value on the Hart-
ford grand list of July 1, 1969 showed a 100% assessment aginst the four-story
main building after completion of all renovations. It does not appear to be rea-
sonable that after this building was renovated at a cost of $1,300,000.00 that the
increase in assessment would be only $139,730.00. The lessor also constructed a
four-story addition to the main building (16,000 square feet) which he informed
us cost $350,000.00.
On the Hartford grand list of July 1, 1970, this building (Main Structure and
the New Addition) was assessed for $596,490.00 (Building Only) which is an
increase of $236,780.00 over the assessment on the grand list of July 1, 1969.
According to a letter dated August 3, 1971 from J. Ted Gwartney, City As-
.sessor of Hartford, to Mr. Allan Schaefer and a letter dated July 3, 1974 from
Mr. Allan Schaefer to the Department of Public Works, the increase in assess-
ment of $236,780.00 was attributable to the new addition to the main building
($69,440.00) and to the revaluation of the structure ($167,340.00).
The increase of $167,340.00 in as.sessment on the grand list of July 1, 1970 which
was due to a revaluation of the building represents a 46.5% increase over the
asse.^sment of $359,710.00 on the grand list of July 1, 1969.
The fact that the City of Hartford increased the assessment by 46.5% after
having assessed the building the prior years indicates to this sub-committee that
either all of the renovations were not completed and thus not assessed on the
grand list of July 1, 1969 or else all of the renovations were not assessed properly.
This sub-committee believes that the taxes on the additional assessment of
$167,340.00 should also have been added to the base tax figure in that Paragraph
25 of the lease stipulates that the "lessee shall pay any increase in real property
taxes against the four-story main structure after completion of all renovations."
In addition, on October 1, 1973, the Assessor for the City of Hartford put a
notation on the assessment card that read "Reviewed and Corrected Pricing".
As a result of that review and corrected pricing, the property assessment was in-
creased from $436,270.00 to $1,089,960.00 (Land and Building). Since all of the
renovations to the main building and the new addition were completed by July 1,
1970, this increased assessment appears to this sub-committee to be based on the
value of the building as of July 1, 1970.
In a letter dated July 3, 1974 from Mr. Allan Schaefer to the Department of
Public Works, Mr. Schaefer computed the base tax figure on this property as
follows :
1969 Assessed value of property, $416,910, at 73.8 mills $30, 767. 96
1970 Assessed value of new addition to main building, $69,440, at 78.5
mills 5, 450. 04
Total 36, 218. 00
In view of the above information, we feel that the base tax figure should be
computed as follows :
1969 assessment ($416,910, at 73.8 mills) $30,767.98
1970 assessmen as corrected in 1973 ($1,089,960 less 1969 assessment,
$416,910, at 78.5 mills) 52,834.43
Total base tax 83,602.39
230
The total amount paid to the lessoi- for reimbursement of real estate tax
increases based on the grand list of July 1, 1970, July 1, 1971, and July 1, 1972
Avas $53,327.97.
This amount was in excess of a yearly tax base of $36,218.00 based on an
assessment of $486,350.00.
The State auditors assigned to our sub-committee computed the yearly tax
ba.se to be $49,355.19, which is based on the total assessment of $653,690.00 on
the grand list of July 1, 1970.
If the State had reimbursed the lessor for tax increases above the tax base
of $49,355.19, instead of the tax base of $36,218.00, the amount paid to the lessor
for the above mentioned years would have been only $10,666.32, or $42,661.65 less
than was actually paid.
The matter now rests with the Attorney General's Office which has held up
payment in an equipment sum on Mr. Schaefer's leases until the situation is
resolved.
1179 Main Street, Hartford, Conn.
Lessor : MEI Construction Company — Bernard Kane, President ; Allan Schaefer,
Vice-President ; Rudolph DiPalma, Vice-President ; Stephen Halpern, Sec-
retary ; Yale Citrin, Treasurer.
Lessee Agency : Department of Community Affairs.
Terms : 3-1-68 to 2-28-78. $121,472.00 Per Annum. 33,280 Square Feet.
Analysis. — The State's Department of Community Affairs is a sub-tenant at
1179 Main Street in Hartford. The six story office building has been owned since
March, 1967, by the 1179 Main Street Corporation. The President and main
principal is Mr. William Rabinowitz. Mr. Rabinowitz, a close friend and attorney
for Mr. Allan Schaefer, decided to lease the building to MEI Construction Com-
pany, whose main principal was Mr. Scliaefer. The building was in a deteriorated
condition and Mr. Rabinowitz felt that Mr. Schaefer, who was experienced in
real estate development, could restore the facility. The MEI Construction Com-
pany (a general contractor) entered into a lease with the 1179 Main Street
Corporation in May of 1967. Renovations began immediately beginning with the
gutting of the upper five floors in the building. Our sub-committee staff was told
by Mr. Schaefer that he had .substantial contact with Mr. Chester Zaniewski,
Chief of the Leasing Division of the Department of Public Works in the Spring
of 1967. This was due to the fact that the Health Department had a lease that
had expired at this address and there was a problem with moving all the para-
phernalia of that State agency out of the building.
At the end of June, 1967, legislation was passed establishing the Department of
Community Affairs. Consequently, a need for space developed. At this point, seri-
ous negotiations began between the Department of Public Works and Mr. Schaefer
concerning 1179 Main Street as a possible sub-leasehold for the Department of
Community Affairs. Mr. Rabinowitz told our sub-committee staff that he had no
idea that the State would be interested in this building when he bought it, while
Mr. Schaefer stated likewise. In fact, Mr. Schaefer noted that this is exactly why
he had his brother-in-law, Mr. Yale Citrin, of Scarsdale, New York, and Mr.
Citrin's business associates set up the MEI Corporation. Since he had no specific
idea what to do with the building when he leased it from the owner, he brought in
the above-mentioned people to spread the risk.
Though the Department of Community Affairs did not officially request space
on an Exhibit A Form until September 1. 1967, Mr. Leroy Jones, Managing Direc-
tor of the then named Development Commission, advised the Department of Pub-
lic Works on June 29, 1967 that they would need space. Department of Public
Works wrote back to Mr. Jones advising him that they would need more infor-
mation from his Department before they could seek rental accommodations.
We are somewhat critical of the Department of Public Works in one particular
instance with respect to this lease. There does not appear to be any documented
search for alternative space by the Department of Public Works Lea.sing Agent.
On May 1, 1968, the State entered into a sub-lease agreement at 1179 Main
Street with the MEI Corporation for $10,000 per month (The MEI Corporation
pays $6,666.00 per month to the landlord of 1179 Main Street Corporation). In
fairness to the Department of Public Works negotiator, we should mention that
we are satisfied with our real estate experts' conclusion that the rental rate paid
to the MEI Corporation was reasonable when negotiated and has become even
more favorable to the State with the passage of time.
231
61 Woodland Street, Hartford, Ck)nn., Greater Hartford Community College
Purchased From : Mr. Allan Schaefer and Mr. Harry Gampel.
Purcha.'^e Price : $7.3 Million.
A?m7//.s(.s\ — Early in 1973, discussions between oflScials of the State of Connecti-
cut and executives of the Travelers Insurance Company were held relating to the
acquisition of the Phoenix Building at 61 Woodland Street as a new home for
the Greater Hartford Community College. The discussions included the possi-
bility of the State acquiring this building as a gift, provided the Internal Revenue
Service would approve a tax writeoff for the Travelers. Soon after, the Governor
entered these discussions and agreed to see if he could assist the State in obtain-
ing a favorable ruling from the Internal Revenue Service.
On June 19, 1973, top executives of the Travelers Insurance Company re-
quested a meeting. At that meeting, they informed Mr. Gerald McCann, Deputy
Commissioner of Finance and Control, and Mr. Arthur Banks, President of the
Greater Hartford Community College, that the State could not acquire the
Phoenix Building as a gift. However, the Travelers officials made it known at
that meeting that the State could purchase the building for approximately
$4.5 million.
On July 16, 1973, the Board of Trustees for Regional Community Colleges
passed a resolution authorizing their Executive Director to negotiate through
the Department of Public Works and other interested State agencies for the
purchase of the Phoenix Building. A second motion was passed which requested
the chairman to appoint board members to meet with administrators and State
officials in order to negotiate the purchase of this building.
On July 27, 1973, the Commission for Higher Education approved the recom-
mendation of the Board of Trustees for Regional Community Colleges to negotiate
for the purchase of the Phoenix Building. At that time the Commission also
stated that it should be understood that the Department of Public Works would
be negotiating for this property with the approval of the Department of Finance
and Control.
On July 30, 1973, copies of both resolutions were sent to Commissioner Adolph
Carlson of the Department of Finance and Control, Commissioner Paul Manafort
of the Department of Public Works, Attorney General Robert Killian, Mr. Horace
Baker of the Budget Division of Finance and Control, and Mr. Alfred MIska,
Facilities Coordinator of the Board of Trustees for Regional Community Colleges.
The cover letter from Mr. Robert Bokelman, Director of the Commission for
Higher Education, read "approval to negotiate for the purchase of the Phoenix
Building".
On August 20. 1973, members of the Board of Trustees for Regional Com-
munity Colleges went to see Governor Meskill in order to discuss, among other
things, the Board's decision to purchase the Phoenix Building for the Greater
Hartford Community College at a cost of $4.5 million. Representing the Board
of Trustees at that meeting were Mr. Henry E. Fagan, Mrs. Beryl Strout, Mr.
Roger B. Bagley, and Mrs. Dorothy C. McNulty. This sub-committee was in-
formed by Dr. Searle Charles that the Governor told the Board members at that
meeting that something would be done about the Greater Hartford Community
College problem before the end of the year.
Around September 3, 1973, Mr. Bradley Biggs was sworn in as Deputy Com-
missioner of the Department of Public Works. At that ceremony Dr. Searle
Charles. Executive Officer for the Board of Trustees for Regional Community
Colleges, mentioned to Commissioner Manafort and Deputy Commissioner Biggs
his Board's interest in purchasing the Phoenix Building. Dr. Charles told our sub-
committee staff that he mentioned this fact to the new Deputy Commissioner
(who was an educator himself) so that he would be immediately aware of the
critical need to purchase the Phoenix Building. On September 4, 1973, Deputy
Commissioner Bradley Biggs met with Dr. Arthur Banks, President of the
Greater Hartford Community Collesre, to discuss the physical requirements for
the College. The next day, copies of the July resolutions of the Board of Trusteees
for Regional Community Colleges and of the Commission for Higher Education
were sent to Commissioner Biggs to notify him about the Board's request of the
Department of Public Works to negotiate for the purchasse of the Phoenix
Building.
On September 7. 1973, Mr. Donald G. McGannon. Chairman of the Commission
for Higher Education, wrote to Governor Meskill and informed him that the
232
Phoenix Building was available and that the State had the opportunity to pur-
chase this property for $4.5 million. Mr. McGannon indicated that the cost of
acquiring and renovating the property ($4.5 million and $1.5 million respectively)
would be very favorable when one considered what the State was spending on
conventional building construction. Mr. McGannon further indicated that he did
not know how long this facility would continue to be available and that while
he did not feel the State should rush into the acquisition of any property, he
wanted the Governor to know how seriously the Commission viewed the College's
current situation. Mr. McGannon indicated that he wanted to seek a policy
decision from the Governor to "go or not to go" so that this facility would not
be lost by default. Mr. McGannon added that he would be happy to talk with the
Governor by phone or in person and that he urged an early decision on this
important matter. Lastly, Mr. McGannon stated that he had viewed all matters
pertaining to this building from a cost efficiency and educational value basis.
On September 11, 1973, members of the Connecticut General As.sembly Appro-
priations Committee's Sub-Committee on Education toured the Phoenix Build-
ing with Commissioner Manafort at this group's request. When some of the
lawmakers asked about the purchase of this building, Commissioner Manafort
said that delicate negotiations were underway. When questioned by our sub-com-
mittee staff, the legislators said they a.ssumed Commissioner Manafort had been
referring to negotiations to purchase. However, Commissioner Manafort told
our staff that the delicate negotiations he had been referring to were the efforts
that he had assumed were still underway to obtain the Phoenix Building as a gift.
On September 17, 1973. the Board of Trustees for Regional Community Colleges,
at the request of the Department of Public Works, approved a resolution stating
the physical requirements for the Greater Hartford Community College facility.
On September 18. 1973. Mr. Allan Sehaefer and Mr. Harry Gampel obtained
an option to buy the building from the Travelers Insurance Company for $4.5
million.
On September 20. 1973, the Department of Public Works put an ad in a local
newspaper seeking space to be leased by the Greater Hartford Community
College.
At this point, the sub-committee has not been able to determine who made the
decision to seek leased .space rather than to negotiate or purchase the Phoenix
Building as originally requested by the Board of Trustees for Regional Com-
munity Colleges and the Commission for Higher Education. According to all the
paperwork and information available to this sub-cdAimittee, the Travelers wished
to sell this building and the Board of Trustees for Regional Community Colleges
wished to buy it. Yet the Department of Public Works never pursued this request
to purchase. Instead, the Department of Public Works advertised for lea.sed space
two days after .som(?one else had already taken out an option on this building.
The events surrounding the purchase of this property for the home of the
Greater Hartford Community College have been under investigation Ity this sub-
committee for a consideraltle length of time. At this date, however, the sub-
committee feels that it would be premature to draw any conclusions with respect
to these events. The sub-committee staff", which has interviewed over twenty
people, has been instructed to continue its probe of 61 Woodland Street until
March 1. 1975.
90 Wa.shington Street, Hartford, Conn.
Lessor : Capitol Central Properties — Mr. Charles Schnier ; Mr. Paul Pomerantz ;
and Mr. Jo.seph Adinolfi.
Lessee Agency ;
State Library.
Labor Department, Unemployment Division.
Mental Health.
State Police.
Miscellaneous Agencies.
Terms :
State Libra r I/. —1-1-6S to 12^1-«2. $60,000 Per Annum. 20,000 Square
Feet.
Lahor Department, Unemployment Division. — 1-1-68 to 12-31-82. .$80,000
Per Annumn. 20,000 Square Feet.
Mental Health and State Police To (jet her. —5-1-68 to 4-30-83. $79,999 Per
Annum. 20.000 S(iuare Feet.
MisccUaneou.^ Agcneies {Commiasion on Aging, Mental Health. Human
Right.^ and Opportunities, and the Real Estate Commission. — 10-1-68 to
9-30-83. $85,000 Per Annum. 20,000 Square Feet.
233
Analysis. — Since the State is paying rental expenditures totaling aproximately
$oOO,()()() per year at this address, our sub-committee felt it necessary to conduct
an inciuiry into the leases entered into at 90 Washington Street. Mr. Charles
Schnier, a real estate developer, had owned this parcel of land since 1963. It lay
vacant for three years until Mr. Schnier decided to construct a three story build-
inii on this lot. The decision to construct such a building, according to Mr. Schnier,
was in advance of any knowledge on his part that the State was developing sig-
nificant leasing needs. Mr. Paul Pomerantz, who is a friend of Mr. Schnier, as
well as a Democratic State Central Committeeman and Hartford realtor, ad-
vised him that the State had a need for 20,000 square feet sometime after he had
already decided to build this structure. Mr. Pomerantz told us that he knew of
this need because he had actively kept abreast of the State's leasing requirements
at this time. Mr. Pomerantz arranged for a meeting between Mr. Schnier and
Mr. Chester Zaniewski, Lea.sing Chief of the Department of Public Works. The
end result of ^Ir. Pomerantz's relating of this information and arrangement of
the meeting for ]Mr. Schnier was that the latter was able to offer a lease proposal
five days in advance of the first agency's request for space.
Tt should be noted that all these events took place in 1966, before the estab-
li.-ihed leasing procedures were in effect. Also, in all fairness to Mr. Zaniewski, it
should be emphasized that at this point in time he was the sole employee in the
Leasing Department, However, in keeping with good business practices, he should
have encouraged the prospective using agencies to expedite their official requests
for space to his Department instead of dealing with the prospective lessors in ad-
vance of these requests. The former method of operation would have insured that
all leasing needs would be on public record as soon as they developed, thus ena-
bling all citizens of the State to have an equal opportunity to offer a lease proposal.
As the negotiations for the first lease at 90 Washington Street proceeded, the
State decided it needed more space and consequently Mr. Schnier redesigned his
construction plan by adding an additional floor to the proposed building to meet
these developing needs. According to Mr. Pomerantz, he became a partner in this
building in lieu of the real estate commission due him from Mr. Schnier. Ap-
parently. Mr. Pomerantz had an interest in the building before the lease was
signed. After the lease was finalized, Mr. Joseph Adinolfl, a former Corporation
Counsel for the City of Hartford, became an equal partner with the other two
gentlemen in this building. It .should be noted, however, that Mr. Adlnolfi did not
hold this municipal po.sition when he obtained an interest in this building.
Two members of the Citizens Advisory Council on Public Works disapproved the
lease proposal for this building, largely because they were unimpressed w^ith the
quality of the design of the structure. Immediately after the construction was
completed, there were .several problems with the ventilation, heating, and roof
at this facility. In fact, this .sub-committee recently received information from
several State employes which indicated that there are still problems with the
building relating to the ventilation and heating systems. Since the State Is paying
over a quarter of a million dollars per year to rent this building, it deserves the
full benefit of the services that are to be provided by the lessor.
There also exists a potential problem with the tax escalation clau.se In three
of these leases which indicates that the State and the lessor may have made
overpayments of taxes to the City of Hartford. This sub-committee must reserve
coment on the specifics of this situation because a .iudicial proceeding is currently
involved. Suffice it to say, if the interpretaion of our sub-committee is correct,
the State may recover some $58,000 in taxes.
Our real estate expert has determined that, based on the average rental paid
by the State on this facility, the rate was competitive at the time these leases
were entered into. Further, with the passage of time, the rents have become more
favorable to the State of Connecticut. However, this sub-committee must temper
this evaluation due to the fact that the State is apparently not receiving the full
value of the le.s.sor's services (i.e. the airconditioning and ventilation problems).
170 Bank Street, New London, Conn.
Lessor: 170 Bank Street Corporation— Albert Schoolnik, Julius Schoolnlk, Mrs.
Judith Perkins, Mr. J. Michael Bailey, Mrs. Kathleen Kelly Schaefer.
Lessee Agencv : Labor Department Unemployment Compensation Division.
Terms : 11-1-60 to 10-31-75. .$14,575.00 Per Annum. 5,300 Square Feet.
Analysis.— The Interest in this lease is divided equally between the families of
Mr. Albert and Julius Schoolnik, Mr. John Moran Bailey, and Mr. Jack Kelly. The
Schoolnik brothers are owmers of a construction company in Hartford, while
234
Mr. John Bailey and Mr. Jack Kelly have been powerful State Democratic
leaders. Mr. Bailey was the former Democratic State Chairman for some time,
while Mr. Jack Kelly (deceased) held the Democratic leadership position in the
City of Hartford for several years.
Mr. Albert Schoolnik noted in an interview with our staff that these three
families have been in business ventures before this lease. Together they have
bought a building on High Street and another structure on Pearl Street, both in
Hartford. The families also have a partnership interest in a building at the
corner of Asylum and Ann Streets in Hartford, purchased after this lease in
question. Mr. Albert Schoolnik negotiated and executed this lease and purchased
the property in his own name but stated it was prearranged for the leased to be a
joint venture beween the Schoolnik, Bailey and Kelly families.
This is why he quit-claimed his interest in the property to the 170 Bank
Street Corporation a few weeks after he had personally secured title to the
parcel in question. Originally, that corporation was comprised of Messrs.
Schoolnik, Mr. John Moran Bailey and Mr. Jack Kelly. Some time later, Mr.
Bailey transferred his one-third interest equally to his children, Judith Perkins
and John Michael Bailey, while Mr. Jack Kelly transferred his one-third interest
to his daughter, Kathleen Kelly Schaefer. (No relation to Mr. Allan Schaefer, a
multiple lessor with the State). Mr. Albert Schoolnik said that he was alerted
to the State's need for a Labor Department in New London by Mr. Jack Kelly
early in 1960. Mr. Kelly further advised Mr. Schoolnik to see a Mr. John O'Con-
nor (deceased) who was the Department of Public Works Chief of Leasing.
He emphasized that neither Mr. John Moran Bailey nor Mr. Jack Kelly were
involved in negotiation of this lease.
Our investigation of this lease shows that Mr. Schoolnik surveyed the New
London area for a possible site along with Mr. O'Connor of the Department of
Public Works and Mr. Connor of the Labor Department. On the strength of the
Labor Department officials' approval of the 170 Bank Street location, Mr.
Schoolnik took an option out on this vacant parcel owned by Mr. Arthur
Schwartz.
When contacted by our staff, Mr. Schwartz told us that if he had known that
the State was interested in this site, he would either have made a lease pro-
posal himself or sold his land at a higher price.
Mr. Albert Schoolnik told our staff that he did not mention to Mr. Schwartz
what his intention was for this particular parcel. He also said that he remem-
bered .surveying various sites by himself. However, he could not offer a reason-
able explanation for an inter-departmental memo between Mr. O'Connor, Chief
of Leasing, to his Commissioner, T. J. Murphy, written on May 14, 1960. This
document mentioned that the site search was conducted by the Labor Depart-
ment and the department of Public Works official with Mr. Schoolnik and the
pro.spective les.sor obtaining an option based on the Labor Department official's
approval of the Site.
Since the negotiation of this lease dates back to a time when there were no
established leasing procedures, our sub-committee cannot describe the above-
mentioned events as irregularities per se. However, the fact that a potential
lessor had been given early information by a prominent Democratic leader,
who, himself was to have an interest in the lease, coupled with the fact that
this prospective lessor was accompanied by State officials serving in an advisory
capacity during a search for a site, was clearly a deviation from normal
accepted business practices. Further, this sub-committee is extremely critical
of the fact that the Democratic State Chairman had a one-third interest in a
lease negotiated during a time when his party was in control of the State
Government.
Our real estate expert could not give a reasonable appraisal of a lease exe-
cuted this far back in time.
1107 Cromwell Avenue, Rocky Hill, Conn.
Lessor: Walter Spencer Associates — Walter B. Snencer, J. Michael Kelley.
Le.ssee Agency : Department of Transportation, Office Space and Garage.
Terms: 11-1-71 to 10-,S1-91. .<Rl84..''y00.00 Per Annum. 24,000 Square Feet for
Office Space. 17,000 Square Feet for Garage.
Annlysia. — Mr. Walter B. Spencer, a real estate developer now living In Florida,
and Mr. .T. Michael Kelly, former Democratic Town Chairman of Hartford, are
the co-owners of this facility. Mr. Spencer made a proposal to the Department of
235
Public Works over one month before the Department of Public Works got a
request for space from the Department of Transportation. Mr. Spencer explained
in a deposition taken in Florida that he knew of the State's need for such a facil-
ity because of his periodic visits to the previous location of the Department of
Transportation Headquarters in Hartford. He did not specify as to who, in
particular, told him of this need for the new lease space.
A document sent by Mr. Chester Zaniewski of the Department of Public
Works to Mr. William Wade of the Department of Transportation on October 13,
1970, highlights some of the problems surrounding this lease proposal. Mr. Za-
niewski advised Mr. Wade that the Department of Public Works was going to
recommend that Finance and Control disapprove this lease proposal for three
basic reasons: first, it was felt that the proposed rental rate was exorbitant;
the prospective lessor's land cost was felt to be excessive and the Department
of Public Works felt they had not been given adequate opportunity to find
alternative sites at a lower price; third, the location was considered poorly
situated because of its isolation from public transportation.
Then, Mr. Zaniewski went on to chastise the Department of Transportation for
initiating its own site search, "All of which ... is in direct violation of direc-
tives currently in effect, i.e.. Governor Dempsey's letter dated October 30, 1967,
and Finance and Control's letter dated November 4, 1968. Such improperly con-
ducted negotiations may have provided an express or implied assurance to the
proponent that he 'had a deal' and might have caused him to maintain a stronger
negotiation posture.".
Mr. Wade responded to Mr. Zaniewski's letter by saying that Mr. Spencer's
proposal that had come in to the Department of Public Works before the request
for space was not the parcel in question. While this is true, the present site
is only three hundred feet away from the original site proposed by Mr. Spencer.
Also, the fact that Mr. Spencer had made any proposal some time before the
Department of Transportation officially requested space demonstratetl that the
lessor had the benefit of advance information as to the need and location of this
facility.
Mr. Wade also claimed that the Department of Transportation took the initia-
tive of investigating suitable locations because of problems at the previous
Department of Transportation Headquarters. Our sub-committee cannot accept
this claim. If the problems were so oppressive at the Douglas Street location,
then the Department of Transportation should have sent the Department of
Public Works a request for space at an earlier date. Lastly, Mr. Wade responded
to Mr. Zaniewski's criticism of this site's remoteness by saying that Finance
and Control had approved the location. Our sub-committee does not consider this
a worthy reply. The Department of Public Works, not Finance and Control, has
the expertise and authority to choose a location, albeit with guidance from the
user agency and subject to its veto. Therefore, on balance, we would have to
agree with Mr. Zaniewski's interpretation of what occurred. The prospective
lessor was given the benefit of early information by the Department of Trans-
portation which, in turn, had the effect of usurping the authority of the Depart-
ment of Public Works to search for space resulting in the diminution of the
latter Department's ability to negotiate a fair and reasonable lease for the State.
Mr. Spencer's original proposal for the parcel in question was tabled by the
Citizens Advisory Coimcil on Public Works until a sub-committee was formed
comprised of Mr. John Legnos and Mr. John Hayes of that Council and Mr.
Zaniewski of the Department of Public Works. This group finally convinced
Mr. Spencer to reduce the price of his proposal from $4.98 a square foot to $4.50
a square foot. The Citizens Advisory Council told our sub-committee staff that the
first proposal was one of the most exorbitant offers they had seen during their
tenure on this board. It should be noted that even the amended proposal was
disapproved by two members of the Citizens Advisory Council, those being Mr.
Wilbur Purrington and Mr. Edward Packtor. Mr. Packtor felt that the amended
proposal was excessive and that Mr. Spencer's acquisition costs for the present
site were much too high.
It should also be mentioned that the engineering firm of Mr. John Legnos was
hired by Mr. Spencer to perform various professional services before any of these
lease proposals were voted on. However, we have no evidence th^*^ Mr. Legnos
ever tried to influence any members of the Citizens Advisory Council in their
vote. In fact, the other members of the Citizens Advisory Council told our sub-
committee that they had not known that Mr. Legnos had been employed by Mr.
47-704 O - 75 - 16
236
Spencer for this project. Also, our sub-committee should emphasize that Mr.
Legnos did take an active role in the successful attempt to get Mr. Spencer to
significantly lower his lease proposal price. Further, Mr. Legnos' firm had been
used by Mr. Spencer in several of his previous private projects. We are also
mindful of the fact that the fee received by his firm for this particular project
was of a relatively minor nature. However, this sub-committee feels that in order
to avoid any taint of a possible conflict of interests, Mr. Legnos should have
made his colleagues on the Council aware of his employment by Mr. Spencer and
should have obstained from any vote taken on such proposal. However, in all
fairness to Mr. Spencer, it should have been made clear that such actions were
not required by any statute or administrative directive relative to the Council.
We appreciate the fact that the Department of Public Works would not con-
sider this lessor's proposal until he had secured an option on the property. How-
evei*, a letter of commitment was unwisely issued to Mr. Spencer before he be-
came the record ownier of the property. From a legal standpoint this could have
been a potentially troublesome situation.
Our inquiry into this lease also showed that the new Department of Trans-
portation Headquarters has suffered prolonged problems of inadequate air-
conditioning and heating as well as in.sect infestation. The State is expending
substantial sums of money for the rental of this particular property and, as such,
should receive the full benefit of the services to be provided by the lessor.
Our real estate expert observed that the total rental paid for the property
is at a rate below the range of office building rentals. When the garage space
and land and parking areas are considered, the rental is within the mean range.
However, when the problems alluded to in the paragraph above are considered,
it is this sub-committee's conclusion that the State may be paying a higher rental
than it should since it is not receiving all the services it has paid for.
This appendix dated February 14, 1975 is being issued as a result of the investi-
gation conducted by this Special Sub-committee on Leasing of the Connecticut
General Assembly's Joint Committee on Appropriations and is hereby signed by
the members of the Sub-committee.
Representative Richard A. Dice, Chairman.
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Vice-Chairman.
Representative Addo E. Bonetti.
Senator Nicholas A. Lenge.
Representative John G. Groppo.
Representative John F. Mannix.
The following legislators were selected to the Special Sub-committee on Leasing
from the 1975 Connecticut General Assembly's Joint Committee on Appropriations
and have participated for the limited purpose of supervising the drafting of this
appendix and documentation of this investigation.
Senator Robert D. Houley.
Co-Chairman of the 1975 Joint Committee of Appropriations.
Senator Richard C. Bozzuto.
Senator Burdick. Tlie first witnesses today Avill be the representa-
tives of the American Bar Association who requested to be heard after
the completion of their investigation.
Their report has now been received and, without objection, it will
be made a part of the record at this point.
[The report referred to follows :]
237
i»
'M IX\ AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
STANDING
COMMITTEE ON
FEDERAL
JUDICIARY
CHAIRMAN
ana Member-At'Large
Wm Reece Smith. Jr
Exchange Nat Bank BIdg
Tamoa FL 33602
Gael Mahony
225 Franklin SI
Boston. MA 02110
Albert R Connelly
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York NY 10005
Robert M Landis
3400 Centre SQuare, West
1500 Market St
Philadelphia PA 19102
R Harvey Chaooeli Jr
1200 Mutual BIdg
Richmond VA 23219
Sherwood W Wise
PO Box 651
Jackson, MS 39205
Joseph E Stopher
23rd Floor
One Riverfront Plaza
Louisvilte, KY 40202
Don H Reuben
2800 Prudential Plaza
130 E Randolph Or
Chicago, IL 6O601
Thomas E Oeacy. Jr
23rd Floor
Bryant Building
Kansas City. MO 64106
DeWitt Williams
1440 Washington BIdg
Seattle WA 98101
John R Couch
3200 Liberty Tower
Oklahoma dty, OK 73102
Richard W Galiher
1215 19lhSI , N W
Washington. DC 20036
STAFF LIAISON
Mary Cavallini
1155 E 60th St
Chicago. IL 60637
r'
1155 EAST 60TH ST CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60637 TELEPHONE 1312) 493-0533
March 3, 1975
The Honorable James 0. Eastland
Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The American Bar Association Standing Committee
on Federal Judiciary and The Association of the Bar of
the City of New York Committee on the Judiciary submit
herewith their joint report of their inquiry to determine
whether Governor Meskill during his administration was
aware of and condoned improper state leasing practices.
This report supplements the previous reports of each of
these committees relating to Governor Meskill 's qualifica-
tion to be a judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.
The facts show that prospective lessors to the
State whom Governor Meskill had known for years received
favored treatment from Governor Meskill 's longtime friend
and aide Brian Gaffney, then the Republican State Chair-
man, and from several persons serving under Governor
Meskill as commissioners of state agencies. The attached
report presents evidence that Governor Meskill had some
knowledge of these practices (report, pp. 49-61), and
it is undisputed that he did nothing to stop them to
prevent their reoccurrence. He and other individuals
possessing knowledge of relevant facts have refused our
requests to be interviewed regarding these transactions.
We made every effort to obtain an explanation
of these practices from Governor Meskill, from Commissioner
Manafort, from certain other former and present state
officials, from certain of the lessors and certain others.
Each refused to discuss them with representatives of our
committees. We submit that their refusal to discuss these
transactions demonstrates a lack of candor and is in itself
an indication of their awareness of wrong doing. A person
such as Governor Meskill who aspires to be a federal judge
should give a full explanation of his conduct as a public
official .
238
The Honorable James 0. Eastland March 3, 1975
-2-
In the absence of a convincing explanation by
Governor Meskill of the transactions discussed in the
attached report we strongly urge that Governor Meskill not
be confirmed on the ground that his previous conduct in
public office and his failure to explain it demonstrates
that he is not qualified to be a federal judge. We urge
the rejection of his nomination for this reason.
Should this Committee believe that this nomina-
tion merits further consideration, we strongly urge the
Committee to subpoena the witnesses to these transactions
and to compel them to produce all relevant documents for
the Committee's examination.
Respectfully submitted,
American Bar Association Standing
Committee on Federal Judiciary
John A. Sutro for the Committee
The Association of the Bar of the
City of New York,
Committee on the Judiciary
1
By;
^
'^'^ - l[ ' 'U.i
Arnbld Bauman, Chairman
239
Report of the
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
and the
ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
in Connection with the Nomination of
THOMAS J. MESKILL of CONNECTICUT
to be a
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE, SECOND CIRCUIT
Dated: March 3, 1975
240
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX
Page Number
Introduction 1
The Downes Lease 2
The Tomasso Leases 4
Governor Meskill's Relationship
with Bernard Mussman 5
The Phoenix Transactions 5
I. The Phoenix Transaction 8
History 9
Conclusion 32
II. The Dovmes and Tomasso Leases 34
Connecticut's Leasing Procedures 34
The Downes Lease 34
The Tomasso Leases 40
DOT Highway Garage, Winsted 41
Department of Motor Vehicles, Winsted . 43
DOT Office Building,
160 Pascone Place,
Newington 45
III. Governor Meskill's Knowledge and
Responsibility 49
(1) Governor Meskill's Relationship
with the Downeses, Angelo Tomasso
and Brian Gaffney 49
(2) The State Leasing Committee
Testimony of State Senator
George Gunther 51
(3) Senator Gunther 's letter to Governor
Meskill dated June 1, 19 72 57
(4) The September, 19 72 Hearings on the
Downes Lease 60
(5) Complaints to Governor Meskill
About the Tomasso Newington Lease . . 60
Conclusion 62
241
Introduction
In connection with the nomination of Thomas J.
Meskill of Connecticut to be a United States Circuit judge,
Second Circuit, we submit this report jointly on behalf of
the American Bar Association and the Association of the Bar
of the City of New York.
This report describes certain c±)uses in Connecticut
state leasing practices during Governor Meskill 's term of
office, 1971-1974, and then addresses the question whether
Governor Meskill was aware of and condoned those abuses.*
That persons whom Governor Meskill has known for years obtained
siibstantial state leases through favored treatment by State
officials is beyond dispute. If Governor Meskill knew of and
condoned those abuses, we think it is obvious that he should
not be a judge.
Our inquiry has been made difficult because Governor
Meskill, himself, as well as some of those who were favored
with state leases and other key witnesses, have refused to
be interviewed and to produce relevant documents.**
* On Jcinuary 23, 1975, we submitted statements to this
committee which made reference to State leasing cibuses. This
report incorporates the material in those statements and adds
to it information which is contained in the State Leasing
Subcommittee's Appendix to its Report which was released
February 15, 1975 and information which we have obtained over
the last month in a series of forty-five interviews with some
of the persons involved and through examination of the relevant
documents to the extent that they were available. Attached as
Exhibit 1 is a list of all individuals who we interviewed and
those who declined to be interviewed.
** Governor Meskill 's letter to Lawrence Walsh of February
10, 1975 refusing our request for an interview is attached as
Exhibit 2. Governor Meskill also refused the request of the
Federal Bar Council for an interview. On February 12, 1975 the
Federal Bar Council recommended against Governor Meskill 's con-
firmation. Letters declining interviews by others to whom we
wrote requesting interviews are attached as Exhibit 3.
242
Nevertheless, the facts set forth in this report
suggest strongly that Governor Meskill had knowledge relating
to state leasing clauses and demand answer. We urge that the
Judiciary Committee of the Senate investigate the facts using
its subpoena power to call witnesses under oath and to com-
pel the production of relevant documents.
The following paragraphs capsulize the principal
transactions which we believe this Committee should investi-
gate, and state the principal questions to which Governor
Meskill must respond:
(1) The Downes Lease. In 1972-73 the State
awarded a substantial lease to Downes Construction Company,
a fcunily firm owned by men whom Governor Meskill has known
for years, and who are the uncle and cousin and were then also
law clients of the Governor's close friend, Brian Gaffney,
then the Republican State Chairman. It is undisputed that
Gaffney interceded on behalf of the Downeses with State
officials, and that the Downeses were thereafter afforded
favored treatment in the selection of their site. Moreover,
the State Leasing Sub-committee has concluded that the rent
paid by the State on this lease is "excessive."
Governor Meskill himself, Brian Gaffney, Frank
Downes, John E. Downes, Earl Wood and Howard Dickinson (the
-2-
243
Commissioner of Treinsportation, the agency involved, and
the Trsmsportation official who gave favored treatment to
the Downeses, respectively) have all refused our requests to
interview them concerning the Downes lease.
The questions which should be answered are:
(a) When and how did Governor Meskill become
aware of this lease and the circumstances under which
it was awarded?
(b) Did Connecticut State Senator George
Gunther warn Governor Meskill about this lease in a
meeting between the two on May 23, 1972? Senator
Gunther has testified under oath that he did. Gov-
ernor Meskill has stated that he did not.
(c) Why did Governor Meskill take no action
on the Downes lease even though he concededly did
receive a letter from Senator Gunther complaining
about the lease on June 1, 1972, sixteen months
before the lease was signed?
The persons who could resolve these questions if
called as witnesses are: (1) Governor Meskill; (2) Brian
Gaffney; (3) Frank Downes; (4) John E. Downes; (5) Earl
Wood; (6) Howard Dickinson; (7) Senator George Gunther; and
(8) Governor Meskill 's former aide, John Doyle.
-3-
244
(2) The Tomasso leases. In 1971-1974 the State
awarded three leases, with a total gross rental of $410,350
per year, to a firm owned by Angelo Tomasso, Jr. , a friend
of Governor Meskill and Brian Gaffney's next-door neighbor.
Each of the leases involved favored treatment of Tomasso by
State officials. The Leasing Sub-committee has concluded
that the rental on one lease is excessive and that Tomasso
"grossly overstated" his costs on another.
Governor Meskill himself, Angelo Tomasso, his
Comptroller John Lepore, Public Works Commissioner Paul
Manafort, Commissioner Wood and Howard Dickinson have all
refused our requests to interview them on this transaction,
emd Tomasso and Lepore have refused to honor a subpoena of
the Sub-committee on Leasing of the Connecticut General
Assembly.
The questions which should be answered are:
(a) Wlien and how did Governor Meskill become
aware of these leases and the circumstances under
which they were awarded?
(b) Why did he never inquire into these leases,
all of which became state obligations long after Sena-
tor Gunther's June 1, 1972 letter urging him to in-
vestigate abuses in the state leasing system?
The persons who could resolve these questions if
called as witnesses are: (1) Governor Meskill; (2) Angelo
Tomasso; (3) John Lepore; (4) Paul Manafort; (5) Earl Wood;
and (6) Howard Dickinson.
-4-
245
(3) Governor Meskill's relationship with Bernard
Mussman. Since 1971 Governor Meskill and his Public Works
Conmissioner Paul Manafort have been co-owners of an office
building with a real estate broker named Bernard Mussman.
Although Mussman had only one lease with the State prior
to Governor Meskill's administration, he was broker on
four state leases executed by Manafort during 19 71-74.
Once again. Governor Meskill and Manafort have
refused to be interviewed by us concerning these facts.
The question to be answered is whether Governor
Meskill was aware of Mussman 's state leasing activities.
The persons who could resolve these questions
if called as witnesses are: (1) Governor Meskill; (2)
Bernard Mussman; and (3) Paul Manafort.
(4) The Phoenix transactions. In 1973 the
State badly needed new quarters for the state-owned
Greater Hartford Community College, and had discussed
with the Travelers Insurance Company the possibility of
receiving the Traveler's Phoenix property in Hartford as
a gift for that purpose. When Travelers decided that
it could not make the gift, two of its senior officers
proposed to state officials that the Travelers sell the
property to the state for $4.5 million, which was §3.5
million less than Travelers' previous asking price. No
one from the State pursued this offer, and, instead,
-5-
246
two Hartford realtors, Harry Gampel and Allen Schaefer,
took an option to purchase the property from the Travelers
for $4.5 million. Although the State did not publicly
advertise its intention to lease space for the college
until two days after this option was proposed, the option
provided that Gampel and Schaefer 's obligation to buy the
property was contingent upon their ability to lease the
property to the State. Gampel and Schaefer were brought
into the Phoenix transaction by Bernard Mussman, the
broker who is one of the co-owners with Governor Meskill
and Paul Manafort in the building referred to in (3) cibove.
Gampel and Schaefer negotiated a lease of the prop-
erty to the State which was so excessive that the State
Attorney General objected, resulting in the cancellation of
the lease. Gampel and Schaefer then sold the renovated
building to the State for $7.3 million. After the fact a
number of State officials, including Governor Meskill and
DPW Commissioner Manafort, have denied that the State
ever had the opportunity to buy the Phoenix property from
the Travelers for $4.5 million or any other amount.
Governor Meskill, Greater Hartford Community
College President Arthur Banks, and Paul Manafort have all
refused to be interviewed by us on these transactions.
-6-
247
The questions which should be answered are:
(a) Why have Governor Meskill, Coiranissioner
Manafort eind others denied that the state had the
opportunity to buy the Phoenix at a favorable price
direct from the Travelers in 1973?
(b) Did any state officials favor Gampel and
Schaefer in the Phoenix transactions by foregoing
the opportunity to purchase the building, causing
the state to negotiate a lease with Gampel and
Schaefer at an excessive rental, and finally buying
the renovated building from Gampel and Schaefer
for $7.3 million?
(c) What was Governor Meskill 's knowledge and
participation in each step of the Phoenix transactions?
The persons who could resolve these questions if
called as witnesses are: (1) Governor Meskill; (2) James
Stewart, Vice President of Travelers; (3) Paul Manafort;
(4) Bernard Mussman; (5) Harry Gampel; (6) Allan Schaefer;
and (7) Bernard Mussman.
This Report is in two sections. The first
describes the Phoenix transactions and Governor Meskill 's
participation in them. The second describes the Downes and
Tomasso leases and sets forth the information we have obtained
relating to Governor Meskill 's knowledge concerning these
leases.
-7-
248
I. THE PHOENIX TRANSACTION
Introduction
The most complex transaction requiring expleina-
tion by Governor Meskill is the State's acquisition of the
Phoenix property to house the Greater Hartford Community
College. Although in 1973 the State could have acquired
this property from the Travelers Insurance Company for
$4.5 million, in 1974 it finally acquired it by paying
$7.3 million to Gampel and Schaefer, intervening owners
who had acquired it from the Travelers for $4.5 million.
Before selling the property to the State, Gampel and
Schaefer had negotiated to lease it to the State at a
rental so excessive that the lease was cancelled when the
State Attorney General complained.
It may be that the large difference in price
can be explained in part by improvements to the property,*
but that is not the explanation given by Governor Meskill,
DPW Commissioner Manafort and several other state officers
involved. They deny that the property was ever available
to the state at $4.5 million. In doing so they flatly
contradict the statements of responsible officers of the
Travelers Insurance Company and contemporary documents by
state officials.
* Gcunpel and Schaefer refused to give us access to
their relevant financial records.
-8-
249
Thus, substantial questions exist as to whether
Governor Meskill has been truthful in describing the Phoenix
transaction, whether favored treatment was given to Gampel
and Schaefer and, if so, whether Governor Meskill was in-
volved.
History
1. Greater Hartford Community College ("GHCC"),
a two-year State college, opened in an old Hartford factory
building in 1967. The building was understood by everyone
to be inadequate, and the expectation was to move within a
short time. In the spring of 1970, the Board of Trustees
of Connecticut Regional Community Colleges ("Board of
Trustees") selected a tract of more than 100 acres in
Windsor, about five miles from central Hartford, as a
site for an educational complex to include GHCC and a
technical school. The estimated cost for building GHCC
there was $15.5 million. The Commission on Higher Educa-
tion ("CHE"), which is required by law to pass on all State
educational building and land purchases, approved. The
tract was purchased in lots from 1971 through early 1973
at a total price of under $1 million. Because of the State's
financial condition no plans were made to build at that time.
By 1972, GHCC's permanent accreditation was being
-9-
250
delayed because of its inadequate facilities*, and on March
7, 1973 the accrediting team said that the college had to
move within the year or lose its accreditation.**
2. The Travelers Insurance Company ("Travelers")
merged with the Phoenix Insurance Company in the 1960 's
and acquired the Phoenix' headquarters, a 235,000 square
foot building completed in 1952 on fifteen acres of land
near downtown Hartford. Travelers did not need the build-
ing and in 1969 listed the property with four industrial
brokers in Hartford, among them the J. Watson Beach Agency.
The original asking price was $10 million.
3. Arthur Banks, President of GHCC, refused our
request for an interview. As early as 1969 Banks expressed
an interest in the Phoenix Building to James Stewart, real
estate Vice President of Travelers.*** In the fall of 1972,
* We interviewed Dr. Searle Charles, Executive Direc-
tor of the Board of Trustees, on February 20, 1975.
** Television interview with Dean Walter Markiewicz
on "What's Happening", Channel WFSB, August 10, 1973.
*** We interviewed James Stewart on February 19,
1975. The Phoenix had been built for the purpose of
housing the head office of an insurance company. Many
of its features, such as an auditorium, large cafeteria
and recreation facilities, were ideally suited to a
college.
-10-
251
having received no serious offers for the Phoenix Building,
Stewart proposed to Banks that Travelers might donate the
Phoenix property to the State, provided it could get a
favoreible tax deduction.
4. State officials were extremely interested
in this proposal, which was made known immediately to
Governor Meskill.* Stewart asked for the State's assist-
ance in communicating with IP^ about receiving an advance
ruling on the deduction, and Governor Meskill did so,
either directly or through his aides.**
5. Travelers was unable to get an advance rul-
ing from IRS on the valuation of the property for purposes
of a tax deduction. For this and other corporate reasons.
Travelers' board decided that it could not give the prop-
erty to the State. Stewart was then authorized by Travelers'
President to propose to the State that Travelers sell the
Phoenix property to the State for its book value.***
* We interviewed Stuart Smith, formerly Governor
Meskill 's administrative aide for education, on February 20,
1975 and again on February 24, 1975.
** Smith interview of February 20, 1975.
*** Stewart interview.
-11-
47-704 O - 75 - 17
252
6. On June 19, 1973, James Stewart and another
Travelers Vice President, J. Thomas Montgomery,* met with
GHCC President Banks and Gerald McCann, the State's Deputy
Commissioner of Finance and Control,** at Travelers' offices.
Stewart told Banks and McCann that a gift was impossible.
Banks and McCann asked if the State would consider a lease,
and Stewart said no. According to Stewart and Montgomery,
the Travelers Vice Presidents, Stewart then told Banks and
McCann that Travelers would seriously consider selling the
property to the State for its book value. The property
was being depreciated monthly, and Stewart went out and
brought back the ledger books, showed Banks and McCann
that the current book value was about $4.5 million, and
proposed that as a sales price. Banks and McCann said
that State might have trouble with such a large purchase
and Stewart suggested that Travelers might take State bonds.
According to Stewart and Montgomery, they told Banks and
McCann that Travelers would not consider any other offers
until the State notified Travelers of its intentions.
* We interviewed J. Thomas Montgomery, who corroborated
Stewart's statements, by telephone on February 19, 1975.
** Commissioner of Finance and Control Adolph Carlson
was on vacation and McCann substituted for him.
-12-
253
Stewart said he never heard from anyone representing the
State about the proposal made at the meeting.
Sometime in early August Stewart called Commis-
sioner of Finance and Control Carlson regarding the State's
position. Carlson said the State was considering a number
of alternatives and could not ask Travelers to keep the
property off the market any longer.*
7. There is a sharp conflict between the
Travelers' version of the June 19 meeting and its con-
sequences cind the version given by a number of State of-
ficials. According to McCann, the Travelers' representa-
tives did not even suggest a possible sale at the June 19th
meeting.** McCann told us that he never even heard that
there had ever been any talk about a possible sale by
Travelers to the State until after the proposed lease
from Schaefer and Gampel to the State was rejected by the
State on March 4, 1974 (see pp. 26-28 below).***
* We attempted to reach Carlson by telephone on February
19, 1975. He was leaving that day to be out of town
lantil March 3, 1975. We indicated why we wanted to speak
with Mr. Carlson but his office would not give us a num-
ber where he could be reached.
** We interviewed McCann on February 18, 1975.
*** As stated eibove. Banks refused our request for an
interview. At a taped Q and A interview with the Leasing
Subcommittee staff on Januairy 31, 1975, Banks said that the
-13-
254
Stewart Smith, Governor Meskill's administrative
aide for education, said he talked by telephone with both
Banks and McCann right after the June 19th meeting. Each
reported that the gift was off. Neither reported that
Travelers had proposed selling the property to the State
for $4.5 million or any other amount. Smith told us that
Banks did tell him "in an off-hand way" that a sale might
be possible. Smith said that neither he nor any other State
official to his knowledge ever called Travelers back to
discuss the possibility of a purchase. When pressed for
an explanation, in light of GHCC's dire accreditation
situation. Smith said that the State was considering many
sale or lease resolutions and that the talk of an oppor-
tunity to buy the Phoenix was just "rumors." He further
implied that the State did not trust Travelers after having
been disappointed on the gift.
possibility of a sale was discussed at the June 19, 1973
meeting, that "many figures were floated around", including
$4.5 million, that "the conversation was general in tone"
and that "I heard no definite offer stating that if we wished
the building, then take it back to somebody, it will be for
$4.5 million". Banks went on to say that he never considered
that he "should go back and inform anybody that this is what
the Travelers had said because then I would be in the position
of being a go-between between Travelers and the State and our
Board". Banks said he had mentioned his understanding of the
June 19, 1973 meeting to a number of State officials during
the following weeks, including the possibility of a sale.
-14-
255
8. Department of Public Works ("DPW") Conunis-
sioner Paul Manafort has several times denied that Travelers
ever offered to sell the property to the State. In a
printed release disputing some articles in. the Hartford
Courant, Manafort said, "This Department has never been
approached by Travelers or any other party to purchase
the Phoenix Building for 4.5 million dollars or any other
figure . " *
9. There is substantial documentary corroboration
for Travelers* version that a definite proposal to sell
Phoenix for $4.5 million was in fact made at the June 19,
1973 meeting. The Board of Trustees of the Community
Colleges met on July 16, 1973. According to Dr. Searle
Charles, Executive Director of the Board, Banks related at
the meeting that the State could buy the Phoenix for $4.5
million. The Board then passed a resolution approving
negotiations to purchase the Phoenix and appointing Board
members to meet with State officials to that end. On July
17th, Henry E. Pagan, Chairman of the Board of Trustees,
wrote to Governor Meskill informing him of the July 16th
meeting and suggesting that representatives of the Board
meet with the Governor to discuss, among other things, "the
possibility of purchasing the Phoenix Building for Greater
Hartford Community College. ... We understand the purchase
* "Phoenix offer for GHCC Given Meskill Last Fall,"
Hartford Courant (March 7, 1974) . Manafort said substantially
the same thing in his interview on WFSB's "What's Happening"
Program, March 16, 1974. After initially agreeing to be
-15-
256
interviewed, Paul Manafort then refused from February 18
through February 26 to cinswer repeated telephone calls and
a hand delivered letter requesting an interview and his per-
mission to review relevant DPW documents. Manafort is a
long-time friend of Governor Meskill from New Britain.
Manafort was elevated by Governor Meskill from Deputy DPW
Commissioner to Commissioner on March 1, 1973. According to
Edward Kozlowski, whom Manafort replaced, in February 1973
Kozlowski was considering six or seven proposals for the
job of construction manager on a Waterbury Connecticut
Higher Education project. He and his staff rated the proposal
of Eugene DeMatteo, a Hamden construction owner, as least
qualified. Shortly thereafter Governor Meskill asked
Kozlowski to move from DPW to the Department of Motor Vehicles
thereby permitting DMV Commissioner Robert Leuba to join the
Governor's staff as counsel. Kozlowski agreed. Shortly af-
ter Manafort succeeded Kozlowski as DPW Commissioner he
awarded the Waterbury contract to DeMatteo. One of DeMatteo 's
functions was to let out bids for contracting on the job.
Manafort 's family company was awarded a substantial excava-
tion contract not long thereafter.
-15(A)-
257
price may be considerably less than it was a few years
ago."* Dr. Charles, in a memorandum to Commissioner
Manafort dated August 13, 1973, also referred to the fact
that the Phoenix Building, including renovations , could be
had for $6 million rather than $10 million as was previously
the case.**
On July 27, 1974, the CHE approved a resolution
"to negotiate for the purchase of the Phoenix Building,
Woodland Street, Hartford, as a permanent campus site for
the Greater Hartford Community College.***
On July 30, 1973, copies of both these resolutions
were sent by the CHE to Commissioner Carlson of Finance and
Control, to DPW Commissioner Manafort, to Attorney General
Killian, and to the GHCC Board of Trustees.
10. On August 20, 197 3, Dr. Charles and members
of the Board met with Governor Meskill cind Stuart Smith.
According to Charles, the Board stressed its accreditation
problems and pressed Governor Meskill to purchase the
Phoenix. The Governor promised new facilities for GHCC
* The letter is attached as Exhibit 4.
*'* See p. 3 of Charles Memorandum, attached as Exhibit 5.
*** A copy of the resolution of the CHE is attached as
Exhibit 6.
-16-
258
by year end. He did not promise that the Phoenix would
be obtained, or that the solution would be a purchase
as opposed to a lease, but he did state that purchase of
the Phoenix would be a price consideration.
Governor Meskill's former aide Stuart Smith has
given a different version of this meeting. Smith told the
State Leasing Sub-committee staff that
"this meeting wasn't devoted to [the Board]
saying that they wanted the Phoenix Building,
the House of Good Shepherd or that we want 'X'
or 'Y' building. It was really a plea for
better space. . . . They were not saying to
the Governor in that August 20th meeting
'Governor please support our efforts toward
the Phoenix Building.' They were saying 'please
support our efforts to find new space. . . . '"*
This version, in substance the same as that given to us
in our interview of Smith on February 20, 1975, appears
very questionable in light of the Board and Commission
resolutions . **
* Transcript of recorded interview of Smith by Sub-
committee staff dated December 12, 1974.
** Following the August 20, 1973 meeting. Governor
Meskill wrote to both Commissioner Manafort and Commissioner
Carlson regarding the Phoenix building. The investigators for i
the Leasing Sub-committee have been unable to locate any copies i
of either correspondence. Smith told us that he, Manafort and '
Carlson met on August 24th to discuss GHCC. Following the August
24, 1973 meeting, Jean Tucker, a reporter for WFSB, interviewed
Carlson and asked him what was going to be done for GHCC. Ac-
cording to Smith, Carlson said, "We're going to advertise to !
lease space." Smith said the interview was broadcast that even- '
ing on the 6:00 News. Ms. Tucker, in a telephone interview on
February 26, 1975 recalled the interview but not its substance.
WFSB was unable to locate the tape so that we could view it.
-17-
259
11. On September 3, 1973 Bradley Biggs was
sworn in as Deputy Commissioner of DPW. At the ceremony,
Charles mentioned to both Biggs and Commissioner Manafort
the Board's interest in purchasing the Phoenix Building.
The following day. President Banks met with Biggs to dis-
cuss GHCC's physical requirements and on September 5th,
copies of the July resolutions of the Board and the CHE
were sent to Biggs for his information.*
12. On September 7, 1973, Donald McGannon, an
executive of Westinghouse Corporation and Chairman of the
CHE, wrote to Governor Meskill pointing out that GHCC's
accreditation was in jeopardy, and stating:
"It is also my understanding that there has
developed m the last several weeks the oppor-
tunity to purchase [the Phoenix] property at a cost
of somewhere around $4.5 million for 235,000 feet
or a cost of less than $20 per square foot. It
would cost $1.5 million to renovate.** The square
foot cost of $25.00 for acquiring and renovating
the property would be very favorable when one thinks
of what the State is spending to build conventional
buildings on a square foot basis, i.e., $40-45. I do
not know how long this facility will continue to be
available. While I do not feel we should rush into
the acquisition of any property, I wanted you to
know how seriously the Commission views the current
situation of the College and to seek from you a policy
decision to 'go or no go' on this facility before it
is lost by default. . . .
* Attached as Exhibit 7.
** This estimate appears to be low,
-18-
260
I would be happy to talk with you on the
phone or in person, but urge an early decision
on this important matter. I hasten to add that
I have viewed all of these points from a cost
efficiency basis as well as the educational
value involved." (emphasis added).*
On September 18, 1973, Governor Meskill replied
as follows:
"Dear Don:
It certainly was a pleasure to receive your letter
of September 7, regarding Greater Hartford Com-
munity College.
My personal goal is that all of our community
colleges be fully accredited, and I have placed
a high priority on finding new facilities for
Greater Hartford Community College within the
City limits of Hartford.
I share your concern, and, therefore, I appre-
ciate your interest in the goals which we have
set.
With best wishes,"**
13. No one from the State ever followed up with
Travelers on what appears, not only from the Stewart-
Montgomery version of the June 19, 1973 meeting with Banks
and McCann, but also from the documents referred to above,
to have been a definite proposal to sell Phoenix to the
*
A copy of McGannon's letter is attached as Exhibit
8 ,
r. u-1*. a ''°P^ °^ Governor Meskill 's reply is attached as
£ixnibit -^ .
-19-
261
state for $4.5 million. We have been uncible to determine
who decided on behalf of the State not to pursue this
proposal/ or why such a de:;ision was made.*
14. Travelers started negotiating with Harry
Gampel and Allan Schaefer for the sale of the Phoenix
property in August, 1973, through their broker Laurence
Stem of the J. Watson Beach Agency. The background of
this is as follows:
a. Harry Gampel is a real estate owner, builder
and manager, with his own firm in Hartford.** Gampel became
interested in buying the Phoenix at least as early as
April 1969, when Stern of G. Watson Beach wrote to
* On September 11, 1973 members of the Sub-committee
on Education of the Appropriations Committee of the State
Legislature toured the Phoenix Building with DPW Commissioner
Manafort. State Senator John Mannix told us in an interview
on February 8, 1975 that he asked Manafort how much the
building would cost. Manafort refused to comment, saying
"delicate negotiations" were underway. The State legisla-
tors assumed he was talking about price. At a later date
Manafort claimed to Senator Mannix that the "delicate negotia-
tions" were efforts he assumed were continuing to obtain
the building as a gift (a possibility which in fact had been
abandoned long before) . Attached as Exhibit 10 is the Appro-
priations Committee's request for a tour and a backslip from
Manafort's assistant Stuart Smith, requesting his "imput."
** We interviewed Gampel on February 20, 1975. Gampel
has met Governor Meskill only once, recently. He is not a
registered voter. He told us he has never contributed,
directly or indirectly, to the Republican Party. His wife
is a registered Democrat. He gave $100 to Steele in the
recent Connecticut Gubernatorial election. He gave $100 to
Governor Meskill in the 1974 "Tribute to Tom." He said he
recalls no other gifts to Meskill, other Republicans or the
Party and is positive that he and his wife and persons re-
lated to him in any way have never given more than $1,000
to any of the above.
-20-
262
Gainpel regarding the building.* As of 1973, Gampel had
known and done business with Bernard Mussman, a New
Britain real estate broker, for seven or eight years.
Mussman was one of the brokers handling the Phoenix for
Travelers in 1972, and knew that Gampel was interested in
the Phoenix. In August 1973, Mussman suggested to Gampel
that he get together with Allan Schaefer to consider form-
ing a partnership to acquire the Phoenix. Shortly there-
after, through Mussman, Gcunpel and Schaefer met for the
first time.
b. Schaefer is a Hartford attorney and realtor
who leases several buildings to the State. He told us
that he had been working with the State to find new quarters
for GHCC for several years before the Phoenix transactions.
He confirmed that Mussman introduced him to Gampel for
purposes of buying the Phoenix.**
* Gampel 's early interest in the Phoenix was confirmed
to us in a telephone interview with Laurence Stern on
February 21, 1975.
** We interviewed Schaefer on February 24, 1975. Schaefer
has met Governor Meskill only twice, socially. He is a regis-
tered Republican and contributes to Republican candidates. He
also told us that sometime in the last few years he made a per-
sonal loan to a Hartford mayoral candidate, but he declined to
disclose the name of the candidate or the amount of the loan.
He did not contribute to Meskill 's gubernatorial campaign. He
did buy a table at the Meskill victory dinner and has contri-
buted to one or more "Tributes to Tom. ' "Tributes to Tom," one
day outings in Governor Meskill 's honor (at which a cash gift was
given to him) were held in 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974. Since the
law requiring disclosure of campaign contributions did not take
effect until 1974, we have no figures for the first three
Tributes, or any other contributions. In 1974, Angelo Tomass
contributed $1,000, John E. Downes $90, and John F. Downes $100.
-21-
263
c. Since 1971, Mussman, Governor Meskill and
DPW Commissioner Manafcrt, together with three other
New Britain residents, have been co-owners of a building
at 943 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersf ield, Connecticut.*
Prior to Governor Meskill 's administration, Mussman was
broker for one lease with the State. During the Meskill
administration, Mussman acted as broker for four leases
with the State, all approved by Manafort's agency. In
an interview with us on February 13, 1975 Mussman said
that as to one of these leases, he spoke privately to
Manafort, who gave him advance information. Regarding
another State lease for which Mussman was broker, a build-
ing owned by Harry Gampel's wife at 1290 Silas Deane
Highway, Wethersf ield, the Leasing Sxib-committee found
that Manafort "played a substantial role in the negotia-
tions. . . [and] personally rejected one of the alternative
sites." The Sub-committee stated that it was
"troubled by the degree of participation
in this lease by Mr. Manafort, due to his
business relationship with Mr. Mussman. Our
concern is supported by the fact that Mr.
Mussman apparently received early informa-
tion from the [DPW] which enabled him to earn
a commission from the lessor."**
* Mussman told us that he knows Governor Meskill
only slightly, and that they have never discussed any State
leases.
** Leasing Appendix, pp. 80-81.
-22-
264
15. On August 30, 1973, Gampel and Schaefer,
doing business as S&G, made their first firm offer to
Travelers for a 120-day option to buy the Phoenix for
$4 million.* Negotiations continued, and on September
18, 1973 Schaefer and Gampel sent a written "offer to
purchase" the Phoenix to J. Watson Beach containing,
inter alia, the following terms:**
"1. The purchase price is $4,500,000 payable
in cash or by bank or certified check at
transfer of title;
2. There will be no down payment during the
period of advertising by the State for the
Greater Hartford Community College or during
the period of lease negotiations with the
State thereon, both of which shall be com-
pleted on or before 120 days after your
acceptance of this offer and upon written
State commitment to lease from our client
on terms satisfactory to him, a $250,000
cash or certified check deposit will be made.
3. The transfer of title shall be made within
six months after the date of the State com-
mitment to lease and no later than 300 days
after your acceptance of this offer, and our
client would ask the privilege of setting
the precise closing date, time and place.
4. The buyer shall have the right to make
renovations during the aforesaid six months'
period.
* Correspondence attached as Exhibit 11
** Attached as Exhibit 12.
-23-
265
The risk of loss from the date of your
acceptance of this offer through transfer
of title shall be upon the seller.
13. Because of publicity thus far, we must ask
that this offer be held in secrecy between
you, the Travelers and ourselves and not
revealed in any particular to third parties.
14. Time shall be of the essence hereof and this
agreement shall be binding upon our under-
signed principal, the Travelers and their
heirs, executors and successors" (emphasis
added) .
Travelers accepted this offer on September 21, 1973.
16. On September 20, 1973, the State advertised
in the newspaper that it was seeking to lease space for
GHCC. We have been unable to determine who in the State
made the decision to advertise for a lease, or when the
decision was made.*
* Several people have suggested to us reasons why
a lease might have been more practical than a purchaser
(1) the State already owned over 100 acres of land in
Windsor, purchased for the purpose of building a GHCC
campus (but note that (a) Windsor is 5 miles from central
Hartford; (b) a study by Arthur D. Little and many of the
educators favored a downtown site; and (c) the cost of
building on the Windsor site would have been high); (2) i
the City of Hartford opposed a State purchase because it
would remove the building from the tax rolls; and (3) be-
cause the State is statutorily required to follow certain
procedures, the time period necessary for the State to buy
a building and then renovate is greater than if a private
contractor performs the renovations and then sells or leases
the property to the State.
-24-
266
17. Ten proposals involving eight different
sites were submitted to DPW by November 20, 1973, the
closing date for bids. On December 6, 1973, DPW Commis-
sioner Manafort and his Deputy Biggs, Carlson and McCann
of Finance and Control, and Republican Chairman Brian
Gaffney all met to discuss the selection of a site.
According to Gaffney 's Public Hearing testimony before
the State Leasing Sub-committee, the matter had become
a "political issue." On December 27, 1973, DPW Commis-
sioner Manafort notified S&G Conpany that their lease
had been accepted as "the most suitable proposal sub-
mitted. " No letter of commitment was signed. The terms
of the proposed lease were as follows: S&G would lease
the Phoenix building and a large private home situated
on approximately 15 acres to the State for a term of 25
years. Rental was $1,104,000 per year, with an option
to purchase for $8,560,000 at the end of one year,
$8,500,000 at the end of two years, $8,380,000 at the
end of five years, and declining amounts thereafter.*
18. The lease was signed by S&G on January 16,
1974 and on January 21, 24 and 25, 1974 by Manafort of DPW,
the Commissioner of Higher Education and the Finance and
* Copy of proposed lease attached as Exhibit 13.
-25-
267
Control Department of the State, respectively. The
Attorney General was the only party left to sign.
19. Responsibility for the reasonableness of
the terms of a proposed lease rests with the DPW and the
Department of Finance and Control. The Attorney General,
the last State official to pass on a lease, is charged only
with responsibility for the form of the lease. Neverthe-
less, after the lease came to Attorney General Robert K.
Killian's* office for signature in the normal course, Killian
wrote a letter to Governor Meskill on February 8, 1974,
setting forth the terms of the lease and stating:
"We are informed that the property was available
for purchase by the State in 197 3 directly from
Travelers Insurance Company, its owner at that
time, for $4,500,000 — slightly over half the
first option price in the 'lease,' and about
one-sixth of the aggregate rental payments of
$27,600,000, if the 'lease' runs its full term.
"Furthermore, this document is not a final and
binding lease — it is a contractual commitment
to enter into a lease on completion of the un-
specified alterations called for by this document
and acceptance of the premises by the Public Works
Department.
"This contractual arrangement raises questions of
policy which in my judgment warrant your personal
review. Our review of the statutory authority of
the Public Works Commissioner to execute this con-
tractual document without the specific approval of
the General Assembly is continuing.
* We interviewed Killian, a Democrat who is now
Lieutenant Governor, on February 19, 1975.
-26-
47-704 O - 75 - 18
268
"You should be advised that our office is being
subjected to intense daily pressure from the
Public 'Works Commissioner and his staff to give
our immediate approval of this document notwith-
standing the presence of still unresolved legal
questions. "*
On February 21, 1974, Governor Meskill replied to
Killian in part as follows:
"While my information differs from yours as to
the availability of the property for purchase
by the State in 1973 directly from the Travelers
Insurance Company, I have developed new information
not previously available to the State officials
that the cost to S&G is to be $4.5 million. With
an option price at the end of the first year of
over $8.5 million and about a $2 million cost for
improvements, the margin seems to be too wide. In
an effort to conserve the taxpayers' money, I am
reviewing this further and have asked the Public
Works Department not to deliver the lease pending
the outcome of this study.
However, before I can make a final policy deter-
mination, I would like to ask your opinion on the
rights and obligations of the parties to the pro-
posed lease at the present state of the development
of the matter to this point. I would hope to hear
from you in this regard promptly so that we may
not delay longer than necessary with a matter which
is of such great importance to the faculty and stu-
dents of the Greater Hartford Community College.**
In reply to Governor Meskill 's question whether
the document was binding on the State, on February 22, 1974,
Killian responded that "the state is not subject to any
* See Exhibit 14, attached,
** See Exhibit 15, attached.
-27-
269
duties or liabilities as a result of this document," in
view of the fact that the Attorney General had not yet
signed. *
20. On March 4, 1974, Governor Meskill directed
Manafort of DPW to cancel the proposed lease.**
21. According to Gampel and Schaefer, they
received no favored treatment from any State officials
in their efforts to obtain the Phoenix lease. Both Schaefer
and Gampel said they had not heard that Travelers had of-
fered to sell to the State for $4.5 million when they made
their $4 million offer to the Travelers; Schaefer said
that it was Mussman who told him that the Travelers might
consider a $4 million offer. Both Gampel and Schaefer
said that the fact that their September 18, 1973 bid was
linked to a State lease two days before the State advertised
to lease did not reflect the receipt of any inside informa-
tion, since it was common knowledge that the State was in-
terested in the Phoenix and that it was considering a lease.
According to Mussman.,*** he talked with Schaefer
* See Exhibit 16, attached.
** See Exhibit 17, attached.
*** We interviewed Mussman on February 13, 1975.
-28-
270
and Garapel about the Phoenix only once, on the occasion he
brought them together. He told us (i) that he thought that
Gampel £md Schaefer were considering buying the property
for "general office space"; (ii) that he never knew the
State was interested in either purchasing or leasing from
the Travelers until after the fact; (iii) that he had no
idea as to the price Travelers wanted; (iv) that he never
spoke to Manafort, Governor Meskill or anyone else within
the State government about the property; and (v) that his
total commission on the transaction was $6,050 — ten percent
of J. Watson Beach's commission.* Mussman's denial to us of
any knowledge as to what Travelers might sell the building
for was in direct conflict with Schaefer 's statement that
it was Mussman who told him that the Travelers might con-
sider a $4 million offer.
Gampel and Schaefer declined to show us their
files reflecting what their costs would have been on the
Phoenix lease. They said that they would have made a profit
on the deal if, but only if, they had been able to obtain from
the City of Hartford a reduction in taxes reflecting the
* On page 7 of the "Statement of the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York on the Nomination of Thomas
Meskill to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit"
it was stated, based upon information received from Leasing
Sub-committee staff, that Mussman received a fee of $20,000.
-29-
271
$4.5 million purchase price.*
22. Pursuant to Governor Meskill's letter of
March 4, 1974, the DPW advertised to buy or lease space for
GHCC on March 10, 1974. On March 22, 1974, S&G submitted
four different proposals, and seven others also submitted
proposals. The State subsequently accepted S&G's proposal
to sell the renovated Phoenix building and 10 of the 15
acres (not including the other building) for $7,350,000.**
A simultaneous closing of the sale from Travelers to S&G
and S&G to the State took place on September 4, 1974, and
classes commenced in the Phoenix Building later that month.
* Their oral estimate to us, assuming no reduction
in taxes, was:
$808,000 yearly carrying charges (including renovations)
+440, 000 yearly property taxes
$1,248,000 total yearly cost to S&G
-1,104,000 yearly rental
? 144,000 yearly loss
** Schaefer said he arrived at S&G's offering price as
follows:
$ 8,560,000 (option price after one year under lease)
800,000 (renovations on top two floors required
by lease, not by sale (80,000 square
feet at $10/sq. ft.))
400,000 (value of five acres retained)
7,360,000 (rounded down to $7,350,000 sale price)
-30-
272
23. The above narrative shows that Governor
Meskill (i) was involved in the gift discussions with the
Travelers in early 1973; (ii) received a letter from
Trustee Fagcin dated July 17, 1973 referring to "the
possibility of purchasing the Phoenix Building for [GHCC
for a price] considerably less than it was a few years
ago"; (iii) was asked by the Board of Trustees at a meeting
on August 20, 1973 to purchase the Phoenix Building; and
(iv) received a letter from CHE Chairman McGannon dated
September 7, 1973 stating that "there has developed in
the last several weeks the opportunity to purchase [the
Phoenix] property at a cost somewhere around $4.5 million.
Nevertheless Governor Meskill has denied that
he was aware of Traveler's June, 1973 offer to sell to
the State. His statements have been as follows:
(a) In the Governor's letter to Attorney General
Robert Killian of February 21, 1974 responding to Killian's
letter of February 7 that "the property was available for
purchase by the State in 1973 directly from the Travelers
. . . for $4,500,000", Governor Meskill replied that "my
information differs from yours as to the availability of
the property for purchase by the State in 19 73 directly
from the Travelers . "
(b) The memorandum of an informal Leasing Sub-
-31-
273
committee staff meeting with Governor Meskill on November 4,
1974 contains the following:
"We asked him if he had known that the State could
have bought the building? He said 'yes' but only
when he told the respective agencies to go back
and negotiate again. He said that he didn't re-
member if anyone with the State explored the pos-
sibility to buy the building before this time."
(c) Finally, a Hartford Courant article of
February 27, 19 74 says that Governor Meskill, at a news conference
the day before, "emphatically denied that there had ever been
a sale offer from Travelers." The Courant quoted Governor
Meskill as saying, in answer to a question, that "there is
no evidence that there ever was an offer" from Travelers to
sell the property to the State.**
Conclusion
The foregoing raises at least the following ques-
tions concerning Governor Meskill' s involvement in the Phoenix
transactions: (1) Since Governor Meskill was made aware of
the opportunity to buy the Phoenix Building in July, August
and early September, 19 73, why did he not insist that the
State discuss with Travelers purchasing the Phoenix Building
directly from Travelers? (2) Why has Governor Meskill stated
that he was unaware that the State ever had an opportxinity
to buy the Phoenix property from Travelers? (3) To what
extent was Governor Meskill privy to the negotiations on the
Phoenix lease to S & G and therefore in a position to know
* See p. 2 of Meskill 's interview, attached as
Exhibit TF7
** A copy of the article is attached as Exhibit 19.
-32-
274
whether the rental was excessive? and (4) Did Governor
Meskill ever give any information about the State's inter-
est in the Phoenix Building to Bernard Mussman either
directly, through Paul Manafort, or otherwise.
-33-
275
II. THE DOWNES AND TOMASSO LEASES
Connecticut's Leasing Procedures
At the time of the Downes and Tomasso leases,
established State leasing procedures provided that an
agency wishing to lease space first notify the Department
of Public Works ("DPW") of its needs in terms of square
footage and general geographical area; DPW would then evalu-
ate the need and, if satisfied, would search for a site.
The procedure was designed to protect against favoritism.
As the Leasing Sub-committee stated in its report:
"The Department of Public Works was intended
to be the first to deal with the public, thereby
to be able to enter a competitive market area and
seek the best available arrangement for the State.
Likewise, all prospective landlords were intended
to have an equal opportunity to propose space for
lease to the State."*
The Downes Lease
The events by which the Frank E. Downes Construction
Company leased the Waterford Highway Garage to the State
involved not only a clear breach of these procedures but
also the intercession on behalf of the lessor by State
* Report of the Sub-committee on Leasing of the Con-
necticut General Assembly's Joint Committee on Appropriations,
dated January 7, 1975, p. 10 (hereinafter "Leasing Report").
-34-
276
Republican Chairman Brian Gaffney, who is Frank E.
Downes • nephew.
Governor Meskill, Brian Gaffney, Frank Downes,
his son John E. Downes, Department of Transportation
("DOT") Commissioner Earl Wood and Howard Dickinson, the
DOT official who gave the Downeses favored treatment,
have all refused to be interviewed by us about this trans-
action. Therefore the following narrative is based upon
testimony before the State Leasing Sub-committee and
the pviblished Appendix to its Report (hereafter "Leasing
Appendix") .
According to his testimony before the Leasing Sub-
committee by Department of Transportation Commissioner Earl
Wood was telephoned sometime in the first half of 1971
by Brian Gaffney, who then was not only Republican State Chair-
man and a State Representative, but also attorney for the
Downes construction firm.* Gaffney told Wood that Frank
Downes wanted to invest in a building which could be
leased to the State. (At his Leasing Sub-committee Public
Hearing testimony on December 3, 1974, Gaffney conceded
* Martindale-Hubbell, 1971-75. Gaffney had also recently
interviewed Dickinson for his job. Gaffney State Leasing
Sub-committee Public Hearing testimony, December 3, 1974
(Public Hearing testimony is hereinafter cited as "PH") .
-35-
277
making the call to Wood. Later in his testimony he
characterized such cases as a necessary part of political
patronage . ) *
According to Wood, shortly after the telephone call
from Gaffney, Frank Downes met with Wood at Wood's DOT office.
Wood told Dovmes that DOT needed a highway garage in
Waterford. Downes expressed an interest and not long
thereafter, at Wood's direction, a DOT Maintenance official
named Howard Dickinson who was detailed to Wood went to
view the site later leased to the State with Frank Downes'
son John E. Downes, and told Downes that the site was a
suitable location for the garage. Dickinson told the
Sub-committee that this was the first time in forty years
of State service that he had been requested by a Commissioner
to aid a prospective lessor in the selection of a site.**
* Wood testified that Gaffney had not referred to
Frank Downes as his uncle, but only as a "constituent."
Gaffney said at the public hearings that he could not
recall whether or not he told Wood that Downes was his uncle.
** Frank Downes was never interviewed by the Leasing
Sub-committee. Acording to John E. Downes' testimony, dis-
cussions with the State began in a chance encounter between
him and Dickinson in 19 70. The conflict does not affect
the question whether leasing practices were violated.
-36-
278
John E. Dovmes told the Leasing Siib^-coiranittee that he
called DPW Commissioner Edward Kozlowski in October, 1971,
to say that he was aware of DOT's need for a highway garage
and that he had a parcel of land availeible in Waterford.
Thereafter, on October 27, 1971, Commissioner Wood
formally requested space from DPW for a highway garage in
Waterford. On November 3, 1971 the Downes Company sxobmitted
a detailed lease proposal for a Waterford highway garage,
for the site which John E. Downes and Dickinson had previ-
ously discussed. Thereafter, the Downes Company obtained
an option to purchase the site from its owner.* Downes
exercised its option early in 1972 and bought the property.
Beginning in late February, Downes did $30,000 worth of
work on the site.** On May 9, 1972 the State issued
a letter of commitment to lease from Downes and on May 19,
1972, Downes countersigned the letter.
In September 1973, over a year later, a garage was
completed by Downes and a formal lease was executed. The
lease provided for an annual rental of $64,500 for 15 years,
totalling $967,500, and an option by the state to purchase
* See Leasing Appendix, p. 40.
** September 7, 1972 legislative hearing on Downes
lease, p. 28.
-3T-
279
upon termination of the lease for $407,000. The total
amount invested by the lessor in the land and building
was approximately $400,000. The rental per square foot
for this property being paid by the state is $5.43. The
Sub-committee's appraiser said that comparable property
rented to a private party would be priced at approximately
$2.50 per square foot. The Sub-committee said in its re-
port that the rent being paid by the state on this facility
"can only be described as 'excessive'." It concluded as
follows :
"Based on all the testimony received,
this sub-committee has drawn the following
conclusions with respect to the Waterford
Highway Garage Lease: 1) The Downes Construc-
tion Company knew at least four and a half
months (4- 1/2) before the Department of Trans-
pxDrtation requested space from the Department
of Public Works that there would be a need for
a highway garage in the Waterford area. The
lessor was also made aware of the general
specifications and requirements of such a
facility. 2) Department of Transportation
officials viewed this site with the prospective
lessor several months before the request for
space came into the Department of Public Works.
At such time, these State officials gave Mr.
John E. Downes a favorable assessment of the
land for the construction of a highway garage
facility. 3) The Downes Construction Company
made a lease proposal to the Department of
Public Works without having any legal interest
in the land upon which the proposal was based.
4) This advance knowledge on the part of the
lessor not only deprived the original land-
owner, as well as any other citizen, of the
opportunity to make a competitive lease pro-
posal, but also severely diminished the De-
partment of Public Works' authority and
responsibility to neaotiate a fair rental.
-38-
280
5) Our real estate expert noted that this
property's rental rate of $5.43 per square
foot is high when compared to local industrial
rates of regional pxiblic utility garages."*
Leasing Appendix, pp. 43-44,
-39-
281
The Tomasso Leases
The Riverview Realty Company is a fcunily-owned
concern controlled by Angelo Tomasso, Jr., its President.*
While Riverview Realty has 110 commercial leases, it
never held a State lease until 1972. Currently it has
three State leases, with a gross rental of $410,350 per
year: (1) DOT Highway Garage, Winsted (negotiations in
1971-1973; (2) Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV")
Office Building, Winsted, negotiations in 1972-1974; and
(3) DOT Office Building, Newington, negotiations in 1973-
1974. Each of these leases involved irregularities in
leasing procedures. In two of the three, substantial
questions exist as to the reasonableness of the rent.
Angelo Tomasso, Jr. is a friend of the Governor
and the next door neighbor of former Repviblican State
Chairman Brian Gaffney. Angelo Tomasso, his Comptroller
John Lepore, former Department of Motor Vehicles' Commissioner
Robert Leuba, DOT Commissioner Wood and Howard Dickinson
all refused our request for interviews on this transaction.
In addition, Tomasso and Lepore refused to honor the Leasing
Sub-committee's subpoena for documents relating to these
* Until 1971 Tomasso also owned Angelo Tomasso, Inc.,
a highway paving firm acquired in that year by Ashland Oil,
Inc.
-40-
282
leases. The following narrative is therefore based upon
testimony before the State Leasing Sub -committee and
its Appendix.
1. DOT Highway Garage, Winsted
In early 1971 the Department of Transportation
decided that it needed a highway garage in the Winsted area.
Some time in the Spring or Summer of 19 71, more than six
months before DOT notified DPW of its space requirement,
Howard Dickinson of DOT told Angelo Tomasso about the
need.* Tomasso amd Dickinson were long-time friends.**
According to Tomasso, he simply walked into Dickinson's
office and inquired about land needs; Dickinson's version
was that he approached Tomasso on his own initiative.***
During the Summer of 19 71 Dickinson viewed
several parcels of land with Tomasso and other Riverview
employees, and advised them that one of the sites - the
present garage location - was acceptable.****
On October 19, 1971, John Lepore, Riverview 's
comptroller, made an informal proposal to DPW to consider
building a highway garage for DOT in the Winsted area.
* Appendix p, 92; Tomasso PH p. 4.
** Tomasso PH p. 16.
*** Tomasso PH p. 4; Appendix p. 92; Dickinson PH,
December 4, 1974 (not transcribed).
**** Tomasso PH T. pp. 4-6; Dickinson PH, December 4,
1974 (not transcribed) .
-41-
283
On January 10, 1972, Riverview Realty took an option on
the present garage site. Dickinson showed Wood this site
sometime in late January or early February, 19 72, said it
was a site "under the control of the Tomassos", and told
Wood it was a good location for a garage . * On March 1 ,
1972, DOT Commissioner Wood transmitted a request for
highway garage space in wins ted to DPW.** On March 24,
1972, Riverview submitted its formal proposal to DPW to
build a garage on the land earlier approved by Dickinson
and lease it to the State. On July 18, 1972, a commitment
letter was signed for a 15-year lease at $165,000 per annum,
or $5.17 per square foot. The lease was signed on July 23,
1973.
In addition to the procedural irregularities on
this lease, the Leasing Sub-committee expressed concern both
that the site selected was not suitable because of flooding
and that the rental was "high . . . when compared to local
industrial rates and regional public utility garages".***
* Wood PH, December 4, 1974 (not transcribed).
** Commissioner Wood told the Leasing Siib-committee
that he was unaware of Howard Dickinson's advance contacts
with Tomasso on this lease. Ibid.
*** Leasing Appendix p. 96.
-42-
47-704 O - 75 - 19
284
since Tomasso has resisted a Leasing Sub-Coiranittee subpoena
for his financial records relating to his State leases,
we have no accurate basis for computing his costs on this
lease.
The Leasing Sub-committee's conclusions on the
Tomasso and Downes Highway garage leases were as follows:
" [Both leases are] subject to the same abuses
and . . . should be re-examined by the State for
re-evaluation in light of the disclosures uncovered
by this sub-committee. In each of the above garages,
the State of Connecticut is paying rents that can be
only descriged as 'excessive' .... In each
instance, the landlords were either active politi-
cally or closely associated with high-ranking
political and State governmental authorities, which
positions enabled these individuals to obtain these
highly lucrative leases to the exclusion of any
competition. In the instances of Waterford and
Wins ted, the then prospective landlord was aided
by the using agency in selecting the ultimate site
before the agency had even notified the Department
of Public Works of its need for such space.
... It is the recommendation of the sub-
committee that these garage leases be re-examined,
renegotiated, and, if necessary, broken on the
basis of the improper activities leading to the
consummation of such leases, which in several
instances could be supported legally due to the
improper collusion between the landlord and State
officials and employees.*
2. Department of Motor Vehicles Office, Winsted
On October 18, 1972, Robert Leuba, then Commissioner
of Motor Vehicles and later counsel to Governor Meskill, sent
Leasing Report, pp. 23-24. 1
-43-
285
a memo to the then Deputy DPW Commissioner Paul Manafort
stating that DMV's lease on its Torrington branch office
was expiring and concluding on the basis of his own
analysis of the geographical area that the Riverview
property in Winsted then being developed for a highway
garage might also be "very suitable" for a DMV office.*
Subsequently, Riverview and five others made
offers to DPW to provide new space for DMV's office.
Four of the five proposers other than Riverview advised the
Leasing Sub-committee that they were never contacted by
DPW after they submitted proposals.**
DPW recommended Riverview 's proposal for the
lease on February 13, 1974, and a commitment letter was
signed on February 28, 19 74, providing for a 20-year lease
at an annual rent of $41,650.
The Leasing Sub-committee's expert concluded that
the rental for the DMV office was reasonable. However, the
Sub;- commit tee raised two questions about the selection of
the Riverview site for a DMV office: (1) Unlike Torrington,
the populous area in which the old office was located, Winsted
* On February 18, 1975, Mr. Leuba told us that he had
not yet decided whether to consent to our request for an
interview. Since then, he has failed to respond to many
telephone calls.
** Leasing Sub-committee Interviews: Anthony A. Ficca,
September 9, 19 74; Erne&t Marola, August 16, 1974; Rocco T.
Lauretti, July 31, 1974; Allan R. Borghesi, August 8, 1974.
-44-
286
is a "country location";* (2) as indicated in the dis-
cussion of the Winsted highway garage, above, the site is
subject to flooding.** Again, since Tomasso and his comptroller
John Lepore have refused to produce any records or be inter-
viewed, we have no information as to Tomasso 's costs on
this lease.
3- DOT Office Building, 160 Pascone Place, Newington
In Late 19 72, after much discussion within his
agency, DOT Commissioner Wood concluded that his agency needed
to consolidate several offices into a new building.*** Wood
discussed this need with Howard Dickinson.**** Several
weeks later Riverview's comptroller, John Lepore, asked
Dickinson to look at a warehouse in Newington, the site
later selected. Dickinson did so, and shortly thereafter
showed the building to Commissioner Wood.*****
* Leasing Appendix p. 91.
** Leasing Appendix p. 91
*** Leasing Sub-committee interview, A. Earl Wood,
November 7, 1974 p. 8; Leasing Appendix pp. 83-84.
**** Ibid.
***** According to both Dickinson and Lepore, Dickinson
had not tipped Lepore off as to DOT's need. Lepore said
he heard about it in early 1972 in general conversation
at DPW.
-45-
287
Subsequently, on January 25, 1973 Riverview Realty
took an option on the Newington site. On February 20, 1973,
DOT requested from DPW 40,000 square feet of office space.
On March 26, 19 73, Riverview made an offer to DPW for
42,000 square feet of renovated office space at the Newington
side.
On April 12, 1973 DPW Commissioner Manafort wrote
to DOT Commissioner Wood asking Wood to consider the Toraasso
property.* The Leasing Sub-committee found this request
"highly unusual."**
Two other proposals were made for the DOT office
building at square footage rates less than Tomasso's original
proposal.*** However, according to Commissioner Wood, he
never knew of the existence of these proposals.****
* Memo April 12, 1973, Manafort to Wood.
** Leasing Appendix p. 84.
*** Letter, April 4, 197 3, DeMatteo Construction Co. to
O'Marraj new office building at 5.12 per sq. ft.
Letter, April 21, 1973, Walter B. Spencer to O'Marra;
renovated office building at 5.50 per sq. ft.
Letter, March 26, 1973, Riverview Realty by Lepore
to O'Marra; renovated warehouse at 5.54 per sq. ft.
**** Wood Leasing Sub-committee Interview November 7,
1974 p. 10.
-46-
288
On Jxine 25, 1973, Deputy Commissioner of Finance and
Control Gerald McCann approved Tomasso's lease proposal. DPW
Commissioner Manafort signed a commitment letter for the lease
on June 25, 1973 and Riverview countersigned on June 26th. DOT
Commissioner Wood did not approve the lease for his agency un-
til June 26th after Manafort issued the commitment letter. On
July 1, 1973 a new law went into effect requiring a 60-day ad-
vertising period on all state leases.* In the Appendix to its
Report, the Leasing Sub-committee expressed concern that the
Tomasso lease had been rushed through to avoid the need for
compliance with the new statute.**
Riverview 's renovated warehouse in Newington was
leased to the State on May 17, 1974, for 20 years at an an-
nual rental of $203,700. The Leasing Sub-committee apparently
reached no conclusion on the reasonableness of the rental, for
lack of any comparable rental properties in the area.*** On
account of Riverview 's refusal to comply with its subpoena,
the Svib- committee was also unable to make any complete compu-
tation of Riverview" s costs on this transaction. However, it
* In his testimony before this Committee last January,
at pp. 235-236, Governor Meskill impliedly took credit for
this remedial legislation. The bill was sponsored by several
Democratic legislators and, so far as we understand. Governor
Meskill in no way placed the weight of his office behind its
passage. We believe that his only involvement was to sign
this Act when it came to his desk.
** Leasing Appendix, pp. 86-87.
*** Leasing Appendix, p. 87.
-47-
289
found that Tomasso had "greatly overstated" his renovation
costs.* Its complete conclusions on this lease were as follows;
"Preliminary evidence indicates that the
renovation cost estimates for 160 Pascone Place,
Newington, sutanitted by the landlord were grossly
over-stated and that the rental cost was primarily
determined by such estimates. Whereas the land-
lord estimated his renovations at approximately
Thirty Dollars a square foot, those costs should
more properly have been between Fifteen to Twenty
Dollars per square foot. It is recommended that
this lease be renegotiated and a rental value
established which more properly reflects the real
value of the facility and that if such a renego-
tiation is not successful that the State terminate
the lease based upon the prior collusion between
the landlord and employees of the Department of
Transportation before the Department had even
officially requested such space and even before
the landlord had any legal interest in the prop-
erty, either in the form of ownership or option
to purchase. If the site is desirable and re-
negotiation unsuccessful then the State should
consider exercising its condemnation powers in
light of the cost estimates obtained by the
committee. A special study of this property
by the subcommittee comes to the conclusion
that the total capital expenditiare for the
premises should not have exceeded 1.2 million
dollars rather than the 1.6 million dollars
claimed by the landlord. Had the State pxir-
chased the property and renovated it, its
annual cost for amortization would have been
approximately $105,000.00 or approximately
$99,000.00 less per year than the rental
presently being paid. This would amount to
a savings of approximately $2,000,000.00 over
the twenty year term of the lease, in addition
to which, the State would not be subject to the
$1,104,000.00 option price as provided in the
lease at the end of said period to acquire out-
right ownership." **
* Leasing Appendix, p. 88.
** Leasing Report, pp. 25-26,
-48-
290
III. Governor Meskill's Knowledge and Responsibility
The following factors are particularly relevant
to the question whether Governor Meskill was aware of and
condoned these abuses in the Downes and Toraasso leases:*
(1) Governor Meskill's relationships with the
Downesesy Angelo Tomasso and Brian Gaffney.
Governor Meskill grew up in New Britain, Connec-
ticut, a city of 85,000, and was its Mayor from 1962-64.
After he became Governor a group of his New Britain friends
became influential in state government. Brian Gaffney, an
aide of Governor Meskill from his days as Mayor of New
Britain, became State Chairman of the Republican Party.
Paul Manafort, himself a former New Britain Mayor, became
Deputy Commissioner and then Commissioner of Public Works,
the officer charged with responsibility in all state leases.
Adolf Carlson, also of New Britain, became first Governor
Meskill's Campaign Treasurer and then Commissioner of the
Department of Finance and Control. Frank Downes and Angelo
Tomasso, also long time New Britain residents, became the
holders of lucrative leases to the state. Bernard Mussman,
a New Britain realtor, became active in a number of state
leases.
* Governor Meskill told the Sub-committee in an
informal interview on December 13, 1974 that he never dis-
cussed the Downes or Tomasso leases with anyone before they
were executed.
-49-
1
291
Some specific illustrations of Governor Meskill's
relationship with Gaffney, the Downeses and Angelo Tomasso
are as follows:
(a) Governor Meskill and the Downeses. Governor
Meskill was an associate of John F. Downes (Frank Downes'
brother, who acted as attorney for Downes Construction in
the purchase of the property leased to the state for the
Waterford Highway garage) in law practice in New Britain from
1956-1960. Governor Meskill also twice appointed Downes to
the State Special Revenue Commission.
(b) Governor Meskill and Brian Gaffney. Gaffney
has served as campaign manager and aide to Meskill on vari-
ous occasions over the years. Gaffney himself was asso-
ciated with John F. Downes in law practice from 1961 to
1970 and from 1971-1974 represented the Downes Construction
firm in his private law practice.* In 1974, Governor Meskill
nominated and then appointed Gaffney to a Superior Court
judgeship, despite the fact that the Connecticut Bar Asso-
ciation had found Gaffney unfit to sit on that Court.**
* Martindale-Hubbell, 1961-75.
** Early in 1975, after Governor Grasso asked the Bar
Association to re-evaluate all interim appointments, the
Bar Association again found Gaffney unqualified for the
Superior Court, and he resigned his position.
-50-
292
(c) Governor Meskill and Angelo Tomasso. Angelo
Tomasso was a guest in Governor Meskill 's official box at
the 19 71 inaugural ball. Tomasso and Gaffney are neighbors.
Tomasso was reportedly a large contributor to Governor
Meskill in the 1970 campaign,* although we have not been '
able to verify this. i
While we do not know whether mere friendship
with these people put the Governor on notice as to their |
leasing deals with the State or resulted in Downes and
Tomasso receiving favored treatment, it seems obvious that
the existence of the close pre-existing ties detailed above I
requires further investigation by the Committee to deter-
I
mine exactly what the Governor knew or should have known
about State leases held by his friends. I
(2) The State Leasing Committee Testimony of
State Senator George Gunther. '
According to sworn testimony given by Republican
State Senator George Gunther at the Leasing Sub-committee's i
I
public hearings,** Gunther received an anonymous telephone I
call in mid-April of 1972, providing him with a "complete
detailed breakdown" of figures concerning the Downes lease
and urging him to take some action against the lease. Shortly I
* See, e.g. , Hartford Times, December 4, 1974.
** Senator Gunther gave the same account to our represen-
tatives in an interview on February 7, 1975.
-51-
293
thereafter, Gunther, who had long been concerned about
State leasing practices, showed the figures to Brian
Gaffney. Gaffney confirmed that his uncle was applying
for the lease and that Gunther 's figures were accurate.*
Gunther asked Gaffney to "stop the signing of these
leases or at least go after this thing." Gaffney replied,
"Well, this is the way that we do things,"** but ended
by saying that he would look into the lease.***
About May 10, 1972, according to Gunther,
Gaffney called him to ask what Gunther "was going to do
about the leases." Gunther replied that if he did not
"see those kind of leases stopped" he would "go to the
public." Gaffney said he could take no action against
the lease because he was "committed."****
Within a day or so of his conversation with
Gaffney, Gunther asked Governor Meskill's legislative
liaison, John Doyle, for an appointment with Governor
Meskill so that he could "go over this lease himself and
see whether we could get something from the Governor or
find out what his attitude was on it."*****
*
**
***
****
*****
Gunther testimony, pp. 1-3.
Gunther testimony, p. 2.
Gunther testimony, p. 4.
Gunther testimony, p. 6.
Gunther testimony, p. 8.
-52-
294
Over the next "week to ten days," Gunther
repeated his request to Doyle until, on "about [May] 18th
or 19th" Gunther saw Doyle again and said:
"John, I've wanted to get in and see the
Governor and if I don't hear from him . . .
and if I don't hear from him pretty damn
quick . . .I'm going to the public and
I'm going to the press and I'm going to
lay out the whole deimn thing on the Downes
lease."*
That same morning Doyle made an apointment for Gunther to
meet the Governor on May 23, 1972.
Gunther met with Governor Meskill in the Governor's
office on the morning of May 23, 1972.** When Gunther com-
plained about the Downes lease. Governor Meskill asked what
Gunther planned to do "if we continue to process the lease."
Gunther said, "Very frankly I'm going to go to the public
and I'm going to go to the press and I'm going to lay it
right out on the deck." Governor Meskill replied, "What
are you going to do . . . the Democrats' dirty work?"
Before Gunther left. Governor Meskill said that he "would
look into the lease."***
* Gunther testimony, p. 9.
** Gunther has his desk calendar for 19 72, showing the
appointment. See Gunther testimony p. 10.
*** Gunther testimony, p. 13. In his testimony before
the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 23, 19 75, John
Doyle said that Gunther had testified before the State Leas-
ing Sub-committee that he did not specifically mention the
Downes lease by name in his meeting with Governor Meskill on
May 23. Doyle is wrong. See Gunther testimony, p. 13.
-53-
295
When Gunther found out several days later that
the Downes lease was not being held up, he prepared the
June 1, 1972 letter to Governor Meskill which we will
discuss below.
Governor Meskill 's version of these events
conflicts sharply with Senator Gunther 's. After Senator
Gunther testified as siammarized above at the December 13,
1974 Leasing Sub-coiranittee hearing. Governor Meskill invited
the Sub-committee staff to his office to comment on Senator
Gunther 's testimony. Governor Meskill told the staff that
he recalled meeting Gunther on May 23, 1972:
"He told us that he recalled the meeting as
being one of the strangest that he had ever had.
He said that Senator Gunther came to his office
very upset declaring that there was a problem
in the Governor's administration. Governor
Meskill went on to say that Senator Gunther
declined to name the departments involved in
this matter nor any of the individuals, whereupon
the Governor said to the Senator, 'If you don't
tell me what's wrong what can I do about it?'
The Governor said at this point the Senator
just left his office. Governor Meskill denied
Senator Gunther 's version of their May 23rd
meeting and asserted that there was no men-
tion of the Downes Lease or any other lease."*
Statements by Governor Meskill 's aide, John Doyle,
in a recorded interview with a Sub-committee staff member
on December 16, 1974, appear to lend more support to Senator
Gunther 's version than to Governor Meskill 's. Doyle says
* Leasing Appendix, p. 47,
-54-
296
that Gunther "might very well have" complained to him
in May, 1973 about the Downes lease and Gaffney's in-
volvement in it. Doyle's answers on the question of
his discussion with Senator Gunther about setting up
a meeting with the Governor were as follows:
ALTSCHULER:
DOYLE:
ALTSCHULER:
DOYLE :
ALTSCHULER:
DOYLE:
ALTSCHULER:
DOYLE :
All right. Again, when Gunther . . . and
I don't think that we're disputing, the fact
that Giinther probably talked to you about
this. It's a question of what he said.
Yes.
Did he make it clear that it was at least
in general terms about a lease? Or could
he have made a ? [sic.].
Yes, sir. He could have very well. And
I'm not disputing the fact at all that he
might well have. But what I am disputing
is the detail of it. He probably said
that . . . and this is bad because I'm
hypothesizing and I really don't know . . .
but he might have said something like
"John, that Gaffney is at it again. He's
doing something here with a lease and, boy,
it stinks." And that would have been the
sum and soul . . . the substance of what he
told me.
All right. Could he have also indicated
that the lease had something to do with a
relation of Gaffney?
He might very well have said that Mr. Downes
was related . . . was Brian [sic] uncle or
whatever it is.
Okay.
He might very well have.
-55-
297
It is difficult enough to believe Governor Meskill's
statement that a state legislator made an appointment
with him, announced to him that there was a "problem"
and then declined to say what the problem was. If in
fact Senator Gvmther had already told the Governor's
aide why he wanted to see the Governor, it became even
less credible that Gunther would have suddently lost
his tongue when he met with the Governor.*
The Meskill-Gunther conflict raises an
obvious question as to Governor Meskill's candor, and
we urge that this committee attempt to determine who
is telling the truth.
* Senator Gunther and Governor Meskill were not strangers.
In 1971, Gunther, a Republican, had acted as Senate liaison
with Governor Meskill and had often met with him. As fur-
ther relevance to the Gunther-Meskill conflict, a Hartford
acquaintance of Senator Gunther named Evan Kochey told us
that Gunther told her, probably on May 24, 1972, that he
had been to see Governor Meskill to tell him about a lease
involving Gaffney's uncle, and that the Governor had asked
Gunther whether he was trying to do the Democrats' "dirty
work." On the other hand, a former Meskill aide named
Colin Pease told us that right after his meeting with
Gunther on May 23 Governor Meskill told Pease that Gunther
had said something was wrong with one of the State Commission-
ers which had to be stopped, but refused to name the Com-
missioner or say what was wrong.
-56-
I
I
298
(3) Senator Gunther's Letter to Governor Meskill
dated Jirne 1, 1972.
Whichever version of the May 23rd meeting is
correct there is no question whatsoever that Governor
Meskill was made aware of Senator Gunther's complaint
about both the Downes lease and State leasing practices
in general a week later. On June 1, 1972, Senator Gunther
wrote a letter (a copy of which is annexed to this report
as Exhibit 20) , to Governor Meskill specifically describing
the Downes lease and stating:
"If ray mathematics is correct the State of
Conn, could end up paying $967,500.00 for this
lease over the next 15 years and at that time
elect to purchase the building for $408,000 or
continue to lease at $42,000 per year. This is
a potential outlay of $1,375,500.00 of taxpayers
money. I feel that this is abusive and intol-
erable and because the precedent has been estab-
lished by the previous administration, doesn't
make it right for the present administration
to continue it.
It is my understanding that this lease
is in the final stages of approval and I ask
you to take what steps are necessary to stop
this contract. In addition, I feel a complete
review of any other pending leases, of this
nature, be reviewed and a new sensible policy,
including opening these leases up to public
bid, should be initiated by the Public Works
Dept. on any state building need."
-57-
299
Thus it is apparently undisputed that on June
1, 1972, Governor Meskill knew the State was entering in-
to an allegedly excessive lease with the Downeses, men
who were his own friends and the State Republican Chair-
man's close relatives. It appears also to be undisputed
that Governor Meskill never took any action to review
the Downes lease or any other lease as a result of this
letter.
In a letter to the Leasing Sub-committee dated
December 13, 1974, Governor Meskill made the following
statement:
"While my recollection of what occurred
and what was said at the [May we] meeting
differs from [Sen. Gunther's], it is clear
from Sen. Gunther's testimony and the records
o"f the State of Connecticut that the meeting
took place 4 days after the contract for the
Downes lease was finalized.'^ (Emphasis added.)
In the same vein, the Leasing Sub- committee reports Governor
Meskill telling its staff:
"That since a letter of commitment
was signed and countersigned by May 19,
1972, he felt he was not in a legal posi-
tion to stop this lease after this date
since he considered such a document to
be binding on the parties involved."**
* Attached as Exhibit 21.
** Appendix to Report, pp. 48-49.
-58-
47-704 O - 75 - 20
300
We seriously question this explanation. First,
the law seems clear that the signing of a commitment to
enter into a lease would not make the state liable for
the prospective lessor's profits, and would subject the
State, at the most, to liability for damages suffered
by the prospective lessor in reliance on the State's
commitment.* Since Governor Meskill was aware of
the allegations about the Downes lease only eleven days
after the commitment was signed at the latest, the
State's liability, had it then determined not to go
forward with the lease would have been minimal at most.
Second, we have been told by Meskill 's Attorney
General Robert Killian that the Governor never requested
an opinion from the Attorney General's Office as to whether
the State was bound in any way by the Downes commitment
letter of May 19, 1972.** Nor did he request any guidance,
legal or otherwise, from DPW.*** Since Governor Meskill
knew enough in early 1974 to ask Mr. Killian for an opinion
on whether the partially signed Phoenix lease was binding
* See Attorney General Killian' s opinion letter to
the Governor dated February 22, 1974 on the Phoenix lease,
attached as Exhibit 16. •
** We interviewed Lt. Governor Killian on February
19, 1975.
*** 0\ir interviews with Edward Kozlowski, former DPW
Commissioner, and Edwin Roscoe, Director of Property Man-
agement at DPW, both on February 20, 1975.
-59-
301
(see above, p. 27) , he presumably was aware in 1972 that
he could have asked for such an opinion on the Downes
lease. The fact that he did not ask for an opinion sug-
gests that his reasons for not reviewing the Downes lease
after June 1, 1972 had nothing to do with a belief that
it was, as a matter of law, too late for him to stop the
lease.
(4) The September, 1972 Hearings on the Downes
Lease.
On September 7, 1972, a committee of the State
legislature held public hearings on the procedures followed
in the Downes lease, taking testimony from John E. Downes
and DPW Commissioner Kozlowski among others. The Downes
lease was not actually signed until September 17, 1973.
Governor Meskill took no action against leasing abuses
on the basis of the 1972 public hearina.
(5) Complaints to Governor Meskill about the
Tomasso Newington Lease.
Tomasso's Newington office building lease with
the State was signed on May 17, 1974. On April 25 and 26,
1974, Channel 3 in Hartford broadcast an editorial against
the lease. A copy is annexed as Exhibit 22. We understand
-60-
302
from former Attorney General Killian that in early May
1974, he wrote to Governor Meskill complaining cibout the
lease. We have not been cible to verify the existence
of this letter or of any response by Governor Meskill
because the files are privileged.
Since it appears undisputed that Governor
Meskill never took any action with respect to any of the
Tomasso leases, this Committee should obtain the Killian
correspondence as a basis for further questioning of
Governor Meskill.
-61-
303
CONCLUSION
The facts set forth in this report raise ques-
tions as to Governor Meskill's knowledge and conduct relat-
ing to state leasing e±)uses which demand answer, and we
urge that this Committee cannot properly pass on Governor
Meskill's fitness for high judicial office without itself
investigating the facts by calling witnesses under oath
and compelling the production of relevant documents .
Respectfully Submitted,
Joint Sub-committee of the
Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary of the
American Bar Association and
the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Association of the Bar
of the City of New York
s/ Leslie H. Arps
Leslie H. Arps
s/ Sheldon Elsen
Sheldon Elsen
Edward M. Shaw
Joan Secofsky
William Pollard
Of Counsel
s/ Bernard Nussbaum
Bernard Nussbaum
-62-
304
2
O
-0
■o
-a
-a
-0
-o
-a
T)
-a
<u
0)
(U
Q)
0)
0)
0)
0)
(U
»
>
»
>
»
s
»
>
»
0)
0)
(U
<u
0
a)
0)
0)
(1)
C
•H
•H
-H
■H
■H
•H
•rl
•H
•H
o
^
>
>
^
^
>
>
>
>
■H
n
M
M
M
M
M
+J
(1)
(V
0)
0)
(U
0)
(U
0)
0)
c
10
s
■p
>
»
-p
S
-P
•p
■P
-P
•P
■P
■P
0
Ul
(U
c
0)
(U
c
0)
C
c
c
c
C
C
C
■H
u
•H
•H
•H
•H
•H
•H
•iH
•H
•H
•H
•rl
•H
■H
-p
0)
>
>
>
>
•H
>
V^
0)
>^
u
0)
u
0)
0)
0)
(U
(1)
(U
(U
(0
c
0)
XI
0)
QJ
ja
(D
XI
XI
XI
XI
XI
XI
J3
0
o
4J
-M
+J
•P
a
o
C
o
C
C
o
C
o
o
o
0
0
0
O
CO
-H
+J
-H
•H
■p
•H
■p
4J
4J
-p
■P
+J
■P
•H
0)
Q
c
iH
■a
rH
iH
-o
rH
Tl
-a
-a
-o
-0
-o
-O
0
(0
0)
(0
(C
(U
(0
0)
<a
<u
0)
<u
(U
0)
J3
C
c
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Ch
0
•H
0
O
■H
0
•H
•rl
■rl
•H
•rl
•H
■rl
0)
CO
iH
CO
CO
iH
CO
rH
rH
<-i
rH
r-{
r-i
rH
rH
M
O
u
u
O
u
U
O
o
o
O
o
u
(U
(U
0)
<u
Q)
0)
Q)
0)
(1>
0)
0)
0)
<u
0)
Eh
a<
Q
04
PL,
D
Pn
Q
Q
a
Q
Q
Q
Q
H
Eh
W
hi
^
H
Ui
o
Q
M
Eh
U
<
Eh
O
U
u
hi
o
u
He
o
EH
CO
(1)
(0
z
I~-
\
<D
<N
\
CN
in
»
IT)
in
in
in
r-
ID
I^
t^
r^
r-»
\
C^
\
\
\
\
r-
\
in
a\
VD
<y\
(N
I^
rH
<-{
CM
rH
\
\
\
\
\
\
(N
(N
(N
fN
<N
(N
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
r-
r-
r-
r^
r«
r~
r^
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
00
^
(Tl
00
00
in
^
r^
<-{
<-\
r^
rH
CM
f-\
CN
\ \ \ \
CM (N <N CM
(N
(0
0)
01
rH
•0
(U
lO
c;
CO rH
^
Id
Q) rH
■P
<a
0) 0
3
c
(U
-P u
0)
U
0)
M
o
CO
0)
•H
o
0)
c
3 >i
0
•P
U
>1
0
c
^■r^
<-{
0)
u
(U
•H
•H
c
u
a
c
(0
c
U
CO
fa
• 3
0)
E
c
c
M
U
CO
-o 1
c
W
o c
+J
0
ac
•H
M
PQ g
+j
0)
U (0
u
+J
o
g
0)
O
u
>i
-0
^ H
(0
4-)
P
C
• U
(0
(0
•H
eu
<
+j
0
0
>-\
M
04
?
<:
-a^H
c
u
•H
0
•H rH
x:
>1
M 10
,-\
■P
<u
U
CO
>H
Q (0
H
tji
0)
U
U
>-\
0 x;
H
C
TD
0
>1
CO
■P
C
H
•H
C
0
0
H
IW u
•H
Q)
•H
■p
•p
•H
c
• 0
•H
K
>H
■P
•P
•H
-p
AJ
M
CO
rH
3
g
0
U •H
^
0
H
rH
^
« c
CO
U
<U
(CJ
a
g
u
0) cn
CO
EH
■p
10
(0
CO
M 7
(U
3
u
(1)
0)
o
X (U
(U
O
+J
0
Q)
a>
■P 0
2
U
(^
a;
Q
u
W Oi
s
Q
<:
O::
05
X
CO Eh
Q)
U
C
0)
(U
•o
o
-o
^
•H
c
u
•P
>
X!
0)
cu
(0
•
•
V4
(0
itJ
a,
rH
VH
»
fa
fa
(U
t^
u
P
>i
rH
M
3
0
>i
XI
rH
3
rH
0
(0
fl
a:
c
C
C
Q
•
M
x:
»*
•a
-a
0)
h1
x:
<0
Si
c
Oi
M
(0
+j
■H
(0
<
CO
«»
0
u
0
j:
Q
U
M
c
u
^
c
1^
fa
^
o
kk
<
0
n
^
^
c
0
h)
c
.^
•k
-p
c
CO
0
CO
^
^
^
0
CO
0
^
CO
«.
o
0)
CO
c
CO
CO
CO
^
+J
c
r-\
(0
0)
CO
CO
rH
T)
•H
lU
a)
0)
(1)
M
0)
<-\
J*:
4J
CJi
<-{
M
■H
y.
c
c
C
rH
(1)
M
0)
c
-P
CP
u
10
>
u
»
$
»
^
IJ>
XI
■n
rO
(CJ
■H
ITJ
x:
(0
•rl
0
o
0
0
•o
<
<
CQ
PQ
PQ
(J
u
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
fa
EXHIBIT 1
305
1
0)
■a
0)
»
»
»
0)
TJ 01
0)
0)
•H
c
c
c c
c
a
•H
•H
>
o
0
10 0
0
o
>
>
M
•H
■H
•H
•H
■H
M
U
0)
+J
+J
m 4J
+J
■P
0)
0)
c
•P
S nj
(0
s
S (0
»
(0
»
(0
»
■p
+J
»
»
0
C
(U (0
(0
(1)
0) 01
0)
01
(U
Ul
a)
c
c
0)
0)
•H
•H
•H M
M
■H
•H M
•H
u
•H
M
•H
■H
•H
•H
•H
4J
> QJ
0)
>
> 0)
>
0)
>
0)
>
>
>
■H
0)
M >
>
M
H >
)-l
>
u
>
k
0)
0)
u
i:!i
W
XI
(V C
c
<U
0) c
(U
c
V
c
(U
X]
^
0)
(U
0
■P 0
0
■P
■P 0
+J
0
•p
0
+J
4J
■p
a
0
C 0
o
c
c u
c
o
c
o
C
o
0
c
c
10
-p
•H
•H
•H
■H
•M
•H
-p
4J
•H
•H
•H
Q>
0)
0)
Q)
<u
Q
TJ
rH C
c
r-(
M c
rH
C
fH
c
H
^3
-a
rH
rH
01
(0 0
0
(0
(0 0
(0
0
«J
o
(0
0)
0)
m
(0
C
C £
x:
c
c x;
c
x:
c
x:
c
c
c
c
c
•H
0 a
a
0
0 a
0
04
o
04
0
-H
•H
o
o
rH
Ul 0)
0)
Ul
01 d)
Ul
<u
01
d)
Ul
c-l
H
Ul
01
u
M -H
r-i
u
M -H
M
rH
u
r-t
u
u
o
u
M
0)
0) 0)
i)
0)
0} 0)
0)
0)
Q)
Q)
(1)
(U
0)
Q)
0)
a
04 H
Eh
Ck4
&4 -P
0*
EH
(^
EH
e^
Q
Q
Oi
04
in
in
in
in
rH
Ul
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
Q)
r~
r-
f-
r^
in
(0
u
r-
r~
r~-
r~-
r»
r-
in
r>-
4J
\
W
\
r-
M
10
\
\
\
\
\
\
r-
\
n)
o
o
vo
o
\
0)
+J
•«»•
<T\
<Tv
o
CX5
00
\
00
Q
(N
CM
CM
CM
r~
>
c
CM
H
rH
CM
r-i
•-i
t^
f-\
\
w
\
\
(U
0
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
<N
CM
CM
CM
CM
0)
>
01
0
CN
CM
neral 2
Governor
CM
CM
Q
CM
rH
rH
•H
Ul
(1) <4H
S 0
M U
<N
>
CM
c
•H
0) 4J
O Q)
•H
(U 0
Id
■P
V(
-p
o c
^
C C
-P
c u
10
o
c
(0
5
M O
Ul
s
(0
0 -P
U
■P
4J
Q)
>i c
04
Q)-H
0)
04
+J
■H C
•H
0)
c
(0
CP
a) 0)
Q
> Ul rH
Q
c
Ul 0
(d
5
0)
c
<
C -P
S.2
U
0)
01 U
0)
x:
Ul
0)
0)
U 3
0)
^1
•rl
U
Ul
•rl
H
u
U
01
C/3
0^
0
0 0)
01
(U
6
x:
Q)
0)
g-O
■P
(0
M
c
>l
+J -H
3
C
0 e
Q)
C
u
3 C
•H
0)
04
04
04
-H
o
-p t-q
(0
0
•P o >
0
04
0 «
EH
•p
0)
8
Ul
rH
<
u
•H
u
•H
5)
u
(0
u
rH
«
nj
a
+j
Ul
<-i
M
Ul
0^
0)
+>
0
rH
(U
u c
c
Ul
Q) U
0
01
>i o
w
4J
•H
0)
<u
h^
w
(U 0)
0
•rl
01 (U
4J
•H
0)
•P c
<-\
X
•P
JJ
E U
g
C E
0
2
■p
3 (0
04
n]
01
(0
(0
s
Eh
u u
§
g
3 M
s
3
(0
04 C
o
0)
Q)
4J
+J
04
O
0 3
0
0
0 0
0
4J
Q) •H
o
«
S
CO
(0
Q
P
fe u
o
u
U fa
u
w
Q h
0)
c
(0
•H
>H
an
0)
c
(0
>1
M
U
04
o
M
3
O
0)
CO
XI
(U
•H
rH
4J
■P
O
c
Si
o
o
04
04
3
M
O
0)
O
Q)
U
0)
x:
•p
c
3
c:)
tH
M
m
•H
J=
O
•H
6
o
x:
a
0)
01
o
(U
Ul
rH
a)
■P
u
0)
XJ
o
t>£;
c
o
>
u
o
•0
Id
•H
M
01
»
O
rH
N
O
■P
XI
o
Id
0)
(0
04
5
(d
M
0
0)
w
>-)
o
-p
u
te
^
0
.3
c
(d
c
Id
c
c
u
(d
Id
o
s
s
s
Exhibit 1
306
•0
0)
0)
c
•iH
C!
G
0
>
0
0
•H
M
•H
■H
■p
Q)
^
+J
4-1
c
s
s
(0
s
4J
S
Q)
(a
s
?
s >
(0
»
»
»
0
0)
0)
tn
0)
C
0)
•H
Ul
0)
0)
0) (U
Ul
<U
0)
0)
•H
•H
•H
M
•H
•H
•H
>
M
•H
•H
•H -H
M
•H
•H
•H
+J
t
>
(U
>
>
M
0)
>
>
^^
Q)
>
>
>
•H
M
>
M
(U
U
Q)
>
U
)H
>
M
M
u
W
Q)
(U
c
0)
Xi
0)
•P
c
Q)
0)
0 (U
C
(U
0)
0)
0
•P
+J
0
•P
4J
C
0
+J
+J
-p -p
0
+J
4J
+J
a
C
C
U
C
0
C
•H
u
C
c
c c
U
C
C
c
W
•H
•r-t
■H
+J
•H
•H
•H
•H -H
•rH
•H
•H
•H
<U
0)
0)
0)
Q
r-t
<-t
c
r-i
T)
rH
c
c
iH
H
■H iH
C
rH
rH
iH
(0
(0
0
<a
(U
(0
0
o
(fl
10
n3 (0
0
K]
(0
(0
C
c
J5
c
c
c
£!
£
c
c
C C
j::
C
C
c
o
o
a
0
•H
0
a
a
0
0
0 0
a
0
0
0
(/I
w
0)
Ul
r^
m
(1)
0)
10
(0
en m
0)
Ui
w
tn
u
M
iH
u
o
u
iH
r-l
u
M
u U
iH
u
M
u
0)
0)
0)
4)
(1)
0)
0)
Q)
0)
(1)
0) 0)
(U
(U
0)
<u
P4
(1<
EH
fl<
Q
CU
EH
Eh
a<
cu
a* en
Eh
Cl4
CLi
cu
IT)
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
in
0)
r-
r-
r-
r»
r-
r-
p»
r-
r-
r-
r^
r~
r~
r-
r-
r^
■p
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
— ^\
\
\
\
\
n3
r-i
o
in
m
rH
o
in
in
o
«*
o
in
rH
C^
H
in
Q
CM
fS
<N
r-i
CM
(N
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
rH
CM
CM
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
OJ
(N
CM
CM
CM
(N
CM
CM
<N
CM
CM CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
1
0)
S
0)
en
CU
U
U
H
(0
fi
Q
c
0)
<U
C
o
Id
C
S
C
(0
Id
I4H
^
c
-P
P4
c
S
<o
(1)
<u
0)
u
Q
0
n
•H
0)
■p
as
CO
>i
£
•rH
c
IS
Pn
•■
u
•p
a
U
x:
•H
cu
Cn
Q)
M
0
u
10
Q
H
C
EU
a)
CO
(U
s
(0
rH
•r<
a
■p
CO
3
CT>
+J
u
•H
(0
^
0
(0
u
C
c
Q)
>4H
c
<u
^
(0
0)
U
M
QJ
S
Q)
0)
•H
rH
0
0)
rH
(0
0)
TJ
0)
&
-o
•-i
>
CO
■p
D>
Q)
0)
h^l
•H
c
•H
•
<U
0)
rO
•rl
4H
<
>
s
10
0
^
(0
1^
>
ct:
0)
Eh
0)
OJ
HH
•H
u
M
m
iJ
•rl
tT>
Vh
M
0
rH
CO
0
0
u
rH
M
u
rH
J3
C
Eh
0
r-i
CO
+J
■p -p
0
r-i
0
Eh
Id
a
u
•H
4->
MH
•H
•H
10
u
C
+J
•r-i
4J
■H
CO
•
rH
(U
Ai
g
u
0
QJ
rH
M
rH
•
u
E
Eh
(0
04
(0
•H
CO
P
D
u
e
03
CO
(0
04
(U
)H
8
<a
•
0)
XI
0)
0
T)
•H
Q)
(1)
0)
•
a
0
^A
>
«
u
s
o
W
Q
«
S
cc;
>
Crt
b
<D
u
•
•H
0)
•d
TJ
M
•
•p
•
M
CO
)H
h^
c:
0)
n
1^
CO
•
Id
Id
0)
Id
0
CO
a>
0)
EH
c
£
CU
CO
c
rH
+J
c
0)
g
jC
•
rH
u
0
c
<u
•H
i-H
)H
0)
g
Id
u
0)
<
Vh
^
Q)
x:
•H
•
CO
s
<
(d
M
Id
■H
1
(0
>i
m
EH
H
u
0
T3
3
3
•-3
rH
•k
Ok
X!
U
0
S
U
^
4J
Id
rH
•rl
2
-a
u
0)
«>
«t
u
^
u
cn
hj
^
•H
.^
M
g
c
Id
CO
^
^
0)
•p
3
CO
(0
^
0
(d
M
^
(X
u
(U
m
^
*t
u
»
•H
X
en
E
u
0)
•H
0)
0
0)
xi
c
Id
^
(U
rH
(0
■P
CO
Id
CO
rH
-p
o
Id
■p
u
»
<u
•H
<-l
to
c
CO
s
Id
•H
4J
CO
jC
•H
d)
(U
T)
C
■H
•H
0
3
Q)
x:
O
0
CJ
E
■p
4J
Id
Id
s
s
s
S
o
P4
a<
Oi
«
w
en
en
en
S
oq
Exhibit 1
•
307
THOMAS J. MESKILL
18 HIGH HILL ROAD
BLOOMFIELD. CONNECTICUT 06002
February 10, 1975
Attorney Lawrence E. Walsh
President-Elect
American Bar Association
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, New York 10005
Dear Mr. Walsh:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 3, 1975,
requesting that 1 appear before a committee representing the ABA and the
New York City Bar Association in connection with my qualifications for
appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
As you know, the President, acting upon the recommendation of
the Department of Justice, has nominated me for the Court of Appeals. The
confirmation of my nomination is pending before the Senate. A Subcommittee
of the Senate Judiciary Committee has "held hearings on my nomination and I
have testified before that Subcommittee.
Relying upon what I believe to be sound advice, I think it
would be inappropriate, while my nomination is pending sub judice before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, for me to appear before representatives of any
body other than the Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with the matter
of ray confirmation, over which the Senate has exclusive jurisdiction.
For this reason, I must decline your request and I am so informing
the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Honorable James 0. Eastland,
by sending him a copy of this letter, together with a copy of your letter of
February 3, 1975.
As of course you know, the matter of the leasing policies of
the State of Connecticut has been the subject of an extensive investigation
by a joint committee of the Connecticut Legislature which has furnished its
report to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have volunteered to answer under
oath any questions regarding this or any other matter that the Senate Judiciary
Committee withes to ask me.
Finally, it is a matter of record that I have responded fully
over a period of nearly a year to all inquiries made of me by the ABA pursuant
to the functions entrusted to it by the Department of Justice in connection
with judicial nominations. The reasons for my declining, based on sound
Exhibit 2
308
Attorney Lawrence E. Walsh
•2-
February 10, 1975
advice, to submit to interviews by various local bar associations, including
the New York City Bar Association, were stated by me in my testimony before
the Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 17, 1974
(See Page 40, 41 of transcript). Those reasons I believe are equally
compelling today, now that the Subcommittee has held three days of hearings
and has under consideration the confirmation of my nomination.
Very truly yours,
^^4 /I ^
THOMAS J. MESKlLL ^
TJM/as
cc: Honorable James 0. Eastland
Exhibit 2
309
JOHN •. MUHTMA
NILLIAM M. CULLINA
PONALO *■ niCMriM
•IDMCT o. riNMCr. jm.
I. nCAO MOB^Mt
MMC* •. LVON
JOMN J. NCOAATH
• RANDOM J. MICKCT
• CO^ICV W. NCltON
JOMN C. TAVlS. JR.
MUUVUA. CITI^IiINjV, MICUTWn AJfW IMIOJKY
UNITED BANK & TRUST COMPANY BUILDING
P. O. BOX 3I&7
lOI PEARL STREET
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06I03
TffLCRMONC
(los) •4e-«ftOO
• UIST M. ANOCRSOM
MUOH S. CAMBRCLL
COUMSCL
kRTMUR •. kOCNK
•ARVCT %. LCVCNSON
OA«'ID C. ANOtRftON
TILLARD r. RtNNCT, J
IMOTHT L. LAROAT
''KTCR •. OaLlN
rCTCR L. TRUKRNKR
HUOM m. McAce. JR.
OHM M. OLl*tR
'(LklAM C KCl.LV
• COORT •.ONtOLlA
raANCia j. aRAor
•TKVCN O. RICRCC
February 7, 1975
Lawrence E. Walsh, Esq.
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
Hew York, New York 10005
Re: Angelo Tomasso, Jr. and John J. Lepore
Dear Mr. Walsh: •
As counsel for Messrs. Tomasso and Lepore, I wish to acknow-
ledge receipt of your letter of February 3, 1975 on the letterhead
of the American Bar Association.
There is presently
County an action instit
Tomasso, Jr. and Riverv
the Joint Committee on
Assembly are parties de
matters which are the s
it would be inappropria
with your request while
I am sure you are aware
Leasing of the Joint Co
to your Committee and t
disclose that Messrs. T
at the Sub-Committee he
which was taken under o
neither sought , nor was
in negotiating the leas
State of Connecticut
respectfully decline to
Committee.
pending in Superior Court for Hartford
uted by this firm on behalf of Angelo
iew Realty, Inc. in which the members of
Appropriations of the Connecticut General
fendant. Involved in the action are the
ubject of your letter and, in my opinion,
te for Messrs. Tomasso and Lepore to comply
this action is pending. Furthermore, as
, the proceedings of the Sub-Committee on
mmittee on Appropriations are available
he transcript of those proceedings will
omasso and Lepore were questioned at length
arings. The transcript of the testimony,
ath, will clearly demonstrate that they
any improper political influence used,
es between Riverview Realty, Inc. and the
Accordingly, Messrs Tomasso and Lepore
participate in the investigation of your
Without expressing an opinion as to Governor Meskill's
qualifications to be a Judge of the United States Court of
Exhibit 3
310
/
MUHTUiV, CVLl.lNA,ltlCIITigU ANII PINMKY
Lawrence E. Walsh, Esq.
2 -
February 7, 1975
Appeals, I believe that the investigation of the State of
Connecticut's leasing practices by the Sub-Committee on Leasing
is being misused in the inquiry into Governor Meskill's judicial
qualif icat ions .
Very truly yours.
John S. Murtha
Exhibit 3
311
A. Earl Wood
16 BROADVIEW STREET
NEWINGTON. CONNECTICUT 06II1
afcM;i<t- -'Zwi.atfS cn.rtAj^«A j^ ^"^ g«>^«AnnuJ(^^pu^o»3^0^«^
^inc4- */^*\A. ^t<a*- KAv^v 'Me^ ^-^ Ct,>i!^ix«t hCtia^t^ 'He ^c\>KKn.
Ati^jL- To -%»»»x •
Exhibit 3
312
A. Earl Wood
16 BROADVIEW STREET
NEWINOTON. CONNECTICUT OSIII
0^^ majiY^otA a.5 S cL^ rxir kdc-^-e. <imm Contact ^'"K f^
AX..hIUiJC*^ -^ ^pXursUj^ Q^-^r^ ^^^1^5 ^2^1 f^iiije ^ ♦it .
Exhibit 3
313
Two Rock Spring Road
Stamford, Connecticut 06906
February 14, 1975
Mr. Lawrence E. Walsh
American Bar Association
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, New York 10005
Dear Mr. Walsh:
In response to your letter of February 3, 1975 I must say that it
appears to me that having gone on record in opposition to Governor
Meskill's appointment you now are casting about for reasons to further
delay his confirmation by the United States Senate, Be that as it
may, however, you did discuss four points in your letter and I will
respond to them.
Other than my occasional reading of newspaper articles I have no
knowledge, records, or correspondence regarding any State lease or
purchase of either the Phoenix Building or any properties or buildings
owned by Messrs. Downes or Tomasso. I likewise have no knowledge
of any business transaction between Governor Meskill, his agents,
or employees, and any of the persons listed in your question number 4.
I personally do not now have, nor have I ever had, any financial
dealings either with the Governor or with any other person referred
to in your letter. As you no doubt are aware I was a member of the
Governor's Office Staff from January of 1971 through September of
1973.
On a matter you did not specifically mention in your letter I do
not recall receiving the details of the Downes' lease from Senator
George Gunther in 1972, nor do I remember scheduling a meeting on
this matter between the Senator and Governor Meskill. As I told a
staff member of the Connecticut General Assembly's Leasing Subcommit-
tee, and the Subcommittee of the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee,
I do not dispute Senator Gunther' s claim that such a meeting took
place, I simply have no recollection or records regarding such a
meeting. However, since Senator Gunther made many generalized com-
plaints, particularly concerning Mr. Gaffney, I think it very unlikely
that the Senator would have detailed any concern about Mr. Gaffney,
either to me or to Governor Meskill.
The above both answers all the points raised in your letter and
summarizes my comments before the Leasing Subcommittee, and thus,
particularly since this matter is before the U. S. Senate, which
is governed by rules of fairness and objectivity, no meeting with
your joint committee will be necessary.
Exhibit 3
314
Mr. Lawrence E. Walsh -2- February 14, 1975
I continue, of course, to stand ready to answer any questions which
may be asked of me by the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sincerely yours.
jrely Vours ,
JOHN A'. DOyiE
Exhibit 3
315
We would appreciate the following information:
Mr. Howard Dickinson
60 Griswold Road
Wethersfield, Conn.
1. Phone Number ( ) S ^ J- OjO^
2. Preferred Date, Time /) -^ .,...^;^, ^^
and Place for MeetingC-^:!^^:^' -^^^^ ^ ^
and Place for MeetingV-^-:;}:y '""f , j. !?
Exhibit 3
47-704 O - 75 - 21
316
July 17, 1973 ,
i
The Honoroblo Thomas J. I'obkl I I
Governor
StctG Capitol '
Hartford, Connoctlcut 06115 ■ • . I
Dear Governor tfeoklll:
Tho Board of Trustees voted at Its July ICth meeting ro liavo a
roprosentr.tl vc group of tho total rr.orbershlp of tho 3card ircot with I
yoii as soon as posslbla. Tho purpose of this propo:^cd r.ectlnn would ^^^^"""^
j^bc tliroofold: First, to explore the possibility of pjLjrchns|ng tho t^ \
Phoonix £3ulldin<) for Greater Hartford Cofrnunlty Collcoo, with tho
unc'crstcodinf that for a tir.a part of the space could bo used by
other State unencies. V,'3 understand tho purchase price may bo
considerably lass than it was a few years ago. Socond, to explore
rrcans to rrovo rapidly, to purchase or lenso space for Asnuntuck
Corridunl ty Colicjc. Third,, to review \/lth you the points .raised by '
tho Ccfnrr.lsslon on Institutions of Higher Education of tho Now Eni^lsnd
Association of Schools end Colleges In ccnsldarlnip future accrcditr.ticn i
action for th:.' Cainunity Collencs. V/o had anticipated visits to four .'
of tho Conrrunity Col lenes In 1973-74 for tho purpcso of full accredita-
tion. V/o would 1 1 ko to rr.ol'.o certain all goes \iol\ and tho visits occur
on schedule, (lot to have this occur would be a noodlcss injustice to I
bur students and to the cltJzons of Connoctlcut.
I
The Board numbers selected 1o root with you are ?'rs. Dorothy
Mc'lulty, Mr. Roger Cagley, tirs. Ccryl Strout, and I'r. Vincent Scar.norlno.
If you will have a r-^rocr of your staff let Dr. Soarle Chnrlos, executive
Director, know \/hen these pcrijcrs rray roet with you, he will contact th';-7i.
Of course, feel free to rake arrangcincints directly with them and Dr. Charles,
Sincerely,
HEF/Js
Denry E. Facjen
CliBlrnaii
Exhibit 4
317
Connecticut
Community / 1280 Asylum Avenue
Colleges I Hartford 06105 i^-abh
KEf-^CRAMDUM
TO:. Paul J. Manafort, .Conn issi oner DATE: August 13, 1973
FROM: Searle F. Charles, Executive Director
RE: Comments on Your Memo of August 7, 1973
Reference to objective analysis is different from setting criteria to be
used as guidelines in determining a location for a college and the type of
facilities needed at that location. The Board has had criteria established
for several years. What Paragraph 2 of my July 26th memo refers to Is
using the criteria to make an objective analysis of ths role and function
of each college in its region, not only in connection with the established
criteria for location, but giving specific consideration to particular land
or property costs. In other words. It means determining hovi we 1 1 a parti-
cular site or bulldiro fits the criteria. This needs 1o be done with each
new possibility suggested as a facility or site for a Community College.
This, then. Is a rather continuous process across the state as your agency
and ours explore possibilities for sites and facilities. The criteria and
the functions of a Community College are constant factors, of course; but
how well each new possibility fits the criteria is not.
Early In Its history, the Board of Trustees determined the role and function
of a Community College. In 1971, it consolidated this into a single STatement
(See attached.).
What has not occurred as yet in sgme instances is the reaching of an under-
standing with your staff and that of Finance i Control as to what this means
In regard to certain decisions. Seldom does a site or a building meet well
al I preferred criteria for location of a Community College. Therefore, of the
possibi I i ties aval lab le, we all must determine if a site or a building is at
all suitable; that is, can it receive consideration. Even though poor in ere
or two criteria, it may rank high in another two or three criteria, in sore
regions nosite, for example, might rate well as to land costs. It might rate
well en all the other criteria, and therefore, if the land cost was a fair one
■for that area, it might prove advisable to secure that site.
Paragraph 2 of that memo also says we need to analyze with you and your staff
each particular set of facts for each college and to agree on a line of action
fn the development of facilities, using the criteria already established and
the role and function of Community Colleges as guidelines.
In regard to a priority list (In particular. Greater Hartford Community Col leo*) ,
may I point out wo are asked for priority lists at various times, and In most
Instances are not asked to sort out major Items from minor Items. Further, on
Exhibit 5
318
COf^^lSSIOf^ER MANAFORT _ 2^ - ' August 13, 1973
occasion we have been asked for a priority listing when wo knew no particular
facility was a possibility for a college, and the question posed'was not which
college had the most crucial situation, but what should be accorplished in the
next three months? For exarrple, any time we were asked for a priority listing
between November I, 1972, and July I, 1973, Greater Hartford Community College
would not be listed as Priority I , 2 or even 3 because we were aware of the
negotiations underway about the college; therefore, nofhing more could be done
for the norrent, and priority action for our Board or your staff involved other
colleges until those negotiations were completed. It was fully understood, I
believe, we wouldn't refurbish Sequassen Street or lease PPI or purchase a
building while those negotiations with Travelers were occurring.
If you asked us for a priority listing, with the same definition of prlorlt-/,
at several different times over a year, I believe our priorities would be fairly
constant. V/hen you are dealing with such acute situations as South Central,
Greater Hartford and Asnuntuck Community Colleges, for example, it Is Immaterial
which is given first, second or third priority because they all merit Immediate
attention.
It must be realized also that when certain recommendations of the Board of Trustees
do not become a reality, this changes the priority listing.
I fall to see the meaning of your comment about the Seamless Rubber proposal.
Our Board had previously explored the Rifle Range site and had been forced to
conclude it was not available, plus it rated low on some of the key criteria
set by the Commission for Higher Education for the location of a Cotrimunity
College. The Seamless Rubber project was not an isolated project separate from
Public V/orks. Staff in the Leasi-ng Division spent many hours on this project,
and If Public Works at that time thought it was a bad decision, such should have
been communicated to our Board of Trustees and a decision made not to have
Public Works' staff continue to help develop the project. There was no reason
to perpetuate the project for over six months since, in view of buildings avail-
able and acceptable to the City, It was an unworthwhi le project. In talking with
Commissioner KozlowskI in November, 1972, I did not gather he considered the lease
proposal one unacceptable to him. Obviously, the opportunities changed for con-
sideration once the Rifle Range became available to the Board for consideration,
as well as the Sargent Drive property.
If the Rifle Range had been available In the spring of 1972 to Decerrier, 1972,
why didn't Public Works suggest it? Why did it continue to help develop the
proposal for the Seamless Rubber lease? W.hy did Public Works wait until January,
1973, to present it to our Board? I think the fact is it had not been decided It
was available, and since it was not, the Board couldn't consider it. If it was
available prior to January, 1973, someone should have so Informed our Board.
Your comr«nt about the Windsor site reveals what is common of several comments
by Public Works staff (an exception of Ray Johns is made) in relation to decisions
made by the Board of Trustees, namely, that no consideration is given to the total
facts which went into the decision when it was made. The selection of the Windsor
site In the fall of 1969 was based in part on a study by a consulting firm, yore
than that. It was based on the objectives and careful planning of the Board. It
was based on the decision of the Board to make certain there were no more than
three colleges in the North Central Connecticut population area and the Greater
Hartford population area. It also related to the desire of the Conwlssion for
Exhibit 5
319
^\
CDNWISSIONER W^NAFOm■ - 3 - August 13, 1973
Higher Education to have space for the Hartford Sta^e Technical College and
more space. If needed in The I930's, for the activities of the University of
Connecticut In the Greater Hartford area. The price was reasonable. It met
several of the other criteria, and the decision related to serving the Enfield
area without starting a new CorCTunity College. It also related to having a
downtown center for Greater Hartford Coirmunity College.
The Legislature, along with local pressures, forced a new college for the Enfield .
area. President Banks may have his own personal preference, but that is not a
Board of Trustees' decision. This verifies the fact that the Cepartr.ents of
Public Works and Finance & Control work with the Board of Trustees and its central
office, not directly with a college, on sites. Once a decision is made, then the
development of the site and/or buildings is done directly with the college.
It must also be kept in mind that opportunities vary, and membership on the Board
changes. A price of ten million dollars for a building such as the Phoenix building
Is one thing. A price of six million dollars^ jnrltiHinr] rpnnva+jj3a|, is a decidedly
different situa'tlon. it a Boara or irusrees cannot get other State agencies to
commit themselves to the Windsor site, then it must obviously develop alternatives.
There has been no decision as yet by the Board of Trustees or by the Commission for
Higher Education that the Windsor site is unacceptable for the long-range developi^ent
Into the I980's of post-secondary, two-year, public education in the Greater Hartford
area, and these are the two groups from which your agency must secure decisions, not
from the president of Greater Hartford Community College or from me. Our task is
merely to communicate the decisions made by the Board.
Your comment No. 4 is reasonably accurate, for some legislators and some State
officials active In 1965-66, but nof all. It existed in part because those involved
had no Community College exoerience. In fact, in checking with some of those people
and also while In Hartford as a representative working for faculty for Eastern
Connecticut State College, I heard com,T>ents and knew people were making the assump-
tion about faculty who had never studied carefully as many as a half-dozen Community
College catalogs and who had never visited a Community Collage campus in another
state. They failed to make a connection between what they wrote as legislators for
programs at Community Colleges and this type of required facilities. Also, no
careful consideration was given to the impact of enrollment. For exarple, try to
identify a high school or a conmunity facility constructed in the state as late as
1967 which was designed with the expscration that a Community College could function
In the same building. By functioning, 1 mean the main operation of the college, not
just a half-dozen classes. Now it can be done for a* few years (if accrediting teams
accept it), and it was done, out a high school building built for 1800 students
can't house 900 Community College students as well and have programs adequate for
either group.
Evidence that a majority of the legislators saw the existing community facilities
could not house Community Colleges is revealed in legislative appropriations of
1967 and 1969 for Community College buildings. Seme twenty million dollars were
appropriated for the purchase, construction, or .lease of Community Col lege buildings.
Hence, the original ill-conceived concest soon disappeared, and the realization That
Communlfy Colleges needed their own facilities in a short time after beginning
became a reality. You and I know you can't learn chemistry adequately without
chemistry labs, or biology without a suitable lab, or typing without a tyoewriter,
and that in other areas the use of a library Is essential. Once so many people are
'' Exhibit 5
320
COWl SSI ONER MANAFORT - 4 - August 13, 1973
Involved, what a local high school has is Inadequate. College labs need more
sophisticated equipment. Faculty need better equiprrent to teach at the college
level. Facilities are irrportant to an education, and we all know It. They need
not be elaborate, but they must be adequate.
Your understanding of the function of the Board of Trustees as stated In comment
No. 5 is only partially correct, and it leaves the Board seemingly In a secondary
role rather than a dominant one. The Board of Trustees is the governing authority
for all twelve colleges. It sets policy for these. It also reviews many pro-
cedures each year. The Executive Director, acting under the authority of the Board
of Trustees, Is the chief executive officer of the system. The courses plotted by
the college presidents follow directives and decisions of the Board as to policy.
Obviously, this leaves many day-to-day and operational decisions in the hands of
the presidents.
Example: A new two-year associate degree curriculum must be approved by the
Board of Trustees and the Commission for Higher Education before it can
be started; however, the class schedules and so on are done by the
college once the program is approved.
Exanple: The Board of Trustees determines lines of action to be tal<en about site
and a new facility. A president may, and usually does, suggest possi-
bilities. He helps carry out an analysis of sites or buildings, and he
and his staff will be the educational detail planners once a decision is
made.
Obviously, the Board evaluates because It evaluates the presidents and the operation
of each college, and it also coordinates. Your corwent is lacking in recognition of
the Important role of determining the direction of the colleges, providing basic
policies, reviewing and setting forth key budget decisions, all of which are much
more than evaluating and reconciling.
Our conmunt cations continue to reveal there Is considerable work, thought and input
put Into the Conmunitv College system by our Board related to facilities of which
Public Works staff and other agency staffs are unaware. We have never had the staff
to write a fancy master plan. We attempted to have a master plan approach developec
and were turned down without a second request for money for this In 1970. Much cf
the valuable time and thought spent by Board members and staff can be shared effect-
ively only through direct discussions. We have some written information here which
probably has not been reviewed very carefully by anyone, so we are updating much of
this, and it will be available by early September.
I come back once again to the fact that the most profitable event that can occur
for you and your staff and our Board would be getting a coordinated program going
for the Comnunity Colleges. One or two comprehensive meetings should be held with
everyone giving attention to each college and Its growth potential against Its
present situation. We have the means to do so. Are you wi Ming in September to
attend two afternoon meetings of two or three hours each with members of our Board
to get at the issues and problems that exist? We need to get this done where there
are no phones. We need a set of common background materials to go over the current
situation college by college and to agree on a line of action for each one. If we
do this well, and if we can concur on proposed lines of action, then I believe you
will find less fluctuation In priorities. If priorities do need to be changed,
they will be changed mutually between us when a jointly agreed upon line of action
does not materialize and alternatives become necessary.
Exhibit 5
321
COSWISSIOMER MANAFORT - 5 - August 13, 1975
4
If you will confirm that you are willing to engage in this type of careful
analysis and can give me some dates between September 18-30, 1973, I will arrange
for such tneetlngs'with our Board of Trustees. I believe sincerely this will be
the rost profitable way for us and you and your staff to get a more mutually
understood set of objectives for COmnunity College facilities.
SFC/Js
cc: Gerald J. McCann
Stuart Smith ,!
Exhibit 5 J
I
322
July 30, 1973
Dr. Searle F- Charles
Board of Trustees for Regional
Coc-aunity Colle|es
12S0 Asylom Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut ' ' '.
Dear Dr. Charles: |
•i
In Executive Session at the Conmission for Higher Education ceeting (
on July 27, 1973, a quorum being present and voting, the follov/ing j
resolutions were approved: j
1
Lease, lease/purchase or purchase of the Neecon j
Building in Enfield .for use by .AsnunturV Corrrm' ty I
College. '■
Lease of Cheney Hall, 177 Hartford Road, Manchester,
for use as cafeteria, auditoriun, and faculty
offices by Manchester Coczzunity College.
y^ .Approval to negotiate for tVYef|Durcha5^p<>f the
'''^ Phoenix Building, "t-.'oodl~?.rrd~S\i.eciL, llaL'i.ford,
as a_perr.2nent ca~pu3 site for Greater Hartford
Connunity College.
I hereby certify that these are rrue copies of these resolutioviS.
Due to the pressure of other business, action on the Aldan Danielson
proper-y in Killingly as a site for Quinsbaug Valley Coruiuaity College
was held over to the August 14 meeting.
Sincerely yours,
y .-
WRS:j3 ' 6 ,':■':-;.-■ / . -<;/:.•.• -..•-•_
cc: . Adolf G. Carlson ' W. Robert E:?I'-el-an
Paul J. Manaforc Director
Robert K. Killian
Horace Bro..-n
Alfred Miska
Exhibit 6
323
RESOLVED that the Coranission for Higher Education, subject to its
responsibilities contained in Section 10-38c of the 1969
Supplement to the General Statutes, approves the reconnenda-
tion of the Board of Trustees for Regional Coaanunity Colleges
to authorize their Execu,tive Director to negotiate for the
purchase of the Phoenix Building at the comer of V.'oodland
Street and Asylua. Avenue, Hartford, to serve as a permanent
campus site for Greater Hartford Community College.
il
jl
(i Department of Finance and Control
It is understood that the Department of Public Works will
negotiate for this* property with the approval of the
£JC^
Wa^en G. Hill, Chancellor
Commission for Higher Education
7/27/73
Executive Session
i:
Exhibit 6
*.vr^^
'» «
324
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF REGIONAL COMMUNITY COLLEGES
1280 Asylum Avenue • Hartford. Connecticut 05105 - Telephone: 232-4817
MEMORANDUM
September 5, 1973
TO: Mr. Bradley BIggs,Deputy Commissioner Department of Public Works
FROM: Deputy Director Regional Community Col leges
SUBJ: Greater Hartford Corrmunlty College Facilities
On July 19, 1973, In Executive Session, the Board of Trustees of Regional
Community Colleges adopted the following resolutions:
. Upon motion by Mrs. Strcut, seconded by Mrs. McNulty,
It. was VOTED unanimously to authorize the Executive
Director to negotiate throucn the Department of Public
Works and other interested State agencies for the purchase
of the Phoenix Building located at the corner of Woodland
and Asylum Avenue In Hartford.
A further motion by Mr. Scamporino, seconded by Mr. Traurig,
requested the chairman to apooint Board members to meet with
administrators and State officials for the purpose of discus-
sing the purchase of the Phoenix Building.
On July 27, 1973, In Executive Session, the Commission for Higher Education
adopted the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the Corr-Tilsslon for Higher Education, subject
to Its responsibilities contained In Section IO-3ec of the
1969 SuppleTent to the General Statutes, aoproves the recom-
mendation of the Board of Trustees for Regional Community
Colleges to authorize their Executive Director to negotiate
for the purchase of the Phoenix Building at the corner of
Woodland Street and Asylum Avenue, Hartford, to serve as a
permanent campus site for Greater Hartford Corjr.unity College.
It Is understood that the Department of Public Works will
negotiate for this property with the approval of the Department
of Finance and Control.
/
'>"S:ep K. H. Sunmerer
Exhibit 7
325
Westinghouse Electric Corporation ZtS^., m,
DoraldHMcCannon
President
Cfoatosiing, Leaning & leisure Tims September 7, 1973
Honorable Thomas J. Meskill
Governor of Connecticut
State Capitol
Hartford, Connecticut
Dear Governor:
I have just returned from a meeting in Hartford and I wanted to
bring to your attention an emergent matter.
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges has expressed
deep concern about the facility currently in use by some of our
Regional Community Colleges. The CHE has similar concerns and,
specifically on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on
Accreditation of the Connecticut Council on Higher Education, has
extended the accreditation of Greater Hartford Community College
for a single year (1973-74) with the express understanding that any
extension beyond that period is contingent upon the receipt of sub-
stantial evidence concerning the acquiring of adequate facilities to
be received by March 1, 1974, The premises located at 34 Sequassen
Street were entered into, in the first instance, as a means of becoming
operative with the least possible delay and of affording educational
opportunities to students who might not otherwise be served.
•
On May 31, 1972 the lease was ext^ded by the Public Works Depart-.
m«nt without any approval or concSrrence by the Board of Trustees
or the Commission. At that time, a study was being made of a
proposal from the RenBselaer Polytechnic Institute to share their -
Exhibit 8
326
la».iixcy txi. ZT3 .. indsox otrtci.. Fioni the v^ew ^u^nt oi iaciliticB, *•.
was designed and built for educational purposes and, hence, was
extremely well suited for Community College purposes and there
was the possibility that the entire building might be available. The
location of the facility is excellent being in center -city Hartford,
but for reasons beyond my knowledge or information, approval was
never forthcoming from the Public Works Department. In this
connection, based on my Commission and business experience, the
rcntnl prico waH fnvornblo nnd compctlUvp, honrc, I did nol nurno
with the "rejection" of the RPI property by the Public Works Dept.
Several months ago, the Phoenix Insurance building on Woodland
Street came to our attention and the suggestion was made that it be
secured as a grant from the Travellers Insurance Company. I under-
stood that you attempted to obtain the building on this basis but that,
for corporate reasons, the grant approach failed. It is also my
understanding that there has developed in the last several weeks the
opportunity to purchase this property at a cost of sotnewhere around
$4. 5 million for 235,000 feet or a cost of less than $20. per square
foot. It would cost $1. 5 million to renovate. The square foot cost of
$25. 50 for acquiring and renovating tho property would bo very
favorable when one thinks of what the State is spending to build con-
ventional buildings on a square foot basis, i.e. $40-45. I do not
know how long this facility will continue to be available. While I do
not feel we should rush into the acquisition of any property, I wanted
you to know how seriously the Commission views the current situation
of the college and to seek from you a policy decision to "go or no go"
on this facility before it is lost by default.
Onething further - it is rumored that the Department of Public Works
is considering refurbishing Sequassen Street. I strongly recommend
against this since the result will still be unacceptable from an ed-
ucational point of view and would be a "rat hole" in expending tax-
payers funds.
I would be happy to talk with you on the phone or in person, but urge
an early decision on this important matter. I hasten to add that I
have viewed all of these points from a cost efficiency basis as well
as the educational value involved.
Kindest regards.
Exhibit 8
327
GREATER HARTFORD COMMUNITY COLLT^GE/facility site/McCanroa
Scptcrr.ber IS, 1V73
Donald H. McGannon,' President
Broadcasting, Learning & Leisure Time
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
90 Park Avenue
New York, N. Y. 10016
Dear Don:
It certainly was a pleasure to r«--clvc yw»— letter z£ S-;7''"~*^'* ''
regarding Greater Hartford Conmiunity College.
Mf personal goal is that all of oc community colleges be fully
aacredited, and I have olaced a high priority on finding new faci-
lities for Greater Hartford Comrr.unity College within the city
liznits of Hartford.
I share yoxir concern, and, therefore, I appreciate your interest
in the goals which we have set.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
GOVERNOR
TJM:Bsmr
Exhibit 9
328
/
V^
bcc: SSmlth (8/15/73)
SINATOR NICHOLAS A. LCNOt
Fifth OitTRicr
DitrmcT OrricK
Hall community ccntcn
SO SouTM Main SntKCT
WifT Hunreita. Conn. o*i07
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SENATE
State Capitol
HARTrORO 0SII9
August 10. 1973
Mr. Paul J. Manafort
Commissioner of Public Works
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut
Dear Commissioner Manafort:
>
is
chaiuman
APVROPIIIATlOrill COMH
KLCCTlONt COMHITTIZ
■ovirnmint administration
AND ROLicv cOMMirrcc
PURLIC PCRRONNKL AND
HtLrrARY APPAIRR COMMITTtI
TRAMRFORTATION COMMITTtI
The Education Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee this
week voted to request your assistance in viewing and evaluating the~Phoenix
building located at the southwest corner of Woodland Street and Asylum Ave-
nue.
Will you kindly make arrangements for an on-site tour and inspection
for 8:30 a.m. on September 11. 1973.
In addition, the Subcommittee will meet in the Appropriations Com-
mittee room at 2:00 p.m. on September 13. 1973 for the purpose of evaluating
this structure and the housing problems of constituent units of the community
college system.
You are invited to attend this meeting and the Subcommittee will be
most appreciative of whatever help and guidance you can give it. .
Sincerely,
Nicholas A. Lenge
NAL/lc
Exhibit 10
§2
I Director
I CI-: •( .--jc:"! Oft.
Construciiort
Note
i^ I Contract
: Ed fc Tpiif: Keep you
' ' I *r ■ ' I II ' n
IX Admin.^rif!^"^-"
Des. &_Rev.
EnR.
! Equip.
Estim. a
I didg. t Ground i cc'on
IZxZ
— .fcnr-rhrs
OiTicer
_L
No. of Copies
329
PAUL J. MANAFORT
COMMISSIONER
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DCPARTMCNT OF PUBLIC WORKS
HADTFORO. CONNICTICOT
.^
rr
August 15, 1973
To: Mr. Stuart Smith
Dear Stu:
Comr. has accepted the attached request for'
his assistance and scheduled his calendar
accordingly.
Please give him your input before we go
too far along with this.
CHAIRMAN
AF^ROFRtATIOriB CeMMITTtK
MCMSSn OF
CLCCTIONS COMHtTTEZ
SeVfnNMCNT AOMINfST»i.TION
AND POUICV COMMITTH
HUMAN RIOMTa AND
e^FORTUNITIKS COMMTTTH
FUSLIC FCRfOHNCL AND
■tlLITART AFPAIAS COMMITTM
IHAMSrOSTATION eOMHITTtS
Regards.
Sue
3ns Committee this
iluating the~Phoenix
eet and Asylum Ave-
ite tour and inspection
appropriations Com-
! purpose of evaluating
.lits of the community
41 JVCRHILL AVINUC
NL.. ■■■TAIN. CONNKCTICUT OSOSI
ubcommittee will he
1 give it.
Nicholas A. Lenge
NAL/lc
~"
<«>
r-
o»
0
5
eo
a.
C9
5
<
-^
v^l^Commissioner
Ocp. Comm.
Ex. Aide
Director
Cl-i •( r,--c:\ oil.
b^^ote; Ed & Tpnff Keep your
i/^ I Contract I vX Udmm.'-.FiW-":^''^ '
Contract_
Des. &_ReVi
Eng.
Equip.
Estim.
.t 1. ■ r.^..j
■^
Ojf.??r
J_
_L
No. of Copies
Exhibit 10
330
■ >i»n C. B>>>)<*
'~ JAMB* M.*>a>MT0»4
Day, Berry & Howard
COUNSCLLORa AT LAW^
ONE CONSTITUTION PtAIA
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT Oei03
TCLCPHONC (203} 278-I330
August 29, 19 73
okcerr «. •■•*■•
MOSKMf •.TiTwft
PMWk P. Haa^tMKl*
QCO*a« ■•»•«•
HOHAkb I. •■•«««
MOBCVT • »■»«•■■
fH«HM»« C (MNKta
■ BmUmB •■ »■■
TMttM** •. m^tHM
»e»iHr **. vtOMM
TMOMAK O. CtkW.JB
HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Laurence Stem
J. Watson Beach Real Estate Co.
750 Main Street
Hartfor<J, Connecticut 06103
^ AUG 29 1973 ^-^
Dear Mr.: Stem:
Our clients, Harry A. Gampel and Allan Schaefer, desire to
obtain a 120-day option to purchase for a price of $4,000,000
cash all of the land and buildings situated on the southwest
corner of the intersection of Woodland Street and Asyli;un Avenue
in Hartford, which premises were formerly occupied by the Phoenix
Insurance Company and are now owned by The Travelers Insurance
Compeuiies or an affiliated company. I understand that yoiir firm
is acting for the owner of these premises in connection with the
sale thereof.
We would like to meet with you and your principal at your
early convenience to discuss this matter and work out the
necessary arrangements. I would appreciate it if you would call
me so that we can schedule such a meeting.
Very truly yours.
.Oau'^^AvCH .CuiliLi
WHC: jw
William H. Cuddy \
Exhibit 11
331
/SO Mom SUetl, Suil» J 102. Hoitlord, Conneclicul. 06I0J/Tel. 203-547J550
HENRI M. DAVID/Chairman and President
AURENCE STERN/Director and Vice President/lnvesltnenl Department
RAYMOND T. PUGH/Oirector and Vice President
WfSr HAHTFOHO OnJO/
201 2]t S94d
FARM/NGTON VALtEr OFFICE
195 WtSr MAIN SrsEET, AVON 06001
20J-52S-0a3a
LircHFiELO couNry office
ffOUrC 4. HARWINTOH 06790
J03-4B2-3716
August 30, 1973
HAND DELIVERY
The Travelers Insurance Company
1 Tower Square
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Attention: Mr. J. Thomas Montgomery, 2nd Vice
President Real Estate
Re: ■ Sale of 49 and 61 Woodland Street, Hartford,
■ Connecticut
Dear Mr. Montgomery:
It is with pleasure I submit the enclosed offer on
the caption property for $4,000,000 from Messers.
Harry Gampel and Mr, Allan Schaefer.
As explained, there is an urgency factor; and we
look forward to your reply at the earliest possible
moment.
Sincerely yours,
J. WATSON BEACH REAL ESTATE CO.
JTi-iARfSnce Stern
Director and Vice President
Investment Department
LS:el
Enclosure
sin 81* jJOHiBS/ 0"<"«' Honlora / Country Estolsi / Land Coniuleonis / Apprailoli / Fo/nn
Exhibit 11
47-704 O - 75 - 22
332
p(k*H r o<tn>
..............
»«k«|B » MtOlt. J*.
■ HAObaa ■ *'tC
* •••«••> -O--.*©"*. J".
w>kkt«a •»■■■ (■*•!»
IftAAC V. *V«*t^k
Day. Berry Si Hovv-ard
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
ONE CONSTITUTION PLAtA
HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06103
TCLC^MONC (>03) 27»-l330
»kCST« fk •*HTa
*0*ftkO K. •••«•»
•>«v<» I. ■*««
Septeniber 18,' 1973
m. waa •■•»v*m,H
I
Mr. Laurence Stem
J. Watson Beach Real Estate Co. '
750 Main Street
Hartford, Connecticut
Re: 49-61 VZoodlcind Street, Hartford, Connecticut
Dear Larry:
May I present to you as the agent for the Travelers which
we understand is the ov/ner of the above land and buildings
the following offer to purchase the same:
1. The purchase price is $4,500,000 payable in cash or by
bank or certified check at transfer of title;
2. There will be no down payment during the period of adverti-
sing by the State for the Greater Hartford Commionity College
or during the period of lease negotiations with the State
thereon, both of which shall be completed on or before 120
days after your acceptance of this offer and upon written
State commitment to lease from our client on terms satis-
factory to him, a $250,000 cash or certified check deposit
will be made.
3. The transfer of title shall be made within six months after
the date of the State commitment to lease and no later than
300 days after your acceptcnce of this offer, and our client
would ask the privilege of setting the precise closing date,
time cind place.
4. The buyer shall have the right to make renovations during
the aforesaid six months' period.
Exhibit 12
333
Mr. Laurence Stem
Page 2
September 18, 1973
5. Title will be transferred by warranty deed free and clear
of encumbrances except current taxes and title raay be taken
in the name of Allan Schaefer, Harry Gampel or their nominee
or nominees.
6.. All contents, fixtures, heat, air conditioning and other
personal property located on ernd used in the operation of the
building on the above premises shall be included in the sale
and shall be in working order at the time of transfer of title.
7. All adjustments of taxes, water, fuel, etc. shall be made as
of and at the time of transfer of title and in accordemce with
the recommendation of the Hartford County Bar Association.
8. Occupancy shall be given upon transfer of title and the
premises shall be broom clean.
9. The risk of loss from the date of your acceptance of this offer
through transfer of title shall be upon the seller.
10. All assessments or other liens upon the premises at the
time of transfer of title or voted and effective at that
time shall be borne by seller.
11. Title shall be marketable and the Standards of Title of the
Connecticut Bar Association shall govern as applicable.
12. . J. Watson Beach Real Estate Co. is recognized as the agent
on the transfer herein contemplated.
13. Because of publicity thus far, we must ask that this offer
be held in secrecy between you, the Travelers and ourselves
. eind not revealed in any particular to tliird parties.
14. Time shall be of the essence hereof and this agreement shall
be binding upon our undersigned principal, the Travelers
and their heirs, executors and successors.
May I ask for acceptance or rejection of this offer on or
before 12 noon, September 28, 19 7 3 and if it is accepted, that
Exhibit 12
334
d ,Y„©Er<nY S Howard
Mr; ^.Laurence Stem
Page 3 . _
September is, 1973
the Travelers _sign. the enclosed copy hereof and return it to
me. • . ... .. , - , . .- •• • . ; ■ -_".;'"..
I S.'. - . . T •- .
Very truly^ yours,
: Richard Rockwell
RR:jw
I authorize and agree to
be. bound by the foregoing.
Exhibit 12
335
LEASE
This lease made and entered Into as of the <<-''^h day of January.
197A by tmd between the S & C Company, a Connecticut partnership, acting herein
by /.].lan Schnefcr and Harry Ganpcl, both of the Tovm of West Hartford, County
of Hnrtford and State of Connecticut, hereinafter called the Lessor, and the
State of Connecticut, hereinafter called the Lessee, acting herein by its
Conaissioner of Public V.'orks, Pavd J. Manafort, pursuant to Section A-12S of '
the General Statutes of Connecticut, as amended, vdth the approval of th":
Board of Trustees for -Regional Community Colleges, the Commission on Higher
Education, the Commissioner of Finance and Contro], and the Attorney Goner.il.
WITNESSETH:
The parties hereto, for the consideration hereinafter set forth,
covenant and agree as follows:
1. DEMISED PREiMISES: Lessor hereby leases vanto Lrr.r.cc that c-jrt-. 5ji
piece or parcel of lan^ together with the buildings and inprovcncnts thereon,
citu'ited at i^9-6l Woodland Street in the City of Hartford, County o" y.-TtiorC
end i3t&te of Connecticut. Said premises consist of approxiinetcT:; fifteen (1$)
ccror. of land and are nore particularly bovuided and described as set i'crth en
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
2. TIMS FOR PERP0PJ"L-J:CI:: (a) The I,essor shall deliver ccid
buJldings and site improvements, if any, ready for the install:^ tion cT
furnishings and eqtiipmcnt by the Lessee on or before August 15, 1*^74.
(b) Said date shall be extended by such periods of tiro as
alterations of said building are delayed by labor disprutec, fire, unucu:!. delcy;
in transportation or unavoidable casualties beyond the Lessor's control, pro-
vided that the Lessee agrees that the extension of time is for s. good and
valid reason and is not caused by the acts or omission of the Lessor.
Exhibit 13
336
3. LE-\SE TERM AND PATdlAL OCCUP/JICY: (a) The terra of this lease
shall be a period of twenty-five (25) years beginning on the date to be set
forth in a CERTIFICATE OF COMHENCEMOiT OF LE/.SE, to be executed by the parties
hereto and to be recorded in the Land Records of the City of Hartford. Scld
Certificate shall be executed within ten (10) days after final acceptance of
the premises by the Public Works Department and the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy by the City of Hartford.
(b) Prior to said date, Lessee may, at its option, take early
partial occupancy of any area of any bxxilding where work is completed and p-y
a pro-rata share of the monthly rental. Said partial occupancy will be on c
month-to-month basis only but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as
contained herein.
A. RENTAL RATE: The rental rate for the premises which are the
subject of this lease shall be One Million One Hundred Four Thousand anri !:o/lOO
Dollars ($1,10^,000.00) annually, payable in eqioal monthly installments of
Ninety Two Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($92,000.00) during each month of the
lease tr;rm. Rent for a part of a month shall be pro-rated.
5. FACILITIES FURinSHED: (a) The Lessor shall furnish and pay for
under the terms of this lease, as part of the rental consideration the following
initial alterations; roughing in, including stub-ups; closing connections for
ell required utilities to make all equipment and furnishings operable;
^
/. >
architectural dravdngs; engineering services and paved, striped, light en, on- "«
site parking for 1.000 cars as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto^r.d •|C\
made a part hereof as though fully incorporated herein. Lessor shall nJcve^J"' />
existing equipment, incl\iding connection and reconnsction for the svm of
517,850.00.
(b) Lessee shall furnish and pay for: all utilities and services
it deems necessary for its use and occupancy including, but not limited to, heat;
electricity; gas; water; janitorial service, including window washing; snow
removal; groundskeeping ; rubbish removal; watchman service; interior and exterio
loaintenance, repairs and /or replacements of non-structural items. .••.■'.
(c) In addition, Lessee shall furnish and pay for oil furnishings
fXimlture, equipment and other property that may be necessary to operate the
buildings for the purpose intended except that existing equipment that may^_be
(provided for. In Para»^aph 5(e) above ^
Exhibit 13
337
6. PUVUS AND SPECIFICATIONS: (a) After execution of the lease and
bofore conmencing alterations, the Lessor will submit vrtthiu ten (10) uorklnc
days, three (3) copies of the existing floor plans which shall be prepared by
a Connecticut Licensed Architect and bear his seal.
(b) It is the intention of the parties that the alteration
construction vdll take place in steps. The plans for the aforesaid alterations
shall be submitted ift steps, in triplicate to the Public Vforks Department and
five (5) working days will be allowed for review. If the aforementioned plans
db not meet the approval of the Public Vtorks Department, they shall be returned
to the Lessor, together with the reasons for disapproval, set forth in writing.
If disapproval- is not received within twenty-four (2^) hours of the end of the
review period as set forth above, said plans shall be deemed to have been
approved. In the event of disapproval, the Lessor shall make necessary changes
withiji five (5) workijig days of its retvim of the written reasons for its dis-
approval .
(l) Quality Standards
All such work shall be performed in a thoroughly first
class, workmaalike maimer j shall be in good and usable con-
dition at the date of completion thereof; and shall be
guaranteed by the Lessor to be free from any and all defects
in workmanship and materials for one (l) year or the period
of time which customarily applies by good contracting practice
in the State of Connecticut. The Lessor performing any
alteration work shall be responsible for and shall repair or
replace, in a thoroiighly first class, workmanlike manner and
without any additional charge, any and all work done or
furnished by the Lessor or any of its subcontractors, employees,
servants, agents, or otherwise, vrtiich shall be or become
defective idthin one (l) year (or such longer period as
cxistomarily applies by good contracting practice in the State
of Connecticut) after substantial completion of the work
(aikl of which written notice is given to such person
within said one (1) year or longer period) because of
faulty materials or workmanship and the corrections, as
Exhibit 13
338
aforesaid, of any such nitter shall include, vdthout
additional charge therefor, all expenses and damages in
connection with the removal, replacement and/or repair in
a thoroughly first class, workmanlike manner of any other
part of the work which may be damaged or disturbed thereby.
All warranties or guaranties as to materials or workmanship
on or with respect to the Lessor's work, shall be contained
in the contract or subcontract and shall be so written that
they shall iniire to the benefit of the Lessor and the Lessee,
as their respective interests may appear, and can be directly
enforced by either, and Lessor covenants to give to Lessee
any assignments or other assurances necessary to effectuate
the same. All work shall be performed in accordance with
applicable State and local building, fire, health, and safety
codes, laws and ordinances.
7. RISK OF LOSS: Prior to and during the term of the lease. Lessor
shall assume all risk of loss from fire, natural disaster or other casuiQty to
said buildings and improvements. During the lease term, the Lessee shall asstme
the risk of loss from said causes to all items of fvimiture and equipment.
8. LESSEE'S RIGHTS POLLOV/ING CASU/iTY: In the event that all or any
portion of the premises are destroyed by fire, natural disaster or other
casualty, the lease shall continue in full force and effect, but there shall be
on abatement of rent for that portion of the premises rendered untenantable unti!.
[such time as it becomes tenajitable. If a portion of the premises is rendered
[untenantable by a casualty loss, Lessor shall restore it to a tenan table
condition within a reasonable time, which t.ijne shall be detcruined by the
Public Works Commissioner. In the event that the Lessor fails to accomplish
such restoration within such time, the Lessee may make such restoration and
peduct the cost from the rent.
Exhibit 13
339
9. LESSEE'S RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT ALTERATI0JI3 : The Lessee may, at its
own cost and expense, at any time during the lease term, make any alterations
or improvements on the premises that it desires without the permission of the
Lessor provided that the same are made in a good and workmanlike manner. The
Lessee shall provide the Lessor with notice of commencement of alterations and
a written description of the alterations to be done.
10. RIGHT TO SUB-LET: Lessee may sublet all or any part of the
buildings, or assign this lease*, but shall not be relieved from any obligation
hereunder by reason of any such subletting or assignment. Lessor will not
encumber or cause or permit said buildings to be encumbered by any lien .
4^ r^^
V\
whatsoever except a first mortgage. f/lJ^uV-^ ' ***-tl4
11. SUBORDINATION OF LE;5E: Lessee will subordinate this lease to
'' ■ " • ^v^.
any first mortgage placed upon said buildings by Lessor, if such is reauested
by Lessor. Lessor covenants and agrees that it will duly pay each and every
reg\ilar installment of interest and principal under the terms of the mortg-ge,
if any, and will not do, suffer, or permit any act, condition or thing to occur
which would or may constitute a default thereunder, except to the extent that
any failxire so to pay or any such occ\irance shall have resulted, directly or
indirectly from a default by Lessee (including the failure of Lessee to pry
rent).
12. CONTROL ;j^D POSSESSION OF LE/^ED PREMISES: During the tern of
this lease, Lessee shall have exclusive control and possession of said
buildings and Lessor shall not be liable dviring the term for injury or death
of ajiy person or for damage" or loss of any property on or about the preTaises,
excepting, however, claims and demands, whether for in.jviries to persons, cr
loss of E.fe, or damage to property caused by acts or omissions of Lessor.
13. ENCUMBR.^2>JCES : Lessor will keep said premises free and clear of
any and all mechanics liens or attachments arising out of the alterations or
improvements which the Lesser may he obligr-'ed to make under this lease. If
the Lessor fails to make any repaii', alteration or improvement which he is
obligated to make hereunder, the Lessee may do so and deduct the cost thereof
from the rent.
Exhibit 13
reevaluation or the establish-
340
H. T.'JIES: The Lessee shall pay as additional rent during the term
of the lease any real estate tax increases which occur after taxes established
on the Grand List of Jvily 1, 1975. Conversely, and in like manner, tax
decreases shall be credited to the Lessee's rent account, hrovided, hov/evcr,
that if the City of Hartford has not completed its general reevaluation (v/hich
was originally due in 1972) prior to July 1, 1975, the Lessee shall not receive
the benefit of FJiy tax decreases caused by such reeva;|.T^tion or the establish
nent of the first mill rate on such reevaluated list
The Lessee shall not be obligated to pay Lessor for any increase in
real property taxes on the property herein demised which res\ilt from an increase
in the real property assessment unless the Lessor gives written notice by
certified m::iil to the lublic V/orks Comnissioner within fifteen (15) business
days of the notice of said increased assessment.
The Lessee shall have the right to appear before a Board of Tax Kcview
or eimilar administrative body and to appeal from any decision thereof and to
contest in its pjid/or Lessor's name, but at its own expense, any levy of or
assessment for real property taxes on the subject premises; and at the Lessee's
request the Lessor shall execute such doctiments, make such &}.;<. -ranees, and/or
comply \d.th any reasonable request of the Lessee in connection with any such
appeal.
Following payment by Lessor of any installment in a tax year for which
Lessor is entitled to reimbursement for tax increases as provided herein, Lessor
nnist present copies of receipted tax bills within ninety (90) days in order to
be entitled to reimb\a*sement..
15. OPTIONS TO FURCHJi^E: Lessee is hereby given the absolute right
and option at the end of the first lease year, or at the end of the second least
year, or at the end of the fifth lease year, or at the end of the tenth le:ise
year, or at the end of the fifteenth lease year, or at the end of the twentieth
lease year, or at the end of the twenty-fifth lease year to purchase all said
buildings and improvements upon payment to the Lessor of the a'ppropriate
foUowing lump sum amount:
Exhibit 13
341
At the end of the first lease year the purchase price shall be
Eight Million Five Hundred Sixty Thousand and No/lOO Dollars (t8, 560,000.00).
At the end of the second lease year the purchase price shall be
Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand and No AOO . Dollars ($8,500,000.00).
At the end of the fifth lease year the purchase price shall be
Eight Million Three Hundred Eighty Thousand and No/lOO Dollars (58,380,000.00).
At the end of the tenth lease year the purchase price shall be
Eight Million and No/lOO Dollars- ($8,000,000.00)
At the end of the fifteenth lease year the purchase price shall be
Seven Million Six Hundred Thousand and No/lOO Dollars ($7,600,000.00).
At the end of the twentieth lease year the purchase price shall be
Six Million Fo\ir Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand and Ko/lOO Dollars (£6,^5,000.00)
At the end of the twenty-fifth lease year the purchase price shall be
Fbur Million Five Hundred Thousand and No/lOO Dollars ($4,500,000.00).
Conditions precedent to the exercise of any option by Lessee are that
all rental payments due hereunder shall have been paid. The Lessee shall give
thirty (30) days notice in writing to the Lessor indicating its intention to
exercise said option. It is vinderstood and agreed that the complete exercise
of said option Is conditioned upon funds being appropriated for this purpose
by the General Assembly and allocated by the State Bond Commission. Upon the
delivery of the aforementioned notice the Lessee may tender the lump sum payment
pivjvided hereimder within one (l) year from the mailine of the aforesaid notice.
In the event Lessee exercises said option as herein provided. Lessor
shall forthwith execute a Warrantee Deed, free and clear of all encumbrances
as set forth in the Standards of Title, Connecticut Bar Association, Revision
|of 1963.
Exhibit 13
342 ^
16. DELINQUENT RENT: I'jssor ugrees that if any rental inctallnent
shall be due and unpaid for fifteen (15) or more days after its duo date, such
non-paynent shall not constitute a default in the terms of this lease without
prior thirty (30) days written notice to the Public V/orks Commissioner of the
State of Connecticut of such non-payment.
17. OV/NERSHIP: Ho chance in ownership, shall be binding upon the
Lessee unless eind until the Lessee has been furnished either with the origincil
instrument evidencing such transfer or a true copy thereof.
18. NOTICES: Notices fron Lessee to Lessor shall be sufficient if
delivered to Lessor or if sent by telegraph or if placed in the United States
Kail addressed to Lessor at 750 Ifcin Street, Hartford, Connecticut. Notices
from Lessor to Lessee shall be sufficient if posted in the United States >Iail,
Certified 14ail, postage prepaid, addressed to the Commissioner, Public VJorks
Department, State Office Building, Hartford, Connecticut.
19. NOTICE OF LEASE: The Lessor shall execute a Notice of Lease
and at Lessors expense i^cord this Notice of Lease in the proper recording
office and provide evidence of same to Lessee.
20. PRIOR AGREEl^ENTS: No prior stipulation, agreement or understand-
ing, verbal or otherwise, of the parties hereto or their agents, shall be
valid or enforceable unless embodied in the provisions of this lease or
incorporated herein by reference.
21. SURVIVAL OF AGREEMENT: This agreement shall be binding upon
and shall Invire to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs,
successors, and assigns.
22. NON-DISCRIMINATION: The Lessor agrees and warrants that in the
performance of this contract he will not discriminate or permit discrimination
against any person or group of persons on the grounds of race, color, religion,
national origin or physical disability, including, but not limited to, blindness
unless it is shown by such Lessor that such disability prevents performance of
the work involved in any manner prohibited by the laws of the United States or
of the State of Connecticut, and further a^ees to provide the commission on
human rights and opportunities with such information requested by the commissibn
concerning the employment practices and procedures of the contractor as relate
to the provisions of this section.
Exhibit 13
343
ThlB lease is subject to the provision of Executive Order No. Throo
of Governor Thomas J. Mcskill promulgated June 16, 1971, and, as such, this
Lease may be cancelled, terraijiated or suspended by the State Labor Commissioner
for violation of or noncompliance with said Executive Order No. Three, or any
State or federal law concerning nondiscrimination, notwithstanding that the
Labor Commissioner is not a party to this Lease. The parties to this Lease,
as part consideration hereof, agree that said Executive Order No. Three is
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. The parties agree to
abide by said Executive Order and agree that the State Labor Commissioner shall
have continuing Jurisdiction in respect to contract performance In regard to
nondiscrimination, until the lease is completed or terminated prior to
completion.
The Lessor agrees, as part of the consideration hereof, th-t this
Lease Is subject to the Guidelines and Rules issued by the State Labor
Commissioner to implement Executive Order No. Three, and that it will not
discriminate In its employment practices or policies, will file all reports as
required , and will fully cooperate with the State of Connecticut and the State
Labor Commissioner.
IN V/ITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and
seals the day and year above written.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered
in the presence of:
THE S & G COMP;Jrt
itness
By: ^
V/itness: / as Allan Schaefer
/
/
to
both By:
A Partner
Harry Gampel
Signatures A Partner
Exhibit 13
344
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Witness :
^y:^
T/ltness : '
'-^^f^
Paul J. Minufort
Its Public V/orks Commissioner
Duly Authorized
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
COUNTY OF H-yiTPORD )
) 8s. Hartford
r/f-;
On this the '^ day of January, 1974., before me, Edwin A. Roscoe,
the undersigned officer, personally appeared Allan Schaefer, of the Town of
West Hartford, who acknowledged himself to be a Partner of the S & G Conpany,
a partnership, and that he, as such Partner, being authorized so to do,
executed the foregoing instrximent for the piu-poses therein contained, by
signing the name of the partnership by himself as Partner.
. In witness whereof, I hereunto set ay hand and official seal.
Edwin A. Roscoe
Commissioner of the Superior Co\irt
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) 8s. Hartford
COUNTY OF H/JITFORD )
On this the '.'■' day of January, 1974., before me, Edwin A. Roscoe,
the undersigned officer, personally appeared Harry Gampel, of the Town of
Wect Hartford, who acknowledged himself to be a Partner of the S & G Company,
a partnership, and that he, as such Partner, being authorized so to do, executed
the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained, by signing the
name of the partnership by himself as Partner.
In witness, thereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
f - '.
Edwin A. Roscoe
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Exhibit 13
345
STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) Bs. Hartford
COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
On this the ' "^ day of , 197iV, before me Dorothy Naef,
the undersigned officer, personally appeared Paul J. l^nafort of the State
of Connecticut, knovm to me to be the person described in the forecoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same in the capacity therein
stated and for the purposes therein contained.
In witness whereof, I herevmto set my hand and official seal.
Dorothy Naef
Notary Public
Ify Commission Expires:
March 31,. 1975
APPROVED BY:
^fUJ 7 ^A.^./c^
Board ofT^stees for Regional Community Colleges
date
i/^'JlH
APPROVED BY:
-Trt
^^•>/
date
I' -<ij 7
J
<■*<•
Coimission for Higher Education
n
APPROVED BY
: ^^^li IJitriU'^
Departmeht of Finance and Control
date /
k\/7V
I APPROVED BY:
Attorney Generid, State of Connecticut
Exhibit 13
date
346
.■:; .•.;. ii;!U:i!t
■I
("!:.;i:i: Lit >;:i.^ ^;i;:L:i-:r C
■febiraary 8, 19/4
'£>.>-. '.lonorsbls Ihoaas J. May'^ill
Co-.'2rnor
i:;2cutit/a Ch.ir.jjrs
>U:.-::forii, Ccnri'icLicut 05115
Uiar Governor y.es'.cill:
, ■•
K.'.cioasd is a copy of ii propDsad "Laa-js" to tha State o.f pcojarty ai 42-SX V'oo-Iland
Siri-i?f in Hartford (Lha foirmsr Phornix Building) fron; tUi 3 i G Co.
This "lease"'"provtdes for an annual rental of $1,104,000, with aa ootioa to purcaaa^i
for $3,560,000 at the end of t'aa firs.-, yaar, $8,500,000 after th-; si^oni year,
$3,330,000 aftir the fiftii year, and dicJiaing rraou.uts f-ircaf t-ir.
l.'s ^i.a iafortiid that tha ijroperty was available foj piircUaii: by t;iii Stats in 1073
d!.i.--ictly froa Trav2l£/:s lasMtanca Co:ap:!ny, its o-.,aa- at tbat tin'.-i, ioc $4,500,000 —
sVl^/litiy over r.ilf thu first optica prica in the "icasa," and aboul: oni-si;:th of taa
a-jr.i^eta rental paynanto of $27,600,000, if tho "Iciasti"' rvias it-3 full tdm.
f;:.:taer.:}ora, this Jocuiriir'.--: is not a final and binding icasa - it is a cjatrrictual
co'-..-;J.C3iat to enter iii::o a laasa on couplation of tl'.s i_La'-;p'-icifiad altar. itions callad
fo-.: hy this doci^iat and aacsptaaca of ttia prenis-23 by tVia Public Wo.-Icg .Oepartaaat.
Tli.lo contractaal arraaj;':i22at rais^a q-^astions of policy which in i^y judyi^nt i/arrant
yoir parsonal raviet/. C".r r^-.'iev oC'tlia statutory cutl-.ority of t'na Public. Works
C'o.Tii-'.isciionar to a:-:ecuta this' contractual cocxnaat v/it'-oac: thi apsci Cic o.pprcval of
tha Canaral ^Vssaiibl}' is continuing.
Yci should ba advi.^.ad that our offj.ca is; biinj; .<;'ibj'ict.>l to ivitensi: d.Hily prar.sure
f n: -. the Tublic '..'orlci Cc.-.-jr.iesioncr and hij staCf to j;iv.i our ir^r.adiata apnrnval of
thii; docucant nof:'./ithatandin- th.a pra-Geiicj of still uiirasol'/ad Iti^al -;u£3tion3.
S inccroly,
\ . ..- -/
/
Robart K. iliilian
A'^tornay Clj-a.iral
r'-.i':foJ
line .
<:••.•; n^'norablo Pa'ai >!anifo,-t
Exhibit 14
347
TilOMAa J, MEISKILL
STAT':; OF-' CONN~CTfCUT
E >: tccu T! V -: cH A"-' 3 ^«^s
Fetn r-uii"'/ Z i , 1 9"'-
The Hor.oraDle Robert K. Killian
Attorney General
State of Connecticut
30 Trinity Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
Dear Mr. Attorney G^aerai:
Tliank yoa for yo".r letter of Fcihririry S, 1974 with th^
enclosures regai-ding tlie proposed lease of the lovrnsr PlioenLc
Building from the S fi G Corr_pan.y. ,
While my iniormation Jiifers from yours as to the avail-
ability- of ths property for purchase by the State in 1973 dir-.^ctiy
from the Travelers Insurance Company, 1 have developed new
information not prsvioudly available to the State officials that the
cost to S i; G is to be $4. 5 million. With an option prico at thr;
end of the first year over $3. 5 million and about a S2 million cost
for improvements, the margin seems to be too wide. In an effort
to conserve the taxpayers' money, I am review! ng this further
and have asked the P-j-blic Works Department not to deliver the
lease pendi.ig the outcome of this study.
However, before I can rr'.ake a final policy detevminatio't,
I would like to ask yoi;v opinio.n op. the ri^^hts and o'.illjiations of t'.io
parties to the proposed lease ?-t the present state of the de\'eLopme."t
of the mattor tf) this point. I woald hope to Jicar from yoi.i in tl'.is
reijard pronnptly so tha*- v/e may not delay lon;4or than n>''C-j si-ary v-ith
a m-u.tter which is of such preat imporcance to ib.c. faculty and sti-ideuts
of the Gr'">ariT Martfrx-d Commuriitv' Collc;'^.
Since fc'lv.
GOVECiN'Cn
TJM:rlk
Exhibit 15
47-704 O - 75 - 23
348
STATE Or CONNECTICUT
\
ATTOJISIT r. -NtaAi-T Or-flCi
30 rPiSirr STNliT
M A n r .■' o a o
February 2Z, 1974
Honorable Thomas J. MesTcill
Governor of Connecticut
State Capitol
Hartford, Connecticut 06lI5 j
Dear Governor Meskill:
This is in reply to your request for cur opinion as to the rights and
obligations of the parties to the proposed lease of tha forrn-^r Phoeaix
Building from the S & G Company, a ConnscLicut partnership, Tiiis
matter involves property at 61 Woodland Street, HartfoT-d, which is
desired for the use of Lhe Greater Hartford Coinrnunlly Collog?.
The Commissioner of Public Works, on December 27, 1973, sent the |
follo'.ving letter to one of the partners of the S & G Company: I
"Dear Mr. Schaefcr:
I
You are hereby advised that your proposal to loase |
the building located at 61 Woodland Street, Hartford, |
Connecticut for use by Greater Hartford Community ;
College has been selected as the most s-aitab?.s pro-
posal submitted.
Would you kindly contact Attorney Edwin A. Hor.coe
of my staff as soon as possible so that v/e might
finalize the details of this transaction.
Sincerely,
PUBLIC V/ORKS DEPARTMENT
P.iul J. Manafort
Commissioner"
Exhibit 16
1
349
Honorable Thomas .i . iv[eo\ili
-2-
Fob rup. ry 2?.,
19
; < -*•
On January l6, 1974, the S ?< G Company, acting by boLh of its partners,
as well as Cotnnusj loner Manal'ort, signed z: document entitled "L,oaoe".
This document concerned the Woodland Street property in question. Above
Com_mib3ioner Manafort's signat-ure are the words "State of Connecticut''.
Below his signature are the words 'Tts Public Works Commissioner duly
authoriaed. " On pa^e 1 of the document it is stated that Commissioner
Manafort is acting pursuant to § 4-128 of the General Statutes with the
approval of the Board of Trustees for Regional Communib/ Colleges, the
Commission on Higher Education, the Comnnissioner of Finance and Con-
trol, and the Attorney General.
The document, on page 11 following the signatures of the S Jic G Company
and Commissioner Manafort, contains four separate places for the sig-
nature of the Board of Trustees for Regional Com.muaity Colleges, the
Commission for Higher Education, the Department of Finance and Con-
trol and the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. Signatures
which appear to be on behalf of the first three agencies appear on page 11
and are dated January 21, 1974, January 24, 1974 amd January- 25, 1974
respectively.
The Attorney General has not yet approved the document.
We are advised by Attorney Roscoe, the person referred to in Comm.is-
aioner Manafort's letter of December 27, 1973, tliat th.ere are no other
documents concerning this transaction other than, the one we have referred
to above.
In our letter of February 8, 1974 to the Governor, we indicated that we
v/ere reviewing certain legal qviestions a.3 to v/hether thr; document was
a valid lease. V/e also raised certain policy questions concerning the
expenditure of a substantial amotuit of public funds foi- your cons id (.•ration.
The immediate question which v/e are addressing ovirselves to is the legal
status of this document as it now stands v/ithout our approval. Kas the
State of Connecticut incurred any duties or liiibilities in. light of the fact
that our office has not yet approved the docunnent? Section 4-12o of the
Connecticut General Statutes pi'ovides:
Exhibit 16
350
Honorable Thoriiaj J. IvlRskill
- j-
F C'b rua rv
'-, 1974
"The commissioner of piiblLc works shall asnlgn
office space and provide neccssar^/ cccortunodatlons
in sbate-ovvned faciiitios for stat-j agancies ofcliar
than institutions, and may executii, \/ii:h the approval
of the actornev general and i:h^ coinmissioner of nr.a nee
and conbrol, leases for offices or any other type of
space or facility necessary to meet the needs of such
state agencies and institucions. Any such leases, in-
tending to provide for the heads of institutions, shall
further be subject to the approval of the board of
trustees of the insi;it\ition involved and, when such
leases involve institutions of higher education, be sub-
" -- ject to the approval of the commission for higher educa-
tion. "
(Emphasis added. )
Our office has pr-iviously adviaed that v/h^re the advice and consent of
the Commissioner of Finance and Control v/:is required by statute for
the ex3CT.ttion of a lease, lli.^ Ivsase was not binding upon the State in the
absence of such advice and consent. In an opinion by the Honorable John
J. Bracken, State Attorney General at the time, to Governor Abraham A,
Ribicoff, oar office set forth the following well established principles in
this area:
" 'The state may repudiate a contract not let in accord-
ance with the statute. ' 81 CJS, States, Sec. 122, Page
1113. 'A contract not let in the manner required by ]?.w
is not binding on the state.' Id. Sec. 116, Page 1093.
'Powers conferred on a public o:^fIcer can be exercised
only in the manner, and under the circuinstancos, pre-
scribed by lav'/, and any attempted exercise thereof in
any other manner or under difforont cLrcunastanco.s is a
nullity.' 67 CJo. , Olcicers, Sec. 103, Page 371. 'The
acts of public officers are binding only v.-hen they act
v/ithln the scope of their authority. V/hile officers arc
Exhibit 16
351
Honorable Thomas J . 2vleakiii
-4-
Folii-uci-y \LZ, 197 4
pro3uti"iiC'.
ha\-e ache'i within lJT.:>ir authority'. Gtat'.itei
dslegatin;^ powers to p'lbiic office x-s mast ba strictly
constru'^d. ' Id. Sec. 102, P^gs 366.
'Sometimes contracts are reqaired to be approved by
designaced officers, ia Vv-hich case a contract ia not
binding on the state until so approved, iinless the re-
quirerp.eai; as to a^aproval is merely directory. ' 81
CJS. §115, Page 1092. 'Where authority is granted
to public officers to do a thing in a certain Vv^ay, the
manner of doing the thing is m.andatory, or jurisdic-
tional, and a limitation on the authority of the officer,
even though the doing of the thing in the first place m.ay
be discretionary. ' Sutherland Statutory Coniitruction,
3rd Edition, Volume 3, Section 5308, Page 89.''
29 Conn. Atty. Gen. Pveports, Page 40 (April 15, 19^5-?).
Seq also. 25 Conn. Atty. Gen. Reports, Page 44 (March 28, 1947), con-
cerning the sta^atory requirement for the e.pproval of a.11 contracts as to
form by the Attorney General, A copy of tiais opinion is enclosed.
Accordingly, the courts have well recognized that where higher approval
is required, eitliar by statute or governing rsg'dation, a contract pur-
porting to bind the government does not coma into existence until and
unless that approval has been obtained. See 1 and 4 McBride and V/achtel,
Government Contracts, 'jJ 4. 30 at p. 4-16 and 37. 20[i0j at p. 37-61
(1972). The United States Court of Claims so rided in Ship Conatn.ction
Company v. United Spates, 91 Ct. Cls. 419 (1940), in a case vx/-here the
United States Shipping Board Fleet Corporation was the agency authorized
by statute to act for the United States in vario\i3 transactions. A purchas-
ing official had informed the clalm^lnt that its bid had been accepted by the
government. Ho'vever, no action li?-d been t^.lcen by the shipping boa.rd at
any time concerning the proposed contract. Tlie Court stated:
". . . VAhere one authorized to do ao receives ?.nd accepts
a bid and awards a contract but vvhose action with reference
Exhibit 16
352
Honorable T'aorr.j^ J. Mosld^l
-5-
Fc!)ri
to the contract to ho e:-:ec\.ited b-ef-Vv^er. tho parties is
subject to approval by another and that approval La
not subseqaantly given, no biizdln^ coatract oxists
on which the United S'lates may be requirad co respond
in damages as for a breach. Monroe v. United Staces,
134 U.S. 52i; Cathell et al. v. United States, 46 C.
Cls. 368; Horton v. United States, 57 C. Cls. 395;
Jacob R.eed's Sons Inc. v. United States, 60 C. Cls.
97; Burney Axe, Trading as B. Ai-^e &.- Co. v. United
States, 60 C. Cls. 493; American Electric Co. v.
United States, 60 C. Cls. 993."
91 Court Claims at 462.
Furtherm.ore, tlie Court stated:
"...It is also an established proposition that e:itoppel
cannot ba set up a.gainst the governrr.ent on the basis
of an unauthorized representation or act of an offirer
or employee who is without authoriiy in liis individual
capacity to bind the government. "
91 Court Claims at 456.
A similar ruling was made by the Court of Claims of New Yor:< in Lont?
Island Railroad Company v. State. 57 N. Y,S. 2d l63, iSn Misc. 646
(1945). The Court stated:
"No contract-aal liability,- can be im.posed upon the State
except in the manner prescribed by law. The stat'.ite
in question provided that no contract over a certain sum
shall be deemed executed or efc-.^ctive unless the same is
first approved bv the comptroller and filed in his office.
Such provisions can not be waived by any of the officers
of the State. Belmar Contracting Co. v. State, 233 N. Y.
189, 135 N. E. 240; New York Central R. Co. v. Sta;;e of
New York, 183 Misc. 815, 51 N. Y.S, 2d 3S6. In the Belmar
Exhibit 16
t
353
Honorabls Thomas J. I.Iesr.ill i-'cbru-iry Z2, 19^
-6-
case, supra, the Ccvii-t of Appeals held [Z33 M. Y.
189, 135 N.E. 2ilJ: 'Thare ia a like situation here.
Section 130 of the Fli^hway La,-/ (Consol. Laws, c. 25)
clearly provides that the ercecution of a formal writ-
ten contract after its approval by the comptroller is
essential. This is the basis of the liability of the
state. None of its officers may impose upon it a
contract'.ial obligation except in the m.anner prescribed.
We may not ignore the restrictions and limitations v>/ith
which the Legislature has cho3.= n to surround the expen-
diture of public moneys. They are wise and should be
enforced. The state has chosen to enact sorriethLng simi-
lar to the statvite of frauds for its own protection. Those
dealing with it do so knowing this fact and at Ih^ir own
risk. If there is no contract, there is no liability. ..."
57 N.Y.S. 2d at 165.
The parties were on notice In this m.atter that the approval of the Attorney
General was required both by statute and by the docirment itself. Under
the circumstances, such approval by a public officer is a condition pre-
cedent to the effectiveness of the document. The approval not having
been provided, the docuxnent is of no legal force and effect at this time.
It is also our opinion that there is no obligation by the state Imposed by
a contract implied in fact or in law or any other legal theory, V^'here
the power to contract for a public improvement must be e:cercised by a
certain prescribed method, a contract purportedly made in violation of
such restrictions is void and not merely invalid. No implied obligation
arises on the part of the public body to pay ior benefits received or the
value of work done or material furnished in the performance of the sup-
posed contract, 65 Am. Jur. 2d Pf.blic V.'orV.q and Cor.tracts, S 153 at
p. 37. One of the leading cases on tills point is Scofi^ld En-^'ineering: Cr,.
V. City of Danville, decided by the U.iited States Court of Appeals for th
Fourth Circuit In 1942. This case involved a breach of c-mtract suit for
engineering services p-^rforiTicd in connection v/ith a proposed inunlcipal
hydro-electric plant. Under local ordinance and state statute, the ap-
EXHIBIT 16
e
354
Hunorn.bl« Thomas J"
-7-
MoskLll
Fcljruary 2Z, 197-
proval of the voters was required before sucli an indcbcednes.s could be
incurred. The Court held that the Cit^-- involved could not enter into a
legally binding contract in the absence of such approval. No other ob-
ligation whatsoever was incurred by the municipality, the Court ruled.
The Court stated:
". . . the contract between plaintiff and defendant was
void because it was in direct contravention of the char-
ter of the City of Danville and Vv-as in the ti^eth of the
express prohibition of the Virginia Statute, Act of the
General Assembly of Virginia, approved September 7,
- -^ 1933, Acts of Assembly, 1933, Ex.Sess., page 47. And
we think it is abundantly clear from the Virginia cases
that under such circumstances there can be no recovery
on a quantum meruit. "
Id. at 945-946.
" ' ''Contracts violating charter or statutory requirements
have been held not to form the basis of implied obligations. '
Note C, 44 C.J. 139. Many cases cited.'
It would thus seem clear, i.mder these Virginia cases,
that, v/here, as is the case here, the contract is ex-
pressly prohibited by charter and specifically forbidden
by statute, there can be no recovery on quantum meruit,
upon a basis of unjust enrichment or a theory of implied
contract. "
Id. at 947.
" ' "Tl'.i statute is for the general v/ el fa re and protec-
tion of the public and particularly the ta;-qDayr^rs of the
defendant municipality. To brus!\ the same asido and
permit rcjcovery beyond the sums appropriated on some
Exhibit 16
355
Honorable Tlioinas J. Mc;sklll
-8-
Fehfuary V.Z, 1974
supposed basis of 'goods sold and delivered' or
'money had and racoived' leaves tlit; public with-
out the protection conferred by the legislature. "
Id_. at 947.
Because of these considerations, it is unnecessary to consider v/hether
the terms of this document are definite enough so as to constirate a
lease.
We therefore conclude that, based upon the information a-nd materials
provided us by the Department of Public Works, the State is not sub-
ject to any duties or liabilities as a result of this document at this time
in the absence of our approval.
Veryjuyily.-yours, /
/
Robert K, Killian
Attorney General
RKK: rm
Enc.
Exhibit 16
356
44 Report ok the Attorney-Genkbal
Where a stntulc confers powers or duties in general terms, all powers and
dutie> ir.vii:ent:il and noces>aiy to make such le:4iil:Uion elfccthv are included by
inipticaiion.
'»
^>
Hartford, 28 March 1947.
HoNORABLi: Fred R. ZiiLiER.
State CoMPTROLLEk.
State Capitol,
-Hartford, Connecticut. '-\^'•.'.:,ri■■^y.^i.'':^■r''^.'•.■■■
.Attention: Frank L. Barlow, Asst. Deputy Comptroller. . • '
Dear Sir: ' .' ' ■. ^' . / •■^ ■. • •■ ' ■':■
This is in response to your letter of February 23 in which you say in
part as follows: •. • ; : -;- ■ v^'.-; ..-V'/l- •":; .-■
"\V'.' are enclosing herewith copy ot a contract between Schilling i Goldbcckcr,
Archittcls iind the Comptroller's Department of the State of Connecticut, which is
reprcsenlativc of s^-vcra! conlrncls of a like nature between the State and other arch-
itecli on similar projects and which have been consummated by the siiinalurcs of
the principals involved, as well as the then Comptroller, Raymond S. Thatcher.
"It is my un<lerstandiiig that before these contracts can be -called complied,
they must be 'approved as lo form" by the Attorney General. Before requtstins that
approval on your part, I would like an opinion from you as to ibc validity of these
eoncracts." • • . .
Pertinent hereto are the following statutes. Section 30g of the 1943
Supplement to the General Statutes reads as lollou's:
"The comptroller shall have' charge and supervision of the rcmodelin.^. al-
teration, repair or en!iri?ement of any real asset involviiiij an expenditure in ex-
cess of one . thousant! dollars. Xo ofiicer, department, institution, board, commission
or council of the itate government, except tl;e comptroller, shall, unless otlicrwiio spec-
ilicaliy authorised by law, make or contract for the making of any alttratinn, repair,
or addition to any real as:set ir^volving an ccpenditure of more than one thousand
dollars."
Section- 59g of the said Supplement provides in part a-j follows:
"N'o repairs, alterations or additions involvin!» an expense to the state of more
than one ihoi-sand dollnrs shall be mad.-? lo :iny slate builcliny or prenjiscs occupied
by any state ofacer, dep.iilmeiit, institution, board, commission or council of Ih.* slate
Bcvertimcnt, nor shall any contract for any construction, repairs, alleratioii or addition
be entered into until the comptroller has invited bids thereon by advertis;.nents in-
serted ai least once in one or more newspapers having a circulation in each county
in the stale. The comptroller shrJl deUrmine iho manner of submis-sion, condiiions
and rei|uiienieiits of such biiJs, und llit lime within whicii the same shall be sub-
mitted, and shall, within live days after the opening of such bids, award such
contract to the lowest qualified responsible bidder."
It is apparent that the forec;oin;< relate to contracts for the construction,
repair or alteration of buildincjs, but do not apply to contracts for the
Exhibit 16
357
Revokt ok thk Attornev-Gkxlkal ^S'
personal services of archiiecls. The C[iitsiliu!i if. llK-rcforc wlnilror, iv. the
absence of exijress statutory provision, the Cumpirollcr has iho aiUhoriiy
to engage arcJiite'fls for building construction.
It seems to us that, though there is no specific provision couferriug
upon the Comptroller authority to enter into contracts for architectural
services, such authority exists by necessary implication. "Where a statute
confers iwwcrs or duties in general terms, all powers and duties incid»-nta]
and nectssarv to make such Lgi'^btion effective aiv inclutWd bv iniDlication,
Thus it has bt-tn stated, 'An express statutory grant of power or thie im-
position of a definite duty carries with it by implication, in ihe absence of
a limitation, authority to employ all the means that are usually employed
and that arc necessary to the exercise of the power or the ptrfor/nancc of ihe
duty That which is clearly implied is as much a part of a law as
that which is expressed.' The reason 1 ehind the rule is to be found in the .
fact that legislation is enacted to establish biuau or i^eneral stcmdards.
]\Iatlers of minor detail are frequently omitted from K-gislaiivc enactments,
and 'if these could not be sJiJplicd by implication the drafting of legislation
\vould be an interminable process und the true intent of the legisl.'iture ]il;ely
to be defeated.' " Sutherland Statutory Construction, 3d Edition, Horack,
Vol. 3, 'Section 5402, page 19.
In applying the foregoing rule to the matter before us, it becomes ap-
parent that the Comptroller pos.<esses implied powers in comu'cllon v.iih
his functions u'ldcr Sections 30g and 59g. It becomes evident ibat things
incidental and necessary in conneciion with advertising and bidding on a
construction project may be acquired, by him with.ooi express provision
therefor. Since architectural plans and specifications are essential to bid-
ding on construction worl:, it must therefore folJow that ihe services oi
archiiecls may be engaged by him.
It is therefore our opinion that tiie contract l.'etwee'i tiie foriVier Coir,p-
Iroller and Schilling k Goldbecker for architects' service? was made pur- .
.<;uant to authority vested in the Comptroller under the .-; ilutes.
In pa.<;sing, \ve wish to point out that you f.re correct in your under-
standing that these contracts must be ai'iproved as to i\);rn by the .Attor-
ney General. There is no question that the form ci those contriicls as well
as of alJ other contracts entered into on behalf of the Siate must have the ^ ^
approval of the Attorney (ic-ntr;!!. Subsection (f) of ^el•t:^,n 54e of thci'j-
1939 Su])p!ement to the General Staiuies ])rovide? thr.t '\>.V\ contracts .<^halr^^^
be approN'ed as to form by the Attorney General p.nd a copy of each t
contract shall be filed with the Cumpuoller." .-Vs ihcrt are no c,\ccptio:)s to • J '
this requirement, it is therefore incumbent upon each ::.nd every d.parlmejit n^,
to submit their contracts to this office for. approval as to fo.'-m before the
same are filed with the Coniptrollcr. •
Very tnily yours,
. WlLI.l.^M I-. H/\1)I/KN',
Alfu, iicy-Gcucral.
By Josri'ii A. lloi-n-Nnp;.".,
AssistinU Atloiiicy-Gfiicrcl.
Exhibit 16
358
Report of the Attorney General 39
Section 726c of the 1953 Supplement to the General Statutes provides as
follows;
"***S(atc ngcncics, iiu-luding ihn oducntional in8lilntinnn, may nxchanpe a limitod
nuiubrr of•**nro^•^«si^)^«l ^ir.iiinnrl iinil olitilmls willi inxliliilioiiP of ollirr Mnlo^ ntui
otlirr ronnlrir!«***ftnH mny pny llio <«nlnrir» of uncli ncrsonnri nnd mny nwlun pcliolnr*
ihips and grnnlit-in-aid lo***ilir cxcliangccs. The aiitnorized exchange of personnel and
•ludents need not be parallel and simultaneous."
Speaking of the forerunner of the section in question, we ^aid in a pre-
vious opinion: "The essence of this statute calls for an exclj^nge of students
and faculty members. Where there is no exchange there^is no compliance
with this statute. In other words, the word 'exchangeVin this act imports
mutuality or bilateral promises, rights and duties.'* ^Opinions of Attorney
General, Volume 24, Page 315. In accordance thejiewith, we held in said
opinion that the bringing of a Chinese student ta the University of Con-
necticut without a specific agreement of exchange with the institution of
China from whence such student would come codld not be interpreted as an
exchange under the act.
The previous opinion is decisive of the /instant matter. A foreign pro-
fessor may not be engaged to teach in a SCate Teachers College except when
it is under an exchange agreement with the foreign institution with which he
is connected. , ^
Again, Section 726c, which permits the employment of a foreign teacher
on an exchange basis, creates an exception to the rule established by Section
348 of the General Statutes that^'No position, except as herein provided,
shall, at any time, be filled bythe appointment of other than a citizen.'*
Opinions of Attorney GeneralyVolume 22, Page 206.
As an exception to the general rule, the provision in Section 726c must be
strictly construed. " *Wh^ a statute creates an exception to a general rule,
it is to be construed stnctly and its language is not to be extended beyond
its evident intent' Willoughby vs. New Haven, 123 Conn. 446, 454."
Opinions of AttornewGeneral, Volume 25, Pages 230, 251.
In view of the f^egoing, it is our opinion that a State Teachers College,
having a membep^f its faculty as an exchange teacher to a foreign country
with nis salarjyoeing paid by a Fulbright Scholarship, may not engage the
services of a £6reign professor and pay that person's salary with State funds
which normcrfly would have been paid to the regular Teachers College pro*
fessor, if the engagement of the foreign professor does not come within the
purview ^Section 726c of the 1953 Supplement to the General Statutes.
Very truly yours,
John J. Bracken,
Attorney General
By: Joseph A. Hoffenberg,
Assistant Attorney General
HIGHWAYS— LEASE— STATE
The requirement in Section 2226 as to the advice and consent of the Commissioner of
Finance and Control is mandatory and not discretionary. Hence, a lease not made in
accordance with the statute is not binding upon the Slate and may therefore be repudiated.
The State may repudiate a contract not let in accordance with the statute. A contract
not let in the manner required by law is not binding upon the State.
Exhibit 16
359
40 Report of the Attorney General
April 15. 1955
Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff
Governor of Connecticut
State Capitol
Hartford, Connecticut
Dear Governor Ribicoff:
Re: Lease of premises known as 341 Trumbull Street, Hartford, C.onnecti<
cut by the Highway Commissioner to its former owner.
Section 2226 of the General Statutes provides in part:
"The highway commissioner, with the advice and consent of the commissioner of
finance and control, may sell, lease and convey, in the name of the state, or otherwise,
dispose of, or enter into agreements concerning, any land and buildings owned by the
state and obtained for or in connection with highway purposes or for the efTicient
■ccompliHlmitint of the foregoing purposes or formerly used fur highway purposes, which
land and buildings are not accessary for such purposes."
It appearing that the lease in question, which consisted of correspondence
between the owner and the Highway Department, was not made with the ad-
vice and consent of the Commissioner of Finance and Control, as provided
in the statute, the question is — what are the rights of the State in view thereof?
"The state may repudiate a contract not let in accordance with the statute." 81 CJS,
States, Sec. 122, Page 1113. "A contract not let in the manner required by law is not
binding on the state." Id. Sec. 116, Page 1093.
"Powers conferred on a public officer can be exercised only in the manner, and under
the circumstances,' prescribed by law, and any attempted exercise thereof in any other
manner or under different circumstances is a nullity." 67 CJS., Officers, Sec. 103, Page
371. "The acts of public officers are binding only when tney act within the scope of
their authority. While officers are presumed to have acted within their authority, statutes
delegating powers to public officers must be strictly construed." Id. Sec. 102, Page 366.
"Sometimes contracts are required to be approved by designated officers, in which
case a contract is not binding on the state until so approved, unless the requirement
as to approval is merely directory." 81 CJS. 9115, Page 1092. "Where authority is
granted to public officers to do a thing in a certain way, the manner of doing the thing
is mandatory, or jurisdictional, and a limitation on the authority of the officer, even
though the aoing of the thing in the first place may be discretionary." Sutherland
Statutory Construction, 3rd Edition, Volume 3, Section 5808, Page 89.
In line with the foregoing, the conclusion is reached that the requirement
in Section 2226 as to advice and consent of the Commissioner of Finance and
Control is mandatory and not discretionary, and that the lease in question, not
having been made in accordance with the statute, is not binding upon the
State and may, therefore, be repudiated.
The foregoing would be equally applicable to other leases made by the
Highway Commissioner without the advice and consent of tlie Commissioner
of Finance and Control. '
Very truly yours,
John J. Bracken.
Attorney General
STATE FARM FOR WOMEN— OPERATIONS— INMATES
TRe Superintendent of the Connecticut State Farm fur Women has the custody and
control over inmates but has no right to authorize an emergency operation on an inmata
•gainst her will.
Exhibit 16
360
THOMAS J. MtSKILL
OOVCaNON
STATE or CONNECTICUT
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
HARTrORO
%
Commissioner Paul Manafort
FViblic Works Department
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut
Re:
Proposed Lease of Phoenix
Building for Greater Hartford
Community College
Dear Commissioner Manafort:
I have completed my review of the entire process
involved in the selection of a site and proposed lease for the relocation
of the Greater Hartford Community College.
I have reviewed the opinions of the educational community,
your staff and several legislators who have reviewed the matter with
me and I have received an opinion from the Attorney General with
respect to the present legal rights and obligations of the parties.
In the interests of maintaining the confidence of the public
in the procedures involved in obtaining property for public use, I ■
would direct you to reject all proposals which have been received as
a result of your advertising on September 20, 1973 and to re-advertise
for new proposals for solving the needs of the Greater Hartford
Community College, emphasizing my preference for purchase as
opposed to leasing of facilities where that is in the best interests of
the State.
Exhibit 17
361
Commissioner Paul Manafort
March 4, 1974
The Greater Hartford Community QoUegc has been in
poor qviartcrs since 1967 and I have a great concern for the need to
relocate that College to better facilities as soon as possible. I would,
therefore, further direct you to expedite the procedures consistent
with the requirements of law and to communicate fully your program
with the educational community so as to bring about full accreditation
at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sincerely,
luU;^
GOVERNOR
TJM:rlk
Exhibit 17
362
_iNTr K V I F.u__w ijn ci IV 1- 1 r: nu tiiohas hesktll
Attending, tlilu st-ssion were State Keprrscntatlva Dice, State Rep. Mannix,
State Scn.itor Joseph Licbovitan, Atty. H. Wm. Shurc, Ally. Richard Altschuler,
Mr. Robert Leuba and Terry Karianl of the Governor's staff.
Mr. Leuba started off the meeting by saying that this informal conference
should not be construed to be a waver of the Governor's rights that he may
later want to exercise. The Governor only recollected two involvcncnts
that he had wllh the State leasing program. One was concerning the Phoeuix
building and the other the forged lease at 535 Boston Avenue in Bridgeport.
The Governor was asked when he first became aware of the Community College's
need? He said that he couldn't remember specif ical]y but the first time
that he became Involved with the whole Jnsue \;as when there was a possibility
of the Travelers giving the building to the State for free as a gift.
He v?as told that the Travelers was trying Uo get rid of the building and would
consider giving it to the Stc;te if they could get a tax consideration. They
£rked th2 Governor to hcl" tb'^in cr>f sn <;>v;i1iiaf<r>p fxnvn tY"^. Ir>tem.?l P.evcr.'.ic
Service as to what value the IRS would attribute to the building if it were
given as a gift to the State. Subsequently after thic^the Governor found
out that Travelers would not give the Phoenix Bldg.- to the State as a gift.
We asked if the Governor ever found out what the total cost of the building
was valued at? He said that he never had. . "
He was then asked when the Phoenix came to his attention again. He raid
when the furor over the leaning began, Atty. General Klllian raised the issue
that the lease would cost too mucli in one of his spcochc-c. The Govfrnor didVi'f
know nbout any cpocific ntgotlation.s with respect to this Icusc at: tlic tioo.
In fact, according to tlie Governor/ he mver learned about the specifics of
nny lease. He said that this was not within his domain but rather within
that of DPW. The Governor then said that he gave a Press Confercnrc
at whlch^hc told the re.spf ctive agonclc;; of the State to go back and start
the negotiations again due to the furor caused. He raid that he didn't talk
to Manafort, Carlson or anyone el:;e In the Irn.'ilng process at this particular
time.
Exhibit 18
363
He asked hin if he knew that the State was Bold substantially less square
footaec than had been offered in the lease arrangement? He said that he
knew this but that It was after the fact. We acked hlra If he had known
that the State could have bought the building? He said "yes" but only
vhen he told the respective agencies to go back and negotiate again.
Be said that he didn't renenber if anyone with the State explored the
possibility to buy the building before this tisie. Be mentioned that he
wasn't critical of Dr. Banks from Greater Hartford Community College in
the way that he handled this affair.
We asked if he was aware that ^,'(<fcMo had recomcended that the State
buy the building from Schacfer and Campel, without having them do the
renovations? The Governor said that he was not aware of this fact.
Be also said that he never looked at the final deal although his aid,
Mr. Leuba, looked at it along with DPW officials and Finance and Control.
The Governor said that he even called Travelers again to see if because
of the furor they would give the building to the State. However, Tiavelecs
said at this time that fhe building van a1re.->dy under bond for deed.
To sum It up, the Governor said that he had a two-fold involvement in
the Phoenix Bldg. controversy. One is the fact that he was Involved
personally in the effort to get valuable property for the State in the
£om of a gift and two is the fact that when. the controversy was fueled
he intervened by telling the agencies to go back and try and negotiate in
order to get the best deal for the State. He relied on his staff to decide
whether all the sites were considered and whether the financial arrangements
were reasonable. •
U.«
»-^r^; • 7 ^i / He then a
***^ ■ and Mr. S;
sked the Governor about his involvement with Mr. Mussman, Mr. Campel,
and Mr. Schaefer. We noted that there was a question of a conflict of
lott^rest that we felt had to be cleared up. At first the Governor said that
he had no financial interest with these people. But later this was clarified
Co Dean that he had no financial interest with Mr. Canpel and Mr. Schaefer.
However, he was a joint owner of a bulldinr., and still Ir., with Mr. Mussman
on the Sllns Dcane Highway in Rocky Hill. ThK Governor stressed that he
was not a partner but Junt a Joint owner In a common bulldinr.. We asked
Exhibit 18
47-704 O - 75 - 24
364
Kcsklll Interview
probloms with the State. He said, "no", that he made sure that this
bulldlnt; would never be leased to the State.
We asked the Governor If he has benefited in any w.iy Lhrouch hl3 huslnoss
relationship with Mr. Mussman or whether Mr. Hussman hns benefited in any
vay through his busine.ss relationship with the Covemor. The Governor
answered "no". He admit tpd that he knew Mr. Mussman from New Britain.
The Governor said that the State should buy whenever it could and lease
only when it was goinj; to be a short term or when they knew that they
didn't want the bviilding forever. He also recommended that we should get
rid of the capital budget and appropriate as we need to build or buy.
He noted that leasing can be a way of getting around the capital budget.
He also observed that there can be sone justification to leasing (i.e.
you don't have to borrow a lot of money). However, he said that overall
It would be better for the State to buy the buildings In question.
The Governor said that he had no input with respect to decision making
relative to leasing vs. purchasing on the Phoenix Bldg. With respect tj\.rm
the Waterford Highway Garage, we told the Governor that John E. Downcs
had been given an early tip and gave hini the rest of the scenario (i.e.
Commissioner Woods told Howard Dickinson of DOT to go with Mr. Downes to
look at various sitesin Waterford). We asked him if he was aware of this
I 11 ■■■■MB II m^'" '■ I II II I I "T
pceiiarto. »Je s^ld that he wasn't and that this was the first time that
he was hearing about It. We observed that Downes was a relative of former
M- — . — ^.,
Jill State Chairman Gaffncy and asked the Governor if there w„s ever any dlscus/.7on/ ■,•
between h 1 '^^j;£_J"d ge Gnffnoy or between hira and "anybody with respect to/uiis . , '-*
*-*ymmn
U respect to/ Mils .
/
^ease? He answered "no". My ,«^'
We then told him about the three Tomaso leases, outlining the matter of early
Information being given and the fact that the leases were extremely expensive.
Also, wc mentioned that Mr. Lcuba when he rerved as Commissioner of Motor
Vehicles stated directly his preference for the Winsted location. Specifically,
we BentloneJ th.U in the m.itter of 160 Pascone Place, Heuington, tlic land was
•Ittlng vacant for several years. Also, wc mentioned that Coram. Maiiafort of
Exhibit 18
365
Kcsklll Intervtcw
DPW told Coronlscloner Wood of Dept. of Transportation about that site.
We asked hlta If he was au^re of any of these circumstances and he said "no"
the Covemoi rcpUed "no". When asked if he could explain vhy these circum-
stances occurred with repsect to these two lessors, the novemor replied that.
he couldn't given any explanation as he did not know. We asked him If he
knew the DiNardo Brothers? He said that lie didn't know them and didn't know
what they leased. The Governor then remerabered some fact about Norvalk
Community Collcp.e complaining that the facility wasn't right . He said that
Stuart Smith of his staff knew something about this.
We asked Governor Heskill why he had abolished the Citizens Advisory Counsel?
He said that he wns not aware that there was one. At this point we explained
to him the Council's function. He said that he never saw any Executive Order
abolishing it. Upon check of our records, we noted that It was abolished by
legislative action extending from a rcccc^L.ondation by the Etli«-.iington RepotL.
We asked the Governor what he thought of such a group. Kc scid that ha would
not be opposed to one.
[lira about the aborted Bridgeport lease at 535 Bonton Avenue.
He cald thn t ' pomeone called tlic Governor's office about not being paid on
the lease, lie rh^rVcd wjtli V;?lf;ire who dJdn't know anvthinr, about this
pnr iHH Fjn.-.nrr .T'd Control nor the Artornt-y Goncrgl's office. PPM didn't
have a copnTf-re file so at rhi-; nelnt he said that they CTlled the State's
'*rt-nmpy. Brhrrr T.-ir.elle. It vas Mr. LnBclle who realized that Perry Phillip's.
_p1enflH.rg Hppp.,r.rt fn he forced. This led tn the Investjpntion. Accord inR_to
the feedback thnt the Covn nor r.ot from the invt-gtlRation. Mr. Thomns O'Mara
got behind lids p.iperwork and therefore rushed up the .Tprrov.-i] s by fori^tnp.
lerry PhnMr'f. ;;ifnnrure. Mr. l.euba said tU.,t fhe WeUaic l)ci.t . didn't CVCn
know abouL tlie Ic.ise. He >i1rr, r-i<(^ fhnt l.'(1f;ir^ fHHn'f Vuiiu .-il iiiif .-1 prrvlouH
lease that VTC cjnso-'TtC'! rt l^^rth Avenue:, .ilr.o with the 1. C:roup headed by Kr .
fpimd our about, the lea:.' Iiol 1. entered the pro"ilfcs and found out that there.
was no beat. 'Ihe Governer i,.ild that tic only pot a Proseeutor's Report and
i.ev.;r h.iJ i.itlen a State Police Report. LV ^.■;V..H thi. r.twiTimr If he kntw
a Hr. Rocco l.nimttn He raid "yea" that he did know hln
(more)
Exhibit 18
when he was a
366
5 • KcpkUl Interview
- rr.n£.r>Kgm^n ■ Up. nskpJ Covcmnr Uraklll If Mr. 7..MM-c-ttl haJ evor rome to
JllJn_obout_advlsc_ultli. rp:ipcct_to Stnro IctjItu'.. The Governor v.\iA "no".
The Governor closed the interview with a general approach that he would
take to leasing. FJrr^t, he said that the question should be asked whether
the property acquired by lease or purchase was really necessary? He said
that the Dept. of Envlrcinnpntal Proicction often taken land that he doesn't
feel is necer.sary. Second, he said thnt if it is decided that tl>e land
Is needed, it should be decided wl\olh'.;r it should be leased or purchased.
Third, he said that after all this ir, considered it should then be looked
to Bee if any favortiss is being given.
We asked the Governor if he was faniiliar with any favortism while he was
In office and he said "no". . ' ■ ■ •
f ( S
Exhibit 18
367
QHCgSit^ PIfer
Missed by State
By THEODORE A. DRISCQLL ruled that thp state is not bound
The new campus for the to the lease agreement negotiat-
Grcaler Hartford Community ^^ ''tT^jf %^ Public Works
College could have been bought DepafhCitJ ^ f ]Q7A
for about the same it would cost „^,".',f".^^^'''' ."? ,^ ^^"^ ^^
«he state to lease the oroDertT '^"'""' *^f' ""''* ^^' ^ ^"°^'
me state to lease ine propeny ^^^ general, approves the lease
for four years, The Courant has ^ j, not binding on the state
learned. " ;Terms Cited
James A. Stewart, senior vice: The letter also said the prop-
president of Travelers Insur-erty could have been bought by
ance Cos., Tuesday confirmed ihe state for fl.5 million and
rumors that the state declined that the terms of the lease were
an offer lo buy the property for exorbitant.
$4.5 million last summer. \ Release ot' the Killian letter
However, (Jov. Meskill en»- prompted speculations Tuesday
phatically denied there had ever y
been a sale offer from Travel-' See GHCC, Page 20, ColyT
ers *hen questioned at a press' gjTron ■.icomgrf
conference Tuesday afternoon. He said there had been earlier
An aide later said the governor f _..»:_„, .^j^ ,,,»„ „ff;„i,i. «-
had.Ueen assured no such offer «!^t«>8s with sta e officials to
had been made. discuss the possibility of Travel
The State Public Works De-j ers giving the property to the
partmenl has proposed to lease state.
the property, the former Phoe-
nix Building at 49-61 Woodland
St.. for $1,104,000 a year.
Option Offered
After a year, the state could
buy the building for $8,560,000 or
Stewart said McCann and
Banks appeared disappointed at
lYavelers' decision not to give
away the building.
"However, I thought it wa-
it could continue to lease andl perfectly clear that the sUte
exercise the option to buy later ^^ould have first crack at buy-
at.a lower price. ' ing the building," Stewart said.
, J- M- .J T7 *n-vM '^^^ "°'i Gov. Meskill could not be
pC ae^,]/in|a/4uld pay al reached late Tuesday. However,
total tSTW.m.m rerft over the | an aide said the governor had
I been assured that no offer was
•^CbPtSl ThelQJjtnt he
ctnid not be sure that an offer
was not made at the summer
meeting.
He quickly added, however,
that both he and Banks were .«o
disappointed to learn that the
property would not be given to
the state that they might not
:otal ort27.6fra,000 rent ov(
nett 25 years
The lease a.^reement is with
the S&G Co., which has a bind-
*og agreement to buy the prop-
erty from Travelers for $4.5
million.
S&G is a partnership owned
by Atty. Allan S-haelcr and
Harry Gamncl. H.irtford real
estate devcloDcr>:. Bn'h have
oth'^r leases with the .slate.
Tuesday it w.is le.i.ncd that I have noted such an offer.
Ally. Gen. Robert K. KillianJ! -We were there to get the
j building for nothing," he said.
"You have to see that meeting
• ' in its proper context?"
•''■*. - ' ; BarJu told The Courant he
iknew of no "official offer" al-
though some prices were dis-
! cussed.
* ' ' ; Banks stressed that he had
{"nothing to do with price" and
' that be had heen told that the
. ('public works department would
Exhibit 19
368
GHCC Site Was Available
At Price Nearing Lease
Continued from Page I Asked if there was any ques-
f.at M..sk,ll might vn,d the (ion d inconipetence in Mana-
lc.>c and that there would be fo^fs handling of the lease
l.rc-sure 10 oust Public Works iMeskill said ■r.o.'
( onimissioner Paul J. Manafort r. • n
and olhrrs who negotiate leases "^°'" P'^""'*
for the state. He emphatically denied there
Mcskill had reaajstedth^uil-lwas any pressure for Manaforl
inj; frcjffEiB^n^h^W^*lhe to resign,
lease.' '^ ^ Kmmite^to the The Courant spoke w,th Stew-
' H.wever. he said at his press ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ governor's press
conference Tuesday that part of'^^oi'^^rence.
1 the Killian letter "deals with ru-! Stewart said the sale offer
«'"°''" iwas made at a meeting in his
r In answer to a question, the I office last summer attended bv
tgovemor said "there is no evid-rw»™i»„ c«o. c- r,
lence that there ever was an oS-f^^^^ ^^^ ^"'^°*^*' ^'"'"'s-
fcr" from Travelers to sell the^'°"^- Gerald McCann and Dr.
F property to the state. j Arthur Banks, president of the
fc He added that be had dis-!coU^e
ecussed the aUeged offer with'fearUer Merting.
<^people at Trave«rs. , , „ j .u u
A, ",.. ,. , V He said thprp li
nil Biut 1UH.1 iaiu iiw guvernorl
nad been assured .)o such offer
had been made.
The State Public Works De
partment has proposed to lease
the properly, the former Phoe-
nix Building af 49-61 Woodland
St.. for $1,104,000 a year
Option Offered
After a year, the state could
buy tile building for »8,560.000 or
It coDld continue to lease and
exernse the option to biiv later
at a lower pnce.
lid not
r6fW,"feTove
pay a
•er th
■R)farof$2'
next 25 years.
rt.J'lf.if^;^ ^f^'^rnent is with
tne S&G Co., w'lich has a bind-
ing agreement to buy the prop
erty from Travelers for J4 5
rnillron.
by"".?..;^ \lTit:f.r^. i He quickly added,
Harrv
He said there had been earlier
meetings with state officials tc
discuss the possibility of Travel
ers giving the property to the
state.
Stewart said McCann and
Banks appeared disappointed at
Travelers' decision not to give
away the building.
"However, I thought it wa^
perfectly clear that the state
would have first crack at buy-
ing the building." Stewart said.
Gov. Mcskill could not be
reached Iftte>Tiiesday. Hontever,
an aide said the governor had
been assured that no offer was
MwamPt^MTW»cl)fl4nt he
could not bf sure that ail offer
was not made at the summer
^^ meeting.
however.
real
have
estate devcloDL-rs. Bn'h
other Inases with the .si.-^te
Tuesday i- v,,,s iey,ncH that
Alty. Gen. Robert K. Killian
c,u- r jl4 ""^ quitRiy doueu. nowever,
GamDcl H^rffn-T ^"^K that both he and Banks were so
»j<i.npei, Hartford rea / ,Hc,n,««;r,t^ i» i„ — .u-. .u.
/ disappointed to learn that the
property would not be given to
I the state tnat they might not
I have noted sucii an offer.
I "We were there to get the
I building for nothing," he said.
I "You have to see that meeting
I in its proper context."
J Banks told The Courant ha
I knew of no "official offer" al-
•though some prices were dis-
; cussed.
; Banks stressed that he had
ij "nothing to do with price" and
'that he had been told that the
, public works department .woa'd
, handle everything.
Exhibit 19
369
Itetyped verbatim on February 13, 1975 by Senator Gunther's of^jse.
Certified by
Ric±iard P. Altschuler, Deputy Col^isel
State o? Connecticut
Senate
state capitcl hahtforo 06115
890 j\.:i3s p^«ec June 1, 1972
Governor Thoras "eskill
State Capitol
Hartford, Conn.
Dear Governor Meskill:-
For several years now I have ^een very critical of sc-e of
the policies of the State of Connecticut in "leasing" and have been
very vocal about the need for a change. I have felt that the tax-
payers of the State have been taking a beating, financially, on sore
of these leases. The procedure is not illegal, is not established
by the legislature, but has been a policy of the Public V.'orks Dept.
with little or no opposition.
Just because the Derrocratic administration has established
this policy, is no reason why the Republican adrr.ini strati on should
continue it. V/hen I ran for office I pledged to try to elininste tha
area of leasing that I am talking about; the giving of letters of
intent, on a non-bid basis, for construction and leasing of state
buildings. One of the exa.-ples I used several years ago was tne item
which appeared as a news story just last week, pointing out just one
example of where 100- plus, financing was obtained with a certificate
of intent for a state highway garage. The lessor then was given a
15 year lease which a-ortized the entire cost of the building within
the first 8'to 10 years, giving 5 years of rent as a net profit and
the building owned by the lessor. If the State then wished to pur-
chase the building they could pay the lessor the original cost. An
excellent business deal for the lessor, but darn poor business for the
taxpayers of the State. Especially, when the equity of the state
enabled the individual to finance and build the structure with little
or no investnient on his part.
A day or two after that news story, a snail item appeared in
the newspaper indicating that you were going to look into this ratter
of leasing. I would like to call to your attention so-e infcr-ation,
relative to leasing pending in the state, that I feel fits into this
sar.e policy and should be stopped. I understand that a Frank Cowr.es
is presently negotiating with the Public l.'orks Cept. of the St^te of
Connecticut to build, and lease, a State Highway Garage on Route £5
in l.'aterford. The State require~ents are for a 12,033 sq. ft. carace
with a lOoD sq. ft. salt'storage bin, to be b'jilt on an 8 acre D^rcel
of land. The ultimate lease will pay this lessor $54,500.00 per year,
for 15 years, at which ti-^e the State will have the option to buy the
building for $403,000. or continue to lease at 542,000. per year.
-49A-
EXHIBIT 20
370
State of Connecticut
SENATE
STATE CAPITOL HAHTFO30 06»15
l,f
II my r.atheratics is correct the State of Conn, could
end up paying 3957,500.00 for this lease over the next 15 years and
at that tire elect to purchase the building for $403,000 or continue
to lease at S42,000. per year. This is a potential outlay of
$1,375,500.00 of taxpayers noney. I feel this is abusive end
intolerable and because the precedent has been established by the
previous adninl strati on, doesn't nal^ it right for the present
ad:nin1 strati on to continue it.
It is my understanding that this lease is in the final
stages of approval and I ask you to take what steps are necessary
to stop this contract. In addition, I feel a complete review of
any other pending leases, of this nature, be reviewed and a new
sensible policy, including opening these leases up to public bid,
should be initiated by the Public V.'orks Dept. on any state building
^-ft^dt'\ If cy r.er.ory serves rr.e well, we are presently paying out
J. X^ sev^million dollars per year on leases in the state, r.'ot all of
'T them are this type of "boondoggle" that we have inherited. On the
other hand I don't think we should add to this unsound, abusive
practice.
I had hoped that with a change in administration that '..e
would see the end of this type of leasing in Conn, but I cannot
sit idly by and allc.v a practice that I feel is wrong continue.
Inasmuch as the Public V.'orks Dept. is a branch of the executive,
and is answerable to you, I would ask that you take ir-ediate
action to stop any leases of this nature.
Very truly yours.
Dr. G. L. Gunther
•493-
EXHIBIT 20
371
THOMAS J. MEE ILL
OOVCKNOM
December 13, 1974
STAT : OF CONNECTICUT
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
HARTFORD
Senator Joseph Lieberman
Repres mtative Richard Dice
Co-Chairmen, Subcommittee on Leasing
Approp-iations Committee o£ the
General Assembly
State Capitol
Hartfor J, Connecticut
Gentlemen:
The meeting of May 23rd concerning which
Senator Gunther testified today, did in fact take place in my
office a: 11:30 a.m.
While my recollection of what occurred and
what W2 s said at the meeting differs from his, it is clear from
Senator Gunther's testimony and the records of the State of
Connect Lcut that the meeting took place 4 days after the contract
for the Oownes lease was finalized.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the
testimoay of Senator Gunther and I wish the menribers of the
Committee to know that I stand by all previous statements
I have Tna.de to the Committee.
TJM:k
Exhibit 21
372
POSTtinvswrr.K ota i lOf js. ccn-icchcut. iijc.
citOAOCAni Mouii: 3 conurnuiion pl/za
HAnTrOnO. CONNrCTICUT 0G115 TEL: M5-0C0I
WFS13 EDITORIAL
'April 25 & 26, 1974
A New Ih-imin Hcpablican nancd An^clo Tc.-jasso stands to malcc about three million
dolJiirs over the next twenty j c.irs by leasing a four hundred and twenty-thousand
dollar building to the State of Coiuiecticut.
By coir.cidcncc, if coincidence is tlie word, the lease is being orranr.ed by Public
V/orl;^ Cor.Liiissioi-.ei- Paul Manafort, «ho is also a Vow Britian Republican, as is the
man who appointed Manafort, Governor Thomas Meskill,
This cliurj-jy arranr.cmcnt, whereby lucrative leasing deaJs arc awarded to the party
I'airnrn'i. roir.'s lirti-.l< At lca3t tc tl'.c Dcriccr? t ■> c ^Hmi ni <:r rat ioii of Govcmor John
Dcmj>scy. But it has been brought to full flower by the Mcskiil Administration.
And wc tliirJi it is ti.-; it was brM-.-ht tc a, halt.
A cc'.-iiiittce of the General Assonbly has voted to investigate leasing deals since
i960 and report back in January. The investigction should cct.c up w-ith enough
horror stories involving deserving Dc^iocrats and Republicans to force reforns.
IhiL in the r.eaittJr;:o, we asl: the Governor to take a second look at the leasing
arrangr;ricnt between Mr. Manafort and Mr. Toir.asso to dcterninc if it really is
the best deal liis Adni:iistration can nake for Connecticut's taxpayer.
Exhibit 22
■|
373
Senator Burdick. Are the representatives of the American Bar As-
sociation in the room ?
If so, will they approach the witness table ?
TESTIMONY OP LAWRENCE E. WALSH, PRESIDENT-ELECT,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, AND EDWARD M. SHAW
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Since the Governor was sworn at the preceding
hearing, we will swear all the witnesses this time too.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Walsh. I do.
IVIr. Shaw. I do.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman, I would like simply to bring the commit-
tee up to date with what has happened and then turn the testimony
over to Mr. Shaw, who has, at the request of the American Bar Asso-
ciation and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, fol-
lowed up on the leasing investigation of the General Assembly of
Connecticut. At the last session we were awaiting the appendix.
Th e r e a f t e r
Senator Burdick. Would you state your name for the record?
Mr. Walsh. Lawrence E. Walsh, president-elect of the American
Bar Association, and this is Edward M. Shaw, a lawyer, of New York.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Fed-
eral Judiciary and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Association
of the Bar of the City of New York appointed a joint subcommittee
to conduct a further investigation in Hartford. This was done in order
to avoid duplication. The acting chairman of the American Bar Asso-
ciation's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary is Mr. John
Sutro, who is here if he should be wanted, and the chairman of the
Association of the Bar of the City of Ncav York Committee on the
Judiciary is Judge Arnold Bauman, who is also here, should you
want him. They are the two chairmen who have transmitted to this
committee of the Senate the joint report of the American Bar Asso-
ciation and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
As I say, in order to do this work, a joint committee was appointed
consisting of Mr. Leslie Arps, a lawyer of New York, Mr. Sheldon
Elsen and Mr. Bernard Nussbaum. Mr. Elsen and Mr. Nussbaum
were representatives of the Association of the Bar of the City of
New York. Mr. Arps is acting for the American Bar Association in
place of Mr. Connelly, the second circuit member, who is out of the
country. Mr. Elsen is here to speak for the joint subcommittee, if his
testimony should be requested.
The subcommittee retained Mr. Shaw to do most of the work in
Hartford. Mr. Shaw is a former assistant U.S. attorney. He was head
of the strike force on organized crime in the second circuit. He recently
resigned and has opened his office for the practice of law in New
York. He was assisted by Miss Joan Secofsky, who is sitting in the
front row, and Mr. William Pollard, who is sitting next to her, two
young lawyers from New York firms who worked with him.
The report which you have received is very largely their work, and,
from the examination of it which we have made, it seems to us to be a
374
very responsible discharge of the undertaking which was committed
to them.
As you will remember, Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee, when we were here last we spoke tentatively, on the basis of
information which we had received. This report verifies the informa-
tion to the extent that it can be verified without the power of sub-
pena. The appendix whicli was received from tlie general assembly
subcommittee on leasing listed a number of leases executed both be-
fore Governor Meskill's administration and during it.
The group which undertook tliis investigation, using tlie limited
time at their disposal, concentrated on the Downes lease, which we
referred to last time, and on the acquisition of tlie Phoenix Building
by the State of Connecticut, which we also referred to briefly in our
last testimony.
To the extent that they could, they also went into a series of leases
by a man named Tomasso to the State of Connecticut. In all of these
areas I think we can say there was a showing of a prejudgment as to
the lease which was ultimately granted. In each case the State De-
partment responsible for leasing really had selected the lease site
before each lease was advertised, and, in many cases, tlie property ulti-
mately leased had not been acquired by the lessor until after this deci-
sion had been made. The question then is: Did the Governor know
about this, or was it a hidden fact? From the report, we believe that
you will see that the Governor knew about it in different ways.
First, he was told about it by Senator Gunther.
Second, Senator Gunther wrote him and described the Downes
lease.
Third, there was a brief public hearing by the Connecticut Public
Assembly Legislative Committee regarding the Downes lease.
Fourth, there were adverse comments regarding one of the Tomasso
leases in a radio editorial.
Fifth, as to the Phoenix Building, the question is wdiether the Gov-
ernor knew before the building was either leased or acquired that it
could have been bought for 41/2 million when, in fact, it was ultimately
acquired for $7.3 million. This report sets forth the documentary evi-
dence, letters to the Governor and resolutions by the Board of Higher
Education of Connecticut, all of which support the strong inference
that the Governor, did, indeed, know.
On the basis of this report, the position of both associations has
hardened against the Governor. "\Ye feel that on the record as it now
stands it would be inappropriate to confirm his nomination, not only
on the basis of lack of professional qualification which we have estab-
lished in the ]iast. lint because of the evidence of favoritism in State
leasing, M'hich apparently came to his attention and which has not
yet been adequately explained.
I might say INIr. Shaw can give you the details, but every effort was
made to give the Governor the opportunity to explain these transac-
tions and to give others involved in these transactions an opportunity
to explain, and these opportunities were rebuffed. The Governor and
most of the State officers, not all of them, but most of them, and those
who Avere most intimately involved in these transactions, declined to
talk to the representatives of the associations.
375
To us this, ao^ain, is a matter of concern, that a person seeking the
high office of Federal judge would be loath to explain any transac-
tion of which he might have knowledge. So, on all of those grounds,
both associations urge that this committee vote not to approve this
nomination.
I yield now, unless you have questions of me, to Mr. Shaw who can
tell you in greater detail of the investigation.
Senator Burdick. Does this opposition continue to be unanimous?
Mr. Walsh. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SiTAW. Mr. Chairman, our inquiry in Connecticut involved in-
terviews of some 24 persons involved in the leasing transactions to
which Judge Walsh has referred. It also involved an examination of
the leasing subcommittee's appendix which was made public on Feb-
ruary 15 of this year, and an examination of whatever relevant docu-
ments we were able to obtain in the course of our inquiry.
Our focus, of course, was on the question of whether Governor
Meskill was aware of these largely undisputed leasing abuses and
whether he condoned them if he was. As our report has indicated, we
believe that the facts strongly suggest that Governor Meskill was
aware of some of the principal leasing abuses and that he did noth-
ing to stop them.
I have to emphasize, though, as Judge Walsh has already, that 12
of the key witnesses, including Governor Meskill himself, who could
have described to us their knowledge and participation in these mat-
ters, refused our request to interview them. That does mean that our
leport is an incomplete one. but the fact that these people would not
consent to being interviewed also causes us grave concern that there
may not be innocent explanation on the question of the Governor's
awareness of some of these abuses.
'\Aniat I would like to do in the next few minutes, if I may, is to
go through some of the specific points that seem to me to be important
in connection with these leasing abuses and with the question of the
Governor's awareness of them.
Let me start with the Downes lease, about which this committee has
already heard a number of facts. The Downes Construction Co. was
a New Britain firm, owned find run bv Frank Downes and his
son, John E. Downes, both of New Britain, Connecticut. It now has
a substantial lease for a highway garage in Waterford, which it ob-
tnined in negotiations in 1972 and in a lease signed in September of
1978. I think the following facts are beyond dispute about this lease.
First, that Governor Meskill has known the Downes family for years.
Indeed, I believe that in his biography, submitted to this commit-
tee. Governor Meskill indicates he was associated in law practice with
John F. Downes, the brother of Frank Downes, the owner of this
firm, from 1956 to 1960 in New Britain.
Brian Gaffney, the former Republican State chairman in Connecti-
cut, and a person who hns been a close aide of Governor Meskill for
years, is the nephew of Frank Downes, the owner, and the cousin of
John E. Downes, a vice president of the Downes firm. It is a matter
of record now, not disputed by Mr. Gaffney, that in early 1971 he
called the commissioner of transportation. Commissioner Wood, and
376
told him that the Downeses would like to have a State lease. It also
seems to be beyond dispute that not long after that, Commissioner
AVood, of the Transportation Department, had a man named Howard
Dickinson, his aide in that department, conduct an advance site selec-
tion with the Downeses, that is, go out and agree with them on a site.
That was the first time in 40 years that Dickinson had been asked
to do something like that. It appears to be undisputed that that was
an entirely improper procedure, because the way it was supposed to
work was that an agency which wanted to lease space was supposed
to contact the Public Works Department and ask them to go out and
find out what the space would be. Also, the State Leasing Subcom-
mittee has come to the conclusion that the rent paid on the lease that
was finally signed on that very property was excessive.
The names that I have mentioned to you so far, the key names in
that transaction, are Frank Downes, John E. Downes, Brian Gaffney,
Commissioner Wood, and Howard Dickinson. Not one of those per-
sons was willing to be interviewed by us in connection with those
transactions and the question of what knowledge Governor Meskill
had of them.
It is also undisputed that on the 1st of June 1972, a State Senator
in the State of Connecticut named George Gunther wrote a letter to
Governor Meskill — which I believe all of you have, it is an exhibit
in our report — in which he specifically called the Governor's atten-
tion to the Downes lease, urged that it was abusive, it was excessive
in amount, and asked the Governor to investigate that lease and, in-
deed, to stop it. That was a letter written some 15 months before that
lease went into effect.
So, at a minimum, it does appear clear that on June 1 of 1972,
Governor Meskill was aware that a lease to men whom he knew and
who were close relatives of the Republican State chairman was being
challenged by a responsible State officer as being abusive, as being
excessive, as being something which the State should not tolerate. I
think it is also undisputed that Governor Meskill did not take any
step whatsoever upon the receipt of that knowledge to investigate or
stop that lease.
Governor Meskill has never testified as to any explanation he may
have for that. I may add that the explanation which he has given
informally to the State leasing subcommittee, that he did not act
because he thought that since a commitment letter had been signed 11
days before, he was powerless to stop that lease, does not seem to us to
be an explanation which is consistent with the facts.
What else is there to which we ur^e that the Senators of this com-
mittee draw tlieir attention on tlie Downes lease? There is one other
thing.
Senator Gunther has testified, under oath, before the State leasing
committee, that a week before he wrote the letter, to which I have just
referred, on May 23, 1972, after trying to make an appointment for
some 10 days through the Governor's aide, John Doyle, he, Gunther,
had a meeting with Governor Meskill, and Senator Gunther has testi-
fied, under oath, that he went to the Governor, that he complained
about the Downes lease, and that th& Governor asked him, in substance,
whether he, Gunther, was doing the Democrats' dirty work, Gunther
being a Republican.
377
Governor Meskill has not testified about that meeting, but he has,
informally, with the staff of the leasinoj subcommittee, denied that
there was any such conversation. He has said that the meetinfj took
place, and I think I fairly characterize his explanation of it by saying
that he has said that Gunther came in, said that the Governor had a
problem in one of the afrencies in his administration, that the Governor
asked him what that problem was, and that Gunther said to him that
he could not or would not tell him what the problem was, and that that
was it and Gunther left the office.
We question whether that is a credible explanation and we urge this
Committee to hear both Senator Gunther and Governor Meskill to
the extent that that conversation is important on the question of what
Governor Meskill knew.
Let me turn to the three Tomasso leases. Angelo Tomasso is a New
Britain resident, who owns a firm called Riverview Realty, and who
entered three substantial leases totaling an annual gross rental of over
$400,000 with the State of Connecticut during the administration of
Governor Meskill.
I think it is undisputed that Angelo Tomasso is a friend of Governor
Meskill and that he is the next door neighbor of Brian Gaffney. I
think it is also undisputed that two of the three leases which Angelo
Tomasso's firm had with the State during Governor Meskill's ad-
ministration involved the same kind of improper procedures, that is,
advance site selection, by the same fellow from the Department of
Transportation, Howard Dickinson, as was involved in the Downes
lease.
The third of those leases involved a situation in which the then-
commissioner of the department of motor vehicles, and subsequently
the counsel for the Governor, a man named Leuba, suggested that the
department of motor vehicles office, formerly in Torrington, Conn.,
should, when that lease ran out, be placed in a building to be built by
Angelo Tomasso and leased to the State in another town. We have not
conducted, obviously, any independent examination of the value of
these leases or the cost involved.
I think it is relevant to note that the State leasing committee has
concluded that the rental on one of the three Tomasso leases is exces-
sive, and on another of the three leases Tomasso and his controller,
John LePore, grossly overstated — and that is a quote — the renova-
tion cost on that lease to the committee in the course of its inquiry.
The important people I have just mentioned on these particular
transactions — Angelo Tomasso, his controller John I>ePore; Robert
Tjeuba, the Governor's aide; Howard Dickinson, the man who con-
ducted the advance site selection — again. Senators, those key people on
that particular series of transactions have all declined to be inter-
viewed by us in connection with them.
I think it is undisputed that altliough the letter which Governor
Meskill received on June 1, 1972, urged Governor Meskill to look into
not only the Downes lease but all other build-lease type situations that
Connecticut might have, because Gunther was charsring that they were
all being done improperly, that Governor Meskill never made any
inquiry concerning the Tomasso leases.
I would like to call to your attention that we were told by Robert
Killian, the Lieutenant Governor now and formerly the attorney
378
general, that it is his memory that he sent a letter to Governor Meskill
in the spring of 1974 concerning the third Tomasso lease, the Newing-
ton Office Building lease, complaining about that lease before it was
signed. We do not have a copy of that. We asked the now-attorney
general of the State of Connecticut to make available to us any cor-
respondence on that subject, and he said that he felt there might be
executive privileges which would inhibit his being free to turn those
over, so he did not give us access to those. I do not even know, as I sit
here, that they exist; I am reporting Lieutenant Governor Killian's
memory. But wc would ask this committee that it request of Governor
Meskill that he waive any relevant privileges that he might have with
respect to any such correspondence so that the committee might have
it to the extent that it is relevant about Governor Meskill's awareness.
Finally, let me turn to the Phoenix transactions. We spent a great
deal of our time in Hartford trying to conduct interviews and gather
documents on the subject of the Phoenix transactions, and I think
that we have a good deal more information on that subject than was
before the committee on January 23, 1975.
The Phoenix transactions occupy the first portions of our report.
Very briefly, the facts, as we understand them, are these. The Greater
Hartford Community College, a state-owned college, was in real
trouble in 1969 and 1970, because it did noi have good facilities. It
had been housed in an old warehouse or factory building. Its ac-
creditation was in jeopardy. In 1972, Travelers Insurance Co. started
having some discussions with the State to try to solve that problem.
The Travelers owned a large, quite modern, built in 1952, building
on 15 acres of land near downtown Hartford, which it had acquired
in a merger with the Phoenix Insurance Co. The building was of no
use to the Travelers. They had had it on the market for from $10
million to $8 million and had not had any people buying it.
The Travelers discussed giving that property to the State, and
their hope was that they could get a favorable ruling from IRS to
get a suitable tax deduction. In June of 1969 the Travelers concluded
that they could not give that property to the State. At a meeting with
two State officials they told them that. We have been told by Vice
President James Stewart and a Vice President INIontgomery of the
Travelers that at that meeting they made a specific offer to State
officials Arthur Banks, the former head of the Greater Hartford
Community College, who has also refused to be interviewed by us,
and a man named McCann. They told tliem tliat they would bo willing
to sell the building to the State for $414 million, its then book value.
It appears to be absolutely undisputed that the State of Connecticut
never did anything whatsoever to follow up on that offer. It also
does appear, I should say, perfectly clear that that offer was made.
Not only have Mv. Stewart and Mr. Montgomery told it to us, but
our report, I think, at pages 15 through 19, lays out a number of
State documents made contemporaneously Avhich demonstrate that
that offer was made.
In any event, it was not taken up in any way. In August of 1973,
a man named Bernard Mussman comes into this set of transactions.
I think the Senators have heard Mr. Mussman's name. Mr. Muss-
man is a co-owner with Governor Meskill, with Governor Meskill's
379
department of public works commissioner, Paul Manafort, and with
some other people, of a building in Weathersfield, Conn. Mr. Muss-
man is a real estate broker from New Britain.
In August of 1973, Mr. Mussman brought together two Hartford
realtors who did not know each other before, Harry Gampel and Alan
Schaefer. Shortly thereafter, instead of the State in any way taking
up the $41/^ million offer made by Travelers, Schaefer and Gampel
took an option to purchase the Phoenix property from the Travelers
for $-11/^ million. That option was taken 2 clays before the State made
it known that they were interested in leasing that property for the
Greater Hartford Community College, and that option states in its
terms that the offer made by Schaefer and Gampel is conditional
upon their being able to lease that property to the State.
The Travelers took their option and, thereafter, Schaefer and
Gampel entered into negotiations with the State to rent to the State
the property that they were going to buy. They entered into a lease
which would have called for $1.1 million of rent per annum, with
an option to the State to buy the property for $8i/^ million after the
first year.
In early 1974 when that lease came to Attorney General Killian
in the normal course for his signature, he declined to sign it and
wrote a letter to Governor Meskill saying that the lease was abusive,
that the rent was excessive, that it was a colossal amount of money
for the State to bo paying. Very shortly thereafter Governor Meskill
gave instructions that the lease should be canceled, that it should not
be signed by the State. So the State did not pay that rent. Shortly
after that, the State in fact purchased that property, renovated, for
$7.3 million from Schaefer and Gampel.
Now wliat is significant about all of this? What are the questions
that all of this raises ?
It raises a series of questions that cause concern to us and for
which we have no answer. It raises the question of whether there
may have been favoritism in the failure of the State to take up the
offer by the Travelers, with Schaefer and Gampel coming in, and
just before the State made known that they were considering the
possibility of leasing, taking an option on the property, and then
entering into negotiations for rental, which rental was later deter-
mined to be excessive. We do not know the answers, but we suggest
that they are very serious questions and, again, we have not been
able to talk to some of the important people involved : Mr. Manafort
in the Department of Public Works, Mr. Banks, and the Governor
himself.
There is another thing which concerns us a lot about this transac-
tion. As I have said, it appears to be crvstal clear that the State was
given an offer, that the Travelers did offer to sell the property to the
State for $41/) million. There are a number of documents which
demonstrate that really to a certainty.
On the other hand. (GrOA^ernor Meskill and a number of State offi-
cials. Commissioner of Public Works Manafort included, have since
denied that thev were ever aware that the State ever had the oppor-
tunity to buy that property for $41/^ million.
47-704 0—75 25
380
The facts seem to show that Governor Meskill knew perfectly well
that the opportunity existed. We have in our report two letters that
were written to him in July and September of 1973, which say:
Governor, you can buy this property for $414 million, please go out
and do it.
As I have indicated, at a later time Governor Meskill has said he
was never aware of the possibility to make that purchase. We urge
that there should be some explanation of that.
In summary, then, the three series of transactions that concern us
most here are the Downes lease, the Tomasso leases, and the Phoenix
transaction.
If the Senators have any questions about the facts and about our
report, I would be happy to try to answer them.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman, I could summarize this chronologically
for the committee now if that would be helpful; or would you rather
question Mr. Shaw now, whichever way.
Senator Burdick. We will question both of you when you are
concluded.
Mr. Walsh. All right.
In 1970 Governer Meskill was elected Governor. His campaign
chairman was Mr. GafFney. His friend in New Britain was Mr. Mana-
fort. Mr. Gaffney became Republican State chairman. Mr. Manafort
became first deputy commissioner of public works and then commis-
sioner of public works. As commissioner and deputy commissioner
he had responsibility for State leases. Early in 1971, the first year
of Governor Meskill's administration, Mr. Gaffney, the Republican
State chairman, went to Commissioner Wood, the new commissioner
of transportation whom Mr. Gaffney had recently interviewed for
that post, and said my uncle and client, Mr. Downes, would like to
lease some property to the State.
Wood assigned a career employee to take Mr. Downes' son out and
look around for suitable property. Mr. Downes did not own any
pro})erty at this point. They picked suitable property, property that
could be used for the department of transportation garage. Mr.
Downes then got an option on it and subsequently leased it to the
State at a rent which the Connecticut General Assembly subcommittee
has said is roughly double the going price.
Senator Gunther was told about this by an anonymous informer.
He had long been concerned with State leasing practices, and he went
to Mr. Gaffney. Senator Gunther was a Republican, the deputy
minority leader of the senate. He went to his Republican State chair-
man, Mr. Gaffney, and said, is this true what I have been told? And
Gatl'ney in essence confirmed that it was true.
And he said to Gaffney, well, you have to stop this. You cannot
go forward Avith it. And Gaffney, after a few days, said, I am com-
mitted and I am going ahead. Senator Gunther then said, I am going
to the Governor. Now this is the minority leader of the senate. IJe
went to see Mr. Doyle and asked for an appointment with the Gov-
ernor. Mr. Doyle was liaison between the Governor and the senate.
He says that he told Mr. Doyle in no uncertain terms what this was
about.
381
Mr. Doyle in his testimony in Connecticut said he may have done
so. Mr. Doyle was not clear in his recollection. But it is all set forth
in quotations in our report that he may very well have done this.
Then after waiting a period of days to see the Governor, during
which period this letter of commitment was given to INIr. Downes,
he went back to Mr. Doyle and said, unless I get to see the Governor
promptly, I am going to the press. And within a few hours Mr. Doyle
said to him, we can arrange for you to see the Governer in 3 or 4 days.
He then went in to see the Governor. He says he told the Governor
in no uncertain terms about what I believe he called a ripoff in the
Downes lease. The Governor says he came in to see me, he said he had
some vague complaint, but he would not tell me what it was.
Now Governors and legislators that I have known do not act like
that. "When a man waits days to see the Governor, when he has already
told the Republican State chairman, when he has already told the
Governor's liaison, why would he suddenly become secretive when he
finally sees the Governer himself? And if he was secretive, why did
he Avrite a letter to the Governor within 10 days in which he lays it
all out in writing ?
So what we do not understand as Bar Association committees is
how can the Governor stand on the statement which he gave to the
General Assembly Leasing Subcommittee? It just does not ring true.
Now after this there was a hearing projected by Senator Gunther,
a brief, 1-day hearing on leasing in Connecticut, and as a resuh of
that, legislation was introduced to require a 60-day waiting period,
I believe, after the advertising of leases. Governor Meskill, it seems
to me, in his testimony here the last time, suggested that he should
be credited with that. That was entirely a proposal that came from
the opposition, which indeed he did not veto; he signed. The insti-
gation of it seemed to be from the opposition.
But at the very period of this subcommittee, this brief hearing and
the consideration of this legislation, the Tomasso leases were going
forward in which the same practices were being carried out. The
favored man, Tomasso, was being taken out ahead of time, selecting
this site, and then acquiring it and leasing it to the State. The State
does not lease it from the existing owner ; they let Tomasso get it first.
At least two of these three leases were rushed through before the
new legislation took effect, just as the new legislation took effect. The
Downes lease started in 1971, and the letter of commitment was issued
in May of 1972. It did not become final until over 1 year later because
Downes had to build a garage. And it is our understanding that the
then attorney general was of the view that the State may rescind a
letter of commitment. There may be some question as to intervening
damages. For example, if a letter of commitment is given and a man
spends money on a site to improve it. the State may be liable for the
intervening improvements, but not for lost profits because the lease
has not yet been executed. These formalities mean something.
Now. what happened here in the Downes lease? The letter of com-
mitment was given in the middle of May. Senator Gunther saw the
Governer before the end of May and wrote him, I believe, in the first
week of June. So any intervening damages would have been negligible.
382
And, of course, the Governor never took the trouhle to ask the
attorney g^eneral whether or not he could rescind that letter of
commitment.
The Tomasso leases go forward between 1972 and 1973, and then in
1973 we come to the Phoenix transaction. All of this has gone before,
and the Governor is now, one way or another, we think, fully alerted
to the problem of State leasin<x, and here comes the opportunity, now,
to buy the Phoenix Building. The Travelers Insurance Co. had
merged with the Phoenix Insurance Co. and it had an extra head-
quarters building which it no longer needed. It would have been
ideal for the Greater Hartford Community College. This is all agreed.
Having failed to get it as a gift, as Mr. Shaw said. Travelers offers
to sell it at its book value, and it actuallj' brings out its ledgers and
shows them to the State officials to show how the price of approxi-
mately $41^ uiillion is arrived at.
But they do not take it. They let it go, again to intervening owners,
Mr. Gampel and Mr. Schaefer, who are brought together by this man
Mussman. They acquire it at $41/^ million, the same price for which
the State could have gotten it, and then offer a very expensive lease
on that property, which the attorney general revolts at and says I
will not approve this lease. Then they sell it to the State at $7.3
million.
Now there are intervening improvements but they will not let us
see their cost figures. We have no way of saying to what extent that
eats up the difference in between. But this is a 75-percent jump in
price between the time that Mr. Gampel and IMr. Schaefer got this
building and the time that the State gets it. In our report there are
excerpts of letters from the Commission on Higher Education to the
Governoi', asking him to go forward and buy this property, and one
of those letters says it is available at $4.5 million. The Governor him-
self acknowledges this letter and then subsequently denies that he
knew it was available for sale.
A^^ien the attorney general turned down the lease, he said you
could have bought this property at substantially less than that. The
Governor said I dispute your facts as to whether we could have
bought it at substantially less than that. Then he and Mr. Manafort
and others denied that this property was available for purchase by
the State. The man who says it was available is a vice president of
Travelers. In addition there are resolutions adopted by the Commission
on Higher Education authorizing the purchase. The executive direc-
tor of the State agency responsible for the Community College says
that the facts as to the offer were fully presented to the Commission
and the Commission then, within 3 or 4 daj's, adopted a resolution
authorizing the purchase. These resolutions were forwarded to the
Governor and they are referred to in a letter which he acknowledges.
So on the basis of the GovernoT-'s prior exposui'c to this problem — the
Downes lease and the public hearing on Senator Gunther's concern —
and now the Phoenix transaction, we suggest there is more here than
can be ignored. If there is to be a convincing explanation of it. that
is one thing. We tried very hard to find one. The last thing in the world
we want to do is to suggest i-eprehensible conduct. But the persons
concerned will not talk to us.
383
It is on the combination of this cumulative series of facts plus the
unwillingness to explain that we take the position that in addition to a
lack of professional trainin*^ and experience, which we have already
presented to this committee, we believe that there is now a lack of
candor shown Avhich is unfitting for a person who would be appointed
to a Federal judgeship.
Senator Burdick. Thank you very much, both of you, for your
testimony this morning.
Senator Hriiska?
Senator IIruska. INIr. Chairman. I should like to defer for a few
moments to Senator Scott who has another engagement of an official
nature, after which I would like to ask a few questions.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Senator Hruska.
I will refer most of my questions at this time other than to comment
that on the very first page of the bar association statement of March
3, this statement appears: "We submit that their refusal to discuss
these transactions demonstrates a lack of candor and is in itself an
indication of their awareness of wrong doing." So the American Bar
Association has introduced for us an entirely new rule of evidence,
that whatever reason witnesses, or persons who might have been wit-
nesses, have, whatever other inquiries might be going on in the state or
in this committee, that the refusal to talk to the bar association is
treated as in itself evidence of wrongdoing. I can hardly accept that
position, but I will go into that question later.
Last Sunday in the Waterbury Republican there appeared an edi-
torial on Governor INIeskill's nomination. Now this paper has long
insisted that the Governor's role in leasing procedures be cleared up
before he is confirmed — and indeed I believe that he should be willing
to again put himself under oath, and if Senator Gunther, the principal
complainant who is also defined as a chronic complainer, wishes to
testify, he should do so promptly and not be a party to further delays
in these proceedings which began last September. During the last 6
months of the Governor's term, this newspaper frequently took strong
editorial positions against the Governor on several issues. Now, here
is the editorial, and this is the way a reporter in the State of Con-
necticut looks at something which is presented to us in an altogether
different light down here.
The title is "Leasing Eeport Lacks Facts." It is by Greg Chilson,
Waterbury Sunday Republican, March 2, 1975, dateline State capitol.
[The article referred to follows :]
[From the Waterbury Sunday Republican, Mar. 2, 1975]
Leasing Report Lacks Facts
(By Greg Chilson)
State Capitol — If the report of the legislative subcommittee that looked into
state leasing procedures is the only thing between former Gov. Thomas J. Meskill
and his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals, there will shortly be a new face
on the bench of the federal court on Foley Square.
The report assumes &nd presumes, implies and just plain lies, proving nothing
more than the state had a sloppy, patronage-oriented procedure for leasing space.
It says Meskill told an aide — that Sen. George L. Gunther, R-Stratford, com-
plained to the ex-governor about a lease that went to Frank E. Downes, New
Britain, uncle of then Republican State Chairman .T. Brian Gaffney.
It misquotes the aide, John Doyle, to prove the point.
384
The report says Chester Zaniewski, former chief of the leasing division of the
Public Works Department, formed a partnership with Henry J. Dodd, one of the
lessors holding a lease the investigators said should be cancelled or renegotiated.
Zaniewski never was a partner with Dodd in anything.
It says James J. Casey, former state comptroller and consumer protection com-
missioner, secured two mortgages on a highway garage in Thomaston in which
he and Dodd were partners but that Casey didn't sign either mortgage.
Again, not true. Casey obtained the first mortgage and signed it. Dodd alone
got the second mortgage. The report implies that Casey wanted to hide his role
in the transaction.
The report says former Sen. William Powanda, R-Seymour, testified that Frank
DiNardo, a developer, "dangled bait" to get the senator to swing the lease deal for
a State Labor Department office in Ansonia to a firm in which DiNardo was a
partner. It said DiNardo previously testified that he didn't approach any elected
official about the lea.se deal. Then it says "Mr. Frank DiNardo was not pre.sent
when Senator Powanda testified before this subcommittee. Consequently he was
not called back to the stand to respond to Senator Powanda's remarks." Why not?
Here was a discrepancy in testimony and what better way would there to be to
clear it up?
The report says that former Gov. Meskill should have known that Frank E.
Downes "had obtained a lease based on early information which was in violation
of the established leasing procedures." It says : "Governor Meskill and Senator
Gunther met on May 23, 1972 for approximately ten minutes. The senator men-
tioned the Downes lease specifically to the governor to which the governor is said
to have remarked 'What is wrong with it?' The governor then asked the senator
what he would do if the lease w^ere approved. Senator Gunther replied that he
would 'go public' Governor Meskill retorted 'What? You're going to do the Demo-
crats' dirty work?' Senator Gunther responded that he 'didn't con.sider it dirty
work.' The governor at this point said that he would look into the lease."
This appears to be a direct statement of something that happened and that
there was proof that it happened. The problem is that there is no such proof. The
comments omit the one ingredient that would have put them in proper perspective.
The report should have said that Senator Gunther said he did this or that and
that Senator Gunther said the governor said this or that. :Meskill flatly denied
that he ever talked with Gunther about the Downes lease or any other lease. This
is noted on the next page after the reader of the report is told that certain things
happened and certain things were said — without the qualification that Senator
Gunther told the subcommittee that they happened and were said.
Senator Gunther also testified that he told TT.S. Sen. Lowell P. Weicker, R-
Conn., about the Downes lease but that Weicker denied this under oath, the
report notes.
Then, attached to this section of the report is a letter Gunther wrote Meskill
on June 1, 1972 — nine days after the May 23, 1972 meeting between Gunther and
Meskill. In the letter Gunther tells of a news story outlining a lease deal in which
a les.sor negotiated so good a deal, he would pay off his investment and make a
net profit after just seven to ten years. Gunther notes the article was in a news-
paper "just last week."
Then the .senr.tor says : "I would like to call to yoxir attention some information
relative to leasing pending in this state that I feel fits into this same policy and
should be stopped." He goes on to outline the Downes lease deal. There is no
mention of the May 23. 1972 meeting.
The report tells us that Gunther and Meskill talked ".specifically" about the
Downes lease on May 23, 1972.
Then the letter tells us that some time after May 23, 1972. Gunther reads about
a bad lease deal and tells Meskill he knows about another one involving Downes.
Come off it. Charley, it just doesn't hang together. Meskill may not get the
judgeship but it will be something other than the lea.sing report that does him in.
Senator Scott. Here we come to the most important part of the
editorial :
Senator Gunther also testified that he told U.S. Senator Lowell P. Weicker.
Republican, Connecticut, about the Downes lease but that Weicker denied this
under oath, the report notes.
385
So again you have a denial of Gnnther's statement by Governor
Meskill and by our colleague, Senator Weicker. Yet this whole case
really rests on, or seems to have been sparked by, the animosity of
Senator Gunther.
Continuing the editorial :
Then, attached to this section of the report Is a letter Gunther wrote Meskill
on June 1. 1972 — nine days after the May I'S, 1972 meeting between Gnnther and
Meskill. In the letter Gunther tells of a news story outlining a lease deal in which
a lessor negotiated so good a deal, he would pay off his investment and make a
net profit after just seven to ten years. Gunther notes the article was in a news-
paper "just last week."
Then the senator says : "I would like to call to your attention some informa-
tion relative to leasing pending in this state that I feel fits into this same policy
and .should be stopped." He goes on to outline the Downes lease deal. There is no
mention of the May 23, 1972 meeting.
The report tells us that Gimther and Meskill talked "specifically" about the
Downes lease on May 23, 1972.
Then the letter tells us that some time after May 23, 1972, Gunther reads about
a bad lease deal and tells Meskill he knows about another one involving Downes.
Now the editorial concludes :
Come off it, Charley, it just doesn't hang together. Meskill may not get the
judgeship but it will be something other than the leasing report that does him in.
Thank you.
Senator Hruska. Judge Walsh, I refer to the letter of March 3,
1975, transmitting the report on behalf of the American Bar Asso-
ciation Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary and the Association
of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on the Judiciary. It is
the letter from which Senator Scott read.
AYho composed tliat letter, do you know ? Did you, Mr. Shaw ?
Mr. AValsh. I think I can answer this. It was done by Mr. Sutro,
Mr. Bauman, and others on the basis of the report. I do not know if
IMr. Shaw saw it.
Mr. Shaw. Yes ; I did.
Senator Hruska. Did Governor Meskill give any reason for not
wanting to testify ?
Mr. TYalsh. I think his letter is in the report, Mr. Chairman. It is
exhibit 2.
Senator Hruska. Was the Committee on the Federal Judiciary
aAvare of that letter ?
Mr. Walsk. Yes. The letter is addressed to me, as a matter of fact.
Senator Hruska. Is there any reason you know of why that letter
should not have been referred to in the letter of transmittal of this
report to indicate that Governor ]\Ieskill said he had testified before
this committee and was going to testify before this committee and he
felt this committee which is convening today has exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the matter and that relying upon what he believed to be sound
advice he felt it Avould be inappropriate while his nomination is pend-
ing here for him to appear before representatives of any group other
than this Senate committee ?
Do you not tliink in the spirit of fairness that could have been
brought to the attention of the chairman in this letter of transmittal ?
Mr. Walsh. I suppose a letter could always be improved, Senator,
but we thought by setting forth the letter in full we were discharging
386
any responsibility we had to this committee. The entire letter of Gov-
ernor Meskill is before you.
Senator Hruska. Yes, indeed, but when the letter of transmittal
says:
We submit that their refusal to discuss these transactions demonstrates a lack
of candor and is in itself an indication of their awareness of wrong doing.
when you make that charge, when that charge is made in this letter
of transmittal and no reference is made to the reason why Governor
Meskill did not want to subject himself to interrogation by the Bar
Association Committee, it seems to me that the spirit of decency and
fair play would have said that the reason that Governor Meskill did
not want to talk to you was that he felt this committee had exclusive
jurisdiction and he should do his talking here. Does it not appear that
way to you ?
Mr. Walsh. Senator, you know that I will always have the highest
respect for your judgment on the matter of fair play. This letter does
not refer to the reasons proffered by any one of the 12 including
Governor Meskill. Here we were confronted with a broad-scale refusal
by the 12 persons in the center of these transactions to talk. That is
our first point. The second point is, it seems to us, no one is looking to
cause Governor Meskill any harm. The question is, he is seeking a
Federal judgeship. Should he decline to explain to his fellows at the
bar the answers to questions raised during the pendency of his nomi-
nation ? Should he withhold his answers the way a person would do if
this were a matter of private litigation ?
This is not a matter of private litigation. These two associations.
Senator, speak for thousands of lawyers who practice day in and day
out in Governor Meskill's circuit. He seeks to be a Court of Appeals
judge where he will have great power not only as to those lawyers, but
as to their clients.
Now, clearly there has been a question raised as to the conduct of
his public office. Could we come back and report to you without first
seeking to get his explanation to these events? Conversely, can he
properly decline to talk to representatives of the associations ? Indeed,
an argument could be made that he should seek the opportunity to
explain any questions which have been raised as a result of these leases.
Senator Hruska. Would you give him any consideration for not
wanting to talk to a Bar Committee that is obviously hostile, when he
supplements the statement that he does not want to talk to them with
the observation that the Senate Judiciary Committee has exclusive
jurisdiction and that he will appear here. JDo you give him any credit
for that? His testimony here is under oath. How can it be said he is
withholding information ?
Now, it may be said that he did not care to talk to the Bar Com-
mittee, but what right has the Bar Committee to assume that they can
talk to anyone and everyone even if such an appearance would be
detrimental to his own cause?
Mr. Walsh. Senator, it has always seemed to us that the first con-
cern is to serve the public and not the individual. We liave tried very
hard to be fair here, and as you will remember, the last time I testified,
I withheld any conclusion in this matter. The young lawyers who went
387
out to do this interviewing had no prior connection with this commit-
tee or an}' views of this committee in other areas regarding the Gover-
nor's lack of training. They came into this case fresh.
Senator Hrtjska. Judge Walsh, I have been a member of the Amer-
ican Bar Association for 40 years, and I have paid my dues faithfully
ever}^ one of those years, and I am in sympathy with the association
and its work, but I cannot convince myself and I doubt that anyone
could reasonably say that the Bar Committee tried to be fair when
they say we submit that their refusal to discuss these transactions
demonstrates a lack a candor and is in itself an indication of their
awareness of wrongdoing when he has already testified here and denied
under oath any wrongdoing, and he gave the Bar Committee the
reason why he refused to talk to them. And I think it is a good reason.
Had he asked me as a lawyer should he be interviewed by the Com-
mittee of the American Bar Assocation with its manifest prejudice
and bias, I would have told him no, do not do so, the place is the
Judiciary Committee; that is the forum where you should testify.
Senator Scott. If the Senator would yield, was not Governor Mes-
kill as much entitled to follow the advice of his counsel as any other
person ?
Mr. Walsh. Well, Senator, when you talk about a person who seeks
a Federal judgeship being guided by the advice of counsel, then I am
concerned. This seems to me to be a full and open hearing as to any-
thing in a man's record, and the Bar Association and, indeed, other
interested groups should be privileged to ask these questions. Now,
if a man needs to be guided by counsel, that in itself seems to raise
a serious question.
Senator Scott. With the full weight of the Bar Association on
one side, is he not entitled to want a little itty-bitty lawyer?
Mr. Walsh. Of course, he is. Senator. Of course, he is entitled to a
lawyer, but it seems to me that a person needing counsel when seek-
ing this type of an appointment is another question.
Senator Scott. But you are implying that needing counsel implies
wrongdoing, and again I cannot accept that.
Mr. Walsh. This, I think, Senator, jumps a gap. It includes a step
which is not here.
Senator Scott. It was the way you said it, that you would be sur-
prised if he would need counsel. That raises an indication that you
think he needs a counsel because of possible wrongdoing. He needs
counsel because the Bar Association is after him. That is why he
needs counsel.
]\Ir. Walsh. Senator, the Bar Association has its ground of lack
of professional qualification. It was quite content with that last
August. We had no cause to go further. But when the leasing hear-
ings exposed these facts in Connecticut, the association concluded it
had a duty to go further. It did not need that additional ground to
oppose this nomination.
Senator Hruska. There are other witnesses, some of whom wrote to
the Bar Committee saying why they did not wish to testify ; one was
a pending court proceeding of some kind, and another — do you recall
that, Mr. Shaw ?
Mr. Shaw. I am sorry, Senator, I was not following you.
388
Senator Hruska. Were there not other witnesses to whom you ad-
dressed letters to appear before your committee who responded with
an assigfnment of reasons why they did not wish to testify?
Mr. Shaw. In several instances, there were, sir.
Senator Hruska. Where is it in the report ?
Mr. Shaw. Exhibit 1 in our report is a chart referring to witnesses
who were contacted.
Senator Hruska. There are letters ?
Mr. Shaw. That is correct, there are some.
Senator Hri'Ska. Under what tab do you find them ?
Mr. Shaw. In exhibit 3, sir. There are several letters there. I think
you are referring, Senator, to a letter by the Murtha firm in Hartford,
Conn., relating to Angelo Tomasso and John LePore.
Senator Hruska. That is right.
]\Ir. Shaw. And commenting that they were fighting a subpena from
the State leasing committee for the production of documents.
Senator Hruska. No mention is made of that letter in the report, is
it? Here you condemn 12 witnesses for not coming before you, and
I read now from the letter of John S. Murtha who received a letter
from your committee. And he says, "There is presently pending in
Superior Court for Hartford County an action instituted by this firm
on behalf of Angelo Tomasso, Jr." and so on. "Involved in the action
are the matters which are the subject of your letter and, in my opinion,
it would be inappropriate for Messrs. Tomasso and LePore to comply
with your request while this action is pending."
Does that appeal to you as being reasonable ?
Mr. Walsh. May I, Senator? This, of course, is Mr. Tomasso, the
lessor that we have referred to who has declined even to comply with
the subpena of the leasing subcommittee of the general assembly.
Senator Hruska. But there is a lawsuit pending. He says I don't
want to appear before your committee because there is an action pend-
ing, and I would prefer not to do that. Does that appeal to your sense
of fairness as a lawyer?
Mr. Shaw. Senator, the litigation in Connecticut has to do with
the question of whether they should comply with the subpena, and I
believe it is true that it goes off on a challenge of whether the leasing
committee even has the authority to issue subpenas. The matters wliich
we would have wished informally to ask Mr. Tomasso and Mr. LePore
about, certainly in the presence of Mr. Murtha if he wished to be there,
and certainly transcribed if they wished so that we could not any way
distort what they said, were interview matters which I do not think
are in anyway related to the litigation to which he is making refer-
ence. But in any event, we did set out their letter, and their letter
speaks for itself, Senator.
Senator Hruska. Well, he says : "Furthermore, as I am sure you are
aware, the proceedings of the subcommittee on Leasing of the Joint
Committee on Appropriations are available to your committee and the
transcripts of those proceedings will disclose that INIessrs. Tomasso and
Le Pore were quetioned at length at the subcommittee hearings. The
transcript of the testimony, which was taken under oath, will clearly
demonstrate" and so on and so on. You condemn those witnesses for
not coming in to testify and try to predicate an awareness of guilt
when there is a good assignment of reason why they should not appear.
389
Mr. Shaw. Senator, may I respectfully, sir, point out one thing
which I think is important. The State leasing subcommittee was not
concerned with the question of individual responsibility ; it had to do
with the question of whether there were abuses that ought to be cor-
rected. It is true that many people testified before that State leasing
subcommittee, but the specific question we were focusing on was one
to which that State leasing committee did not address its attention.
So the fact that some of these people testified was really of no help
to us in trying to inquire into the questions that we were concerned
with.
Senator Hruska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
letter of Governor IMeskill, dated February 10, 1975, and the letter
of ]\rarch 3, 1975, signed by John A. Sutro and Arnold Bauman, be
made a part of the record.
[The letters referred to appear on page 237 and page 307.]
Senator Hruska. Let me ask you, Mr. Shaw, what illegal acts does
your report indicate, or does your investigation indicate, that Gover-
nor Meskill engaged in ?
Mr. Shaw. Senator, we have not been able to conduct the kind of
full investigation that would allow me to give a conclusion on that on
account of our not having hand the subpena power, on account of our
not having been able to talk to all of the relevant witnesses. Certainly
the narrow answer to the question you ask is that I have no specific
evidence of criminality on the part of Governor Meskill. I certainly
must say that. But I have not been, really, in a position to try to
draw that kind of conclusion, because I have not had access to all of
the facts. That is the best answer I can give to your question.
Senator Hruska. Does that also indicate to you an awareness on the
part of the Governor that he engaged in wrongdoing ?
Mr. Shaw. As the record stands now, sir, my own personal feeling
is that the facts that we have been able to uncover, the undisputed
facts that I added up for you, sir, strongly indicate an awareness on
the part of Governor Meskill of at least the principal abuses here, and
strongly indicate that he did nothing to stop them. That is not an
ultimate conclusion, because I have never heard Governor ISIeskill's
explanation of these things.
Senator Hruska. Is the attorney general of Connecticut engaged
in any investigation to ascertain whether illegal acts were performed?
Mr. Shaw. I have read in the newspaper — and I know no more of
it than this — but I have read that within the last several weeks, copies
of the State leasing subcommittee's report and appendix were for-
warded, I believe, to the State prosecutor in Connecticut, to the
U.S. attorney in Connecticut, and to the Organized Crime Strike Force
in Connecticut, although I must say that I do not know what organized
crime would have to do with it. I have heard that the report has been
sent to those sources. "Wliat has happened with that. Senator, I do
not know.
Senator Hruska. And you say they have been forwarded to the
U.S. attorney?
]\rr. Shaw. The I".S. attoniev, the organized crime section of the
Justice Department, and I believe also to the State prosecuting at-
torney in Connecticut. I know that only from reading it in the
newspapers.
390
Senator Hruska. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can get the U.S. at-
torney to come in and testify.
Senator Burdtck. If it is your wish, we will arrange it.
Senator Hruska. Mr. Chairman, I have other questions, but I do
not want to monopolize the time. I will defer to others if they have
questions.
Senator Burdick. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. I am not a member of this subcommittee Mr.
Chairman, but I appreciate this chance.
Senator Burdick. You are a member of the committee.
Senator Kennedy. That is right. I wanted to hear the testimony of
Mr. Meskill. I want to say, Mr. Walsh, that the kind of resentment
that has been expressed by Senator Hruska and Senator Scott are
equally shared by me about your conclusions on the willingness of
Mr. Meskill to make a comment. I think it was completely unfair and
unjustified to reach those conclusions, and I want you to know it. And
I think that the implications that you have drawn have been a dis-
service to him.
And just as I think that, these other kinds of comments about the
general kind of statements that various reports are sent to different
law enforcement agencies, anyone can send anything to anyone. And
trying to suggest from those comments that there is any kind of sup-
port for the general kind of improper activities which Mr. Shaw has
concluded, I think is unfair. I am really amazed that the spokesmen
for the Bar Association are as really injudicious as both of you have
been talking about this case.
As I say, I have not had the opportunity to even participate in
these hearings, or examine in detail the record as I would like to and
as I do intend to do. I was really primarily interested in listening to
Mr. Meskill, but I do want you to know that I share those feelings
that have been expressed here and I will leave it with that.
Mr. Walsh. Senator, may I make one clarifying statement ?
Senator Kennedy. Any comment that you would like to make.
Mr. Walstt. The comment in this letter, as I read it. deals with the
problem of 12 witnesses acting in the same fashion, not just Governor
Meskill alone. And it does not speak of Governor IVfeskill in that
sentence, as I see it. Although we think he to should disclose, the
sentence speaks in the plural — their refusal. That is the point.
Senator Kennedy. But you are drawing the implication that their
refusal to talk spills over on the nominee.
Mr. Walsh. That is the problem.
Senator Kennedy. And you press that with great strength, and I
think it is a comment that could be made, but drawing the kinds of
conclusions in terms of improper activity I think is wholly unbecom-
ing to the Bar Association. Obviously you do not feel that way, and
I have listened to your comments in response to it.
Mr. Walsh. My statements are based upon a report. Senator.
Senator Kennedy. You were completely, in terms of response to
the other questions, you have had an opportunity to express your own
view. T do not think anyone is trying to — you stated your conclusion
about what the results of the report are ; 3'ou did not ti-y to draw the
391
distinction this is what the Bar Association said, but I might take a
little issue on this particular matter.
Mv. Walsh. No, no. I stand on the report.
Senator Kennedy. You have associated yourself with these con-
clusions.
Mr. Walsh. Yes sir ; I do. I misunderstood the thrust of your point.
Senator Kennedy. I have no further comments.
Senator Burdick. Mr. Scott.
Senator Scott. .Judge Walsh, your letter begins by saying: "The
American Bar Association standing Committee on Federal Judiciary
and The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Commitee
on the Judiciary herewith submit their joint report ..."
Then in tlie tliird paragraph you say, "we" — which I assume is the
same group: "made every effort to obtain an explanation of these
practices from various people" and then you say: "We submit that
their refusal to discuss these transactions demonstrates a lack of
candor and is in itself an indication of their awareness of wrong
doing."
But then when we turn to the exhibits which are not included in
the letter, as have been noted here, you have the actual answers of
these witnesses who are accused of wrongdoing with that reference
in your letter.
Now let us look at some of those actual answers. First, Governor
INIeskill :
Relying upon what I believe to be sound advice, T think it would be inappro-
priate while my nomination is pending sub judice before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, for me to appear before representatives of any body other than the
Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with the matter of my confirmation,
over which the Senate has exclusive jurisdiction.
Then we go to a letter from gentleman who acted as counsel for
Messrs. Tomasso and Lepore. The counsel, Mv. jNIurtha, says that he
does not express an opinion as to the Governor's qualifications and the
letter goes on to say :
I believe that the investigation of the State of Connecticut's leasing practices
by the Subcommittee on Leasing is being misused in the inquiry into Governor
Meskill's judicial qualifications.
He includes that in a letter in which he says that his clients cannot
testify because their case is still pending in court. It seems to me that
that is not an implication of wrongdoing if the case is in court and they
say that they cannot testify about any facts while that is pending.
Then you have a letter from Mr. Earl Wood which does not say any-
thing about wrongdoing:
At no time did I have any contact with the Governor about leases or rentals
for state government purposes, orally or in writing, directly or indirectly.
I have testified before the Legislative Committee convened to examine the
facts relative to what I know about the Downes and Tomasso leases. I answered
every question completely, under oath.
Then you have a letter from Mr. Doyle, and I went over this Con-
necticut cross-examination of Mr. Doyle, and the cross-examiner tries
for all of these many pages to get Mr. Doyle to say that he is aware of
a conversation between Senator Gunther and the Governor. He says.
392
knowing the personality of Senator Gnnther, who was a cronic corn-
plainer, he would not expect him to give him, Doyle, detailed infor-
mation. He has no recollection that he did and he does not believe that
he did. But the questioner continued on and on for page after page,
and finally gets him to admit to : Would you say that it is not possible,
that it might have been possible there was a discussion? He finally
says, evidently trying to get an end to this : Well it might have been,
I may have heard it. But I assure you I don't remember it, and I don't
think I did.
[The cross-examination referred to appears on page 78.]
Senator Scott. So, Mr. Doyle wrote to Mr. Walsh :
In response to your letter of February 3, 1975 I must say that it ap-
pears to me that having gone on record in opposition to Governor
Meskill's appointment you now are casting about for reasons to fur-
ther delay his confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Be that as it may,
however, you did discuss four points in your letter and I will respond
to them.
Other than my occasional reading of newspaper articles I have no
knowledge, records, or correspondence regarding any State lease or
purchase of either the Phoenix Building or any properties or buildings
owned by Messrs. Downes or Tomasso. I likewise have no knowledge
of any business transaction between Governor INIeskill, his agents, or
employees, and any of the persons listed in your question No. 4. I per-
sonally do not now have, nor have I ever had, any financial dealings
either with the Governor or with any other person referred to in your
letter. As you no doubt are aware I was a member of the Governor's
office staff from January of 1971 through September of 1973.
On a matter you did not specifically mention in your letter I do not
recall receiving the details of the Downes' lease from Senator George
Gunther in 1972, nor do I remember scheduling a meeting on this mat-
ter between the Senator and Governor Meskill. As I told a staff mem-
ber of the Connecticut General Assembly's Leasing Subcommittee, and
the subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. I do not
dispute Senator Gunther's claim that such a meeting took place, I sim-
ply have no recollection or records regarding such a meeting. However,
since Senator Gunther made many generalized complaints, particu-
larly concerning Mr. Gaffney, I think it very unlikely that the Senator
would have detailed any concern about Mr. Gaffney, either to me or to
Governor Meskill.
The above both answers all the points raised in your letter and sum-
marizes my comments before the Leasing Subcommittee, and thus, par-
ticularly since this matter is before the LT.S. Senate, which is governed
by rules of fairness and objectivity, no meeting with your joint com-
mittee will be necessarj'.
I continue, of course, to stand ready to answer any questions Avhich
may be asked of me by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator Scott. Mr. Howard Dickinson answers in his handwriting :
"I have no records. Can add nothing to statements made at hearings.
I believe former Governor Thomas INIeskill should be approved for the
U.S. Court of Appeals."
Now, the refusal of these people to comply, it seems to me, does not
raise an inference of wrongdoing. These men said, we cannot come, our
393
case is pending in court. I cannot come because I have testified under
oath before the Leasing Committee. I cannot come because I have
answered your questions fully.
Now this committee can call anyone it wants, and if this committee
wants to call some of these people, certainly I think it is time to call
the chronic complainer. Senator Gunther. I do not think he ought to
hide off there in the mist somewhere and hurl these darts without hay-
ing been heard himself. I would like to see him under oath before this
committee and under cross-examination. I would like to see him and
Senator Weicker compare their statements.
Senator Weicker has denied, under oath, statements attributed to
him by State Senator Gunther. Now I have the greatest confidence in
my colleague. If Senator Weicker says he said something and Senator
Gunther said he said something else, it would be my guess that Senator
Gunther is the one who is not telling the truth. And I will stay with
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Well, Senator, the next witness will be Senator
Gunther, this afternoon.
Senator Scott. Well I am glad to hear it.
Senator Burdick. Just one more question.
;Mr. Walsh. Yes, sir ?
Senator Burdick. Have you any evidence to offer that is not con-
tained in the legislative report from Connecticut? Do you have any
facts not contained in the legislative report ?
IMr. Shaw. Senator, the State leasing subcommittee did not spend
much of its time on the Phoenix transactions.
Senator Burdick. On what ?
Mr. Shaw. On the Phoenix transactions to which I have referred
before. They are briefly referred to in the appendix. The materials on
the first 30 pages of the report we have submitted today to this com-
mittee has a good many more facts about the Phoenix transaction than
the State leasing committee report. And I should also add again that
the State leasing committee report was not at all concerned with the
question of Governor MeskilPs knowledge, or lack of knowledge, about
these particular leasing abuses. So that I think the answer is that what
we have presented in this report contains much that is not at all in the
State leasing committee report.
Senator Kenxedt. Are you finished, Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Burdick. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Could I ask whether it is the intention of this
committee to call any of these other witnesses mentioned in this report
that could give direct testimony on any of these particular cases ?
Senator Burdick. Senator Kennedy, I am not the chairman of this
subcommittee; I am just sitting in for Senator Eastland. We were all
hoping we could bring an end to this today, but if there is some ques-
tion about these 10 or whatever number of witnesses that the committee
thinks is material, we should call them.
Senator Kennedy. As I see the situation — I made a comment earlier
about it, and having made the statement I have about drawing conclu-
sions about the people's unwillingness to speak, and having listened to
the comments of the Senators from Nebraska and Pennsylvania indi-
394
eating we are the ones with the responsibility to make the judgment on
this, as I understand the position of the Bar Association it urges us
to inquire of these individuals, do you not, on each of these particular
instances ?
Mr. AValsii. You will note in the last paragraph, Senator, that we
say this is all subject to a convincing explanation. All of this could be
explained.
Senator Kennedy. It seems to me that we have — and I am not inter-
ested in undue delay of these particular proceedings— but it does seem
to me that we have some responsibility at least to inquire of at least
the knowledgeable ones involving these different situations and reach
our own conclusion in terms of exonorating any of these particular
individuals. If the nominee is exonorated on these particular ques-
tions, then we are back to the other kind of issue as to his fitness to
serve on the court. What other witnesses besides Senator Gunther will
we hear from ?
Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, might I respond to the Chair and
to Senator Kennedy ? In anticipation of exactly the request that Sena-
tor Kennedy has made, every single one of the key personnel; John
Doyle, Coliii Pease, George Smith, Bob Leuba, are all here in this room
today, along with the Governor, in order that they could give direct
testimony to the committee, and they are here for this purpose.
Senator Burdick. Senator Weicker, are the 11 witnesses referred to
by the American Bar Association all present?
" Senator Weicker. No ; they are not. Those persons that I would
consider to be key to the conimittee's investigation, it is conditional
upon whatever the committee wants to do, but believe me, the ones that
are key are in this room right now.
Senator Scott. Two of those witnesses, you will recall, were advised
by counsel not to testify because some other case is pending.
Senator Weioker. I think that, in addition to Senator Gunther being
here. Governor INIeskill being here, it is my understanding also. INIr,
Chairman, that the U.S. attorney for the State of Connecticut is in
Washington on ofReial business. He is available also.
I have done this, INIr. Chairman, because clearl^^ — the hearings
started in September — I felt it absolutely imperative that firstliand
testimony be presented to the committee, and all of these persons are
here and ready to go.
Senator Kennedy. As I have said, I am not a member of the subcom-
mittee, but I do think that since these matters have been raised, and
obviously the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, have a good deal of
idea whether in resolving the particular allegations in many of these
particular instances, whether the appropriate witnesses are here. I
would hope that if they are here that the committee would feel that it
could inquire of them on those particular allegations. I think that in
fairness to the nominee that that ought to be the case. I think tliat there
have been these allegations and charges and I think in fairness to him
they ouglit to be inquired of, but as I am not a member of the com-
mittee, I leave this
Senator Burdick, Senator Kennedy, since you made the request, I
will concede the request. As far as I am concerned, since an issue was
made of this, I suppose that we will have to hear the rest of these
witnesses.
i\
395
Senator Hruska. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may make an observation
or two, I do not know that there is anything about 12 witnesses I thmk
we have seen enonj^h of the action here that can be detailed by the
people who are in the room, and that they will get at the thing.
Now if we have another month or 2 months or 3 months— and we
have been at this since last September— I think we might make a big
show out of it, and call evervone, including members of the legislature,
and let them have their day in court, but I do not thmk that is neces-
sary. We can resolve the principal points m this thing or get a feel o±
it Avell enough with the people who are in this room. If we want the
U.S. district attorney, let us get him. Senator Gunther is here, and it
seems to me Mhen we conclude the testimony of these people— and I
hope we can do it expeditiously this afternoon — we will be in a better
position to decide if we want 12 more witnesses or not.
Senator Scott. I would agree with that.
Senator Burdick. It will not be possible to conclude with the next
witness before 12 :80. We have some other obligations, we have a vote
at 1 o'clock, so we will be in recess until 2 o'clock, and I thank you
gentlemen.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to re-
convene at 2 p.m., the same day.]
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Burdick. The meeting will come to order.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Chairman, I would like to complete our testimony
by offering for the record the joint report of the Association of the
Bar of the City of New York and the American Bar Association. This
really is based on the report of the Special Subcommittee on Leasing
of tlie Connecticut General Assembly and it picks up three series of
transactions for further investigation and particularization, and if we
could, we would like that put in the record including all the exhibits
as well.
Senator Burdick. Without objection.
[The material referred to appears on page 239.]
Mr. Walsh. There is one letter which we received from Mr. Leuba,
former counsel to the Governor, which came in quite late, explaining
why he did not think he should be interviewed, and we should like to
send that down later as part of exhibit 3, so that the committee may
have before it all of the reasons given to the extent that reasons were
given.
Senator Burdick. Without objection.
[The material referred to follows :]
Conway, Londregan, Leuba and McNamaka,
Attorneys at Law,
Mystic, Conn., February 20, 1915.
Lawrence E. Walsh,
President-Elect, American Bar Association, •
Neiv York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Walsh : I would like to acknowledge receipt of your form letter of
February 3, 1975, which I have not responded to because I consider it particularly
inappropriate under all of the circumstances.
Very truly yours,
RoBEKT C. Leuba.
47-704 O — 75 26
396
Mr. Walsh. And one last thing. Mr. Connelly, the second circuit
member of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has a
brief affidavit correcting certain testimony by Governor Meskill, deal-
ing again with the question of why Governor INIeskill declined to be
interviewed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York,
and if we could, we would leave that as a further Exhibit.
Senator Burdick. Without objection.
[The material referred to follows :]
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate 93d Congress
HEARINGS ON NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. MESKILL OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE U.S.
CIRCUIT JUDGE, SECOND CIRCUIT ; AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT R. CONNELLY
Albert R. Connelly, being duly sworn, deposes and says :
I am a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on
Federal Judiciary and I am the representative on that Committee for the Second
Circuit. At a hearing before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary held September 17, 1974, Governor Meskill is reported to have testified
as follows :
"Senator Burdick. Now I have one more thing for you to have an opportunity
to clear. It is a telegram from Cyrus R. Vance, president of the Association of
the Bar of New York.
"With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will read it so Governor Meskill can
answer it.
"The Chairman. Certainly.
"Senator Burdick [reading] :
"The Association of the Bar is deeply concerned about the confirmation of
Governor Thomas Meskill's appointment to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Governor has refused to meet with our committee on the judiciary or to
furnish information as to qualifications. Respectfully suggest confirmation be
deferred until there has been a complete examination into his qualifications for
this vitally important position.
"Now the key question I want to ask about this telegram is, have you refused
to meet with this Association of the Bar?
"Governor Meskill. Yes, Senator, I have. I would like to explain if I may.
"Senator Burdick. You may.
"Governor Meskill. Mr. Connelly, when he interviewed me, said that the New
York City Bar has in the past lilied to interview candidates. He had advised
them that I would probably be too busy to come to New York and indicated to me
that there was not much that would be gained by such an interview.
"This was when he interviewed me in my ofiice many, many months ago. Sub-
sequently at least 6 weeks or 2 months later I received a call from the president of
the New York City bar indicating that he would like very much to interview me.
After receiving that call I contacted Mr. Silberman in the Justice Department
and I asked for guidance as to whether or not I should submit to an interview
by the New York City bar. I was advised that the only bar association that had
any quasi-approval function in judicial nominations and confirmations was the
American Bar Association and its committee on judicial selection.
"He advised me, well, his advice was, if I could quote him, was something to the
effect that it would set a bad precedent. I checked with Judge Timbers to find
out whether or not all judges had gone through this particular evaluation by the
New York City bar and he did some research and indicated to me that he knew
of at least two recent ones, particularly those from Connecticut, who had not and,
therefore, I told the gentleman, whose name I cannot immediately recall, it was
not Mr. Vance, the one who called me, that on the advice of Mr. Silberman I
did not think that anything could be accomplished on my behalf to further the
nomination and, therefore, although I looked forward to meeting him in the
future I did not think that I wanted to be interviewed by the New York City
bar.
397
"I also told him that the Connecticut Bar Association as an organization had
not talien an official position and since my State bar association felt that it was
a Federal matter and not a matter for the State bar association I thought it
would be inappropriate for the New York City Bar Association to be getting into
the act."
Governor Meskill is mistaken in his recollection that I indicated to him that
there was not much that would be gained by the interview requested by the As-
sociation of the Bar of the City of New York. I interviewed Governor Meskill at
Hartford, Connecticut on May 23, 1974. Shortly prior to that interview, I had
received a call from Seymour M. Klein, then Chairman of the Judiciary Com-
mittee of the Association of the Bar. Mr. Klein stated that his Committee de-
sired to interview Governor Meskill and asked me whether I thought it ap-
propriate to send him the customary notice requesting the candidate to appear in
New Y'ork City before the entire Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting. I
told Mr. Klein that in view of the nature of the Governor's duties, it seemed to
me preferable to ascertain the Governor's convenience and to arrange for a
special meeting at a date convenient to him. Since I was to meet with Governor
Meskill within the next few days, I agreed to pass on to him the request of the
City Bar Committee, which I did at my interview with Governor Meskill on
May 23. I was told by Governor Me.skill that his commitments for the next four
or five weeks were such as to make it impossible for him to meet in New York
with the City Bar Committee. I said that I would communicate that information
to the Chairman of the City Bar Committee which I did shortly thereafter. At
no time did I express any view to Governor Meskill as to what would or would
not be gained by such an interview.
Albert R. Connelly.
Sworn to before me this 3d day of March 1975.
Iba E. Wiener,
Notary Public.
Mr. Walsh. And Senator Weicker has suggested the names of
certain witnesses to be called which, in his view, would complete these
hearings. "We point out that, as I heard those names listed, if I heard
them correctly, it leaves out Brian Gaffney who was at the center of
the Downes transaction, and who was in the meeting which approved
the lease of the Phoenix Building, and who, as Republican State chair-
man, would be expected to have perhaps further material testimony.
It also leaves out Paul Manafort. who, as Commissioner of Public
Works, was responsible in the first instance for the negotiation and
execution of these leases.
It leaves out Howard Dickinson, who was the person who helped
the favored lessors pick their sites, and I have a list of the others here
which I would give to the reporter if that is satisfactory.
Senator Btjrdick. How many other names are there ?
INIr. Walsh. There are 10. I could read them off very quickly.
Senator Bubdick. All right, read them off.
Mr. Walsh. Brian Gaffney; Frank Downes; John Downes; Earl
Wood. Avho was Commissioner of the Department of Transportation;
Howard Dickinson of that department ; Angelo Tomasso, who was the
favored lessor in the leases, accumulating $400,000 a year; John Le-
Pore. who was his comptroller; Paul Manafoil, to whom I have al-
ready referred; Bernard Mussman, the broker; and Arthur Banks.
Senator Burdick. Who is Arthur Banks ?
INIr. Shaw. Arthur Banks is the former president of the Greater
Hartford Community College, who was involved in the Phoenix
transaction.
398
Mr. Walsh. And who declined to be interviewed.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Our next witness will be Senator Gunther,
previously described as the habitual complainer.
Mr. Gunther. Do you want to swear me in ?
Senator Burdick. Yes. Do you swear that the evidence you are
about to give in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Gunther. I do, Senator. Shall I identify myself ? I am not used
to these proceedings.
Senator Burdick. Identify yourself, and proceed as you wish.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE L. GUNTHER, STATE SENATOR,
CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. Gunther. I am Senator Gunther from the 21st Senatorial Dis-
trict in the State of Connecticut. If you would like a little of my
background as far as my credentials and that, I have been involved in
civic and political activities in my State for probably some 25 to 30
years. I have served in local government, the boards of education, town
councils, conservation commissions, and I am just now starting my
ninth year in the State Senate in the Senate of Connecticut.
Let me start, Senator Burdick, by saying I am very pleased you
invited me down here. I would have liked to have come much earlier
than this, but I had obligations that obligated me to business that I
had back in the State of Connecticut. I probably would not be down
here now if it had not have been for your invitation. I am down here,
I hope, to clear up some of the questions.
I heard some of the testimony here. I have read part of the testi-
mony of previous hearings. I will say that I get a little upset when
I read some of it, because I do not particularly care for the picture
which has been painted of me here with the testimony given by certain
parties. And if I might, as a preliminary, say that I have been involved
in the State of Connecticut in fighting the leasing policies probably
since 1968 or 1969. This was during a previous administration. During
that time, I felt it was wrong. I have not been silent about my objec-
tions to it, and why it was wrong. At the time I was yelling, I was in
the minority, and of course 1 was a Republican hero because I dared
take on the parties in power at the time, and at no time — and I wonld
like to stress this — at no time, whether it was back in 1968 or 1969 or the
present date, have I ever said there was any criminal involvement of
any individuals in the leasing policies in the State of Connecticut. I
have been quite succinct about pointing out that it was the policies
which were wrong, it was an abuse of the taxpayers of the State of
Connecticut, and I think the lease involving the Downes lease in 1972
was particularly bad in my estimation because — I think this is not a
criminal offense against the Governor. I think it is a case of non-
feasance, and I believe that in the credentials of a judge in the second-
highest court in the country, that is something that should weigh
heavily in weighing his credentials.
I would like to state that all of the particulars relating to the Downes
lease, and Avhat I said and what I did, all took place back in 1972.
There was no judgeship involved here. We could not even anticipate
399
that there would be a judgeship involved. I do not believe that I have
involved this judgeship in any of the hearings. I believe that this is
the forum that should have taken that into consideration. In my last
testimony before the leasing committee in Connecticut, because I feel
that, knowing the circumstances and knowing politics as I do, I feel
that I am working almost to a stacked deck ; because what I have done
is not the political thing to do, and that is to get up and expose certain
practices, and that type of thing, within your own party. Because I
was working to that stacked deck, I did volunteer myself to the submis-
sion of the polygraph : and again, I am not trying to be theatrical, but
I do feel very strongly about this, that my reputation and my credi-
bility is being impugned so often by statements being made in corrob-
oration against statements that I have made, I am willing to subject
myself down here to this, just to substantiate the fact that I am telling
the truth.
New, I did not prepare any statement, and I talked to your aide, who
called me, and he said that the committee had wanted to discuss state-
ments that were made relative to me. So if I m.ight at this point turn
myself over to you, I am willing to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Burdick. Well, the principal thing we would like to know
about is, the center of this controversy is, what you did and what you
know about the Downes lease. There are some stories about your trying
to see the Governor. Can you clear it up, from your point of view?
Tell us about what you know about the Downes lease.
Mr. GuxTHER. I can reiterate what I said at the hearing before the
leasing committee and, incidentally, I was called in on short order on
that one, and volunteered, I did not have to be subpenaed on that
particular hearing. But very frankly, going back to 1972, and I have
to go to a relative period of time because I did not log conversations
I had relative to when I found out about the involvement of the
Downes lease, my testimony that I gave to the committee was some-
time either in the latter part of April or early part of May, I believe
it was. I did have a call that lined up succinctly each minute detail
on the Downes lease, and with the comment that many of the people
in the State of Connecticut know that I was very critical of these when
(he Democrats were in power. In fact, going back to 1968 and 1969, I
laid out the dean of the House, who had, I think, three garages at that
time; and they said that I had a big mouth when it was Democrats,
how about when there was a Eepublican involved? He laid out the
exact details of the lease itself, relative to the cost of lands, buildings,
what the return was going to be on the lease, and said to me, let's see
^^hat you will do now. He asked me to check into it. Almost the next
day, I was in the capitol, at that time, incidentally, I was deputy
minority leader. I was also liaison man to the Governor — I'm sorry, in
1972. In 1971, I was liaison man, I was not in 1972. I saw Brian Gaff-
ney, and I asked him, and he called me into the hall.
Senator Burdick. '\Mien did you see him ? Give us some dates.
Mr. GuxTHER. I would say late April or early May. I could not give
you an exact date on that.
Senator Burdick. 1972 ?
Mr. GuNTHER. 1972. We went out to the hall because I think that,
you people are in politics, when you are going to discuss something of
this nature, quite often it is on a head-to-head basis, it is man-on-man,
400
and maybe sometimes by design and sometimes just by coincidence, but
this time Mr. Brian Gaffney and I and a fellow in my office in the hall.
I showed them a paper that I put down the exact figures I had re-
ceived, and asked them if these were true; of course, identifying it
with Frank Downes, and everyone in the State of Connecticut politics
knows that Frank Downes is Brian Gaffney's uncle. At that time, he
looked at the paper and said, I will have to check it, I know he is
considering a lease for the State, and I will get back to you.
He went downstairs. At the time, he was in the House; he was a
Representative at that time, and he went down and checked the figures.
He came back to me and said, yes, they are essentially correct ; and I
said, well, you know my sentiments on this and how I feel about these
leases. Ancl he said, well, that is the way they do it. I said, Brian, that
is not the way they do it. We are in power now ; this is the way we
do it. I said I would like to see it stopped, and he said he'd look into it.
Senator Burdick. What did you want stopped?
Mr. GuNTiiER. I wanted the lease itself stopped.
Senator Burdick. '\Miy ?
Mr. GuxTHER. If you will look at the figures. Senator, I can dig them
out for you here. Very frankly, these leases are purely patronage deals.
They go in, and they give a letter of commitment, and I can give you
some documentation going back to 1969 where they will take the letter
of commitment and go to a banking institution, or some lending insti-
tution, and get a mortgage ; sometimes, and T think I have one docu-
mentation here, of 140 percent, they go in, and on the basis of the letter
of commitment, go out and borrow the total amount of money neces-
sary, even for the purchase of land at times, but at least for construc-
tion. They compute the lease based upon the cost of building that
building, the cost of the land; and this is based most of the time —
and in our 1972 leasing investigation — this was left up almost primar-
ily with the lessor, which was almost rubber stamped by the Depart-
ment with these figures.
Now, on the basis of the cost, they would then figure out the lease
over a lO-to-15-year period. And if you looked at the return that the
lessor would get on that particular property, you would find out that
within an area of 5 to 7 years, he would amortize his cost, and the last
years were pure rake-in. They used to be for short periods of time, but
they have been getting 10, 15, and even 20 years on the leasing, which
does not even make good sense. It is like going out, buying a home, and
paying more than the home is worth to start with, and it is just a ripoff ,
in my estimation. I believe that the leasing committee has substanti-
ated that these were inflated costs of leasing on these particular prop-
erties. T thought it was abusive to the taxpayers.
Senator Bfrdick. I want you to be specific about the Downes lease.
"\^niat was your objection to it?
Mr. GuNTHER. It was in the usual routine of being excessive in the
leasing cost to the State of Connecticut which I think was abusive to
the taxpayers.
Senator Burdick. Can you give me some figures?
Mr. GuNTHER. Oh, surely. These are the actual figures that I got at
the time. The construction — these are the costs given me over the
phone, which were confirmed pretty much. There might be some varia-
tion, but it is not of any consequence. Construction was $266,000. The
401
site work was $100,000, contingency $36,000, architect $26,000, public
works $22,000, equipment $22,000, and the surveyor was $1,350. The
land was $91,000, and the lawyer was $2,000. For the land, the cost was
relatively about $22 per square foot.
Now this is for a garage, not the Taj Mahal, an ordinary highway
garage. The rental was based on, I believe, around $4.56 a square foot;
and the total was $563,000. Xow the lease was for 15 years at $64,500;
and after the 15-year period, they had an option to buy it at $408,000.
Do you want me to proceed on that?
Senator Bvrdick. These are figures you showed to Gaffney?
Mr. GuxTHER. Yes ; these are figures that I showed to him.
Senator Burdick. In a nutshell, what is wrong with that deal?
Mr. GuNTHER. I say it is excessive, and I think that the leasing com-
mittee has had testimony that would indicate that it is excessive. I do
not pretend to be an appraiser. Just on the face of it, the biggest thing
I ever bought was my own home, and I do not think I would go into
buying a home on the same basis as that on a 15-year basis. And I am
no great financial wizard, but all I know is that they were wrong in
the past, and it was wrong at that time.
Senator Burdick, "NMiat happened after you talked to Gaffney?
Mr. GuNTHER. All right. After I talked to Gaffney, I checked with
the then-public works commissioner, Ed Kozlowski, and told him that
I was aware of this lease, that I was opposed to the thing. And in our
discussion, and I cannot go into the minute details of our discussion,
but I know that Ed Kozlowski himself was not very pleased with the
lease. And if you ask me how I know that, I could tell by his attitude
that he had some reservations about the lease itself, and I think that
his subsequent testimony before the leasing committee, where he almost
went to the point of telling what I think might have happened, was
that he was hesitating in his testimony before the leasing committee.
He said that he liad thought that he would call the Governor on this
one, but he did not. In my discussion with him he definitely had some
reservations, and he had said that he had bypassed the kiddie corps —
and when I say that, I would have to explain this to you,
Wlien Governor Meskill took office in 1971, he established what we
in the legislature called the kiddie corps, which was a group of young
people he had assigned to either one or more departments, which al-
most kept a day-to-day running dialog between that department and
reporting back to the Governor. One of the kiddie corps was assigned
to the public works department, and he had charge of the leasing. In
other words, part of his responsibility, one of many duties relative to
the public works department, would be the leasing, and he would re-
port anything that happened in that department.
Now from what Ed Kozlowski had told me, he had bypassed on this,
because this was a very big lease. Now, we lease a lot of buildings
throughout the State. Many of them are for 5 years, maybe 10 years.
They vary in size from a matter of a few rooms to a whole floor or a
whole building, but this was what I consider to be one of the most
abusive practices in the leasing policies of the State of Connecticut,
because of the return the lessor got. The lease, with the other lease
of existing buildings, much of it was, let's say, held within the average
rental practices of that particular area, and maybe a little bit more
402
than what they should have been ; but nowhere near, in my estimation,
as abusive as what the build lease was.
Now during that period when I talked to Ed Rozlowski, and inci-
dentally, Kozlowski, if you read the policies of the State of Connecti-
cut relative to how the leases are supposed to be handled, and if you
would care— I don't know if this is in any of the testimony that you've
gotten from the leasing committee — there was an actual manual printed
on how to handle leases, and if you read this, it dictates exactly^ — this
was written, incidentally, back during the previous administration,
back in 1968 — this tells you the routine that you were supposed to go
through.
Now there is nothing in there that said there was supposed to be any
dialog with the Governor's office, very frankly. This said that the
entire responsibility was up to the public works department, and it had
to be held within that department, even in surveying and finding out
whether areas were available, and that type of thing — the routine, in
other words, the chronological routine of handling it, which technically
has been, let's say, abused in this past administration in the obtaining
of leases.
Anyway, I hacl said to him, look, you could stop it. All you would
have to do— he had the authority to stop it, and with that, he very
candidly said, well, I like my job. And I think that that is more truth
than poetry, Sejiator. "When these men are put into these jobs — and I
will not say that it is just Ed Kozlowski — I would think that anytime
a public works director is put in there, he knows his job is dependent
upon his satisfying the executive branch of the Government. And I
think if it was too traumatic, he would find himself out of a job.
The next event in this particular lease was Brian Gaffney called me
at my home, and I had calculated that to be about the ioth of the
month, May ; and the reason I could narrow it down at least to a few
days was the fact that I am in my office so seldom, with the legislative
responsibilities that I have, that I knew it was an office night, and I
was quite sure it was on a Friday, and I believe that that was the day.
And he called, and asked me exactly what my intentions were relative
to the Downes lease. And at that time, I told him, I said, I want to see
it stopped; and he said that he could not. He was committed at that
time, and it was a very brief conversation. It was one that just about
terminated on that note, the fact that he would not take any action to
stop that particular lease.
So, in a day or two after that, when I was up in the capitol, I con-
tacted John Doyle. Now John is the liaison man, and I was quite
interested in his testimony before this committee, because I think if
anybody that was from the legislature would read over John's testi-
mony as to what his functions were, I think it is rather surprising that
he would limit himself to the narrow liaison that he testified to. Very
frankly, John Doyle was almost a daily visitor to all of us, and espe-
cially to the minority office and especially to my office, and John and
I — and incidentally, I would like to confirm his testimony, the things
that he says, I can tell a joke. I can and do admire attractive young
girls, and I am the type who likes to put my arm around people and say
hello to them, because I certainly love people, and I have always been
that type of an individual. And John is young enough to be my son.
403
and I hope there was no other connotation other than being friendly.
I don't think that that has any reflection on my credibility, or the
things that I do and say.
Anyway, we have had discussions, many of them, OA^er the years that
he has been liaison, and I think anyone who knows me knows I am
quite succinct and quite to the point, and I do go into too many details
more often than not. If you discuss it with the press in Connecticut,
they think I give them too much, rather than too little, in the way of
documentation. "We used to have very definite conversations, and they
were not left vague, and I asked that I wanted to get in and see INIeskill,
and I wanted to discuss this with him, and I know that there is testi-
mony to the contrary on the question, that I did not ask him. I say
that I did, and I also say that, at a point, I think it was 1 week or 10
days after that, when I tried to get in, because I wanted to stop this
Downcs lease because T thought it was improper.
Senator Burdick. The first time you saw Doyle, did you tell him
what you wanted to see the Governor about ?
Mr. GuxTHER. We discussed the Downes lease, and went into the
details. If he does not remember it, then I have no reason to question
his integrity, or say that he does remember it. After he talked to the
leasing committee, he stopped by and said — this is just recently — and
said, there is one thing, I still have my integrity, and I did not re-
member. And all I can say is, I suppose that that is it, because I cer-
tainly cannot say that he should have remembered only that conver-
sation. But it is surprising to me, because John was a very competent
man, and he would bring back the coal to Newcastle on any bill, and
he was acutely aware of all legislation going on in the capitol. I cannot
conceive that he would forget that, but again, if he said he did, he
did.
Again I do not know how he could forget when I walked into the
building, I can remember it as if it were yesterday, and said, look,
I have got to see the Governor. If I don't see him, I intend to go public
on the Downes lease. At that time, he was a little bit flustered, and he
said no, wait, let's see if we can't get you in. And at that time — and
I would say it was probably the early afternoon — he called me back
and gave me the appointment for the May 23 meeting at 11 :30 with
Governor Meskill.
Senator Btjrdick. Well, tell us about that meeting.
Mr. GuxTHER. All right.
When I went in to see the Governor, T said tliat. well, both of us
were pressed for time, very frankly, and I said, I will get right to the
point. I am sure that John has brought you, meaning John Doyle,
has broua:ht you the details of the Downes lease, and I said — again,
I am trying to be honest about the exact language that I used — I know
that we discussed the lease. I do not know how much in depth we went
into that particular lease, and I am talking now about the nitty-gritty
details, the dollars and cents. But it was the policy that I was in there,
and whether I got into the exact details at that point, I would not
want to say the exact details. But we knew it was the Downes lease.
It was the only lease pending at that time in the State of Connecticut,
and Tom reacted to me. and I remember this, and I will tell you.
Senator; there are a lot of people in this Senate, and in the legislature
404
and people back in Connecticut, who could on a hearsay basis remem-
ber the time, because I was a little upset over the fact that I would
go in and get the remarks back that I got from the Governor of the
State of Connecticut on this particular issue. He said, what is wrong
with it? Now that bothered me a bit, because as my testimony previ-
ously has shown, right after he was elected in 1970, 1 went to his New
Britain office, and we discussed congratulations and that type of thing,
and I said look. Let's clean up State government. And I made a par-
ticular note of the fact that the leasing policies and that in the State
of Connecticut needed to be cleaned up.
And for that matter, gentlemen, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The whole public works department, in my estimation, was involved
in tremendous patronage; hundreds of millions o,f dollars, not just
$7 million in leasing, but in policies that, let us say, were not criminal,
but in my book were not good government and was not giving the
people a fair shake. And we took our hand on that one, and he said, we
are going to clean up State government. And I said, Tom, you can
die 90 years old in this office. For, having a heritage of being bom
and raised on the east side of Bridgeport, a handshake and a word
means a of a lot to me. Senator; and tliose things stick in my
mind. So that when I got that sort of reaction from him, I was a little
upset, and I said you have to know what is wrong with it. And we dis-
cussed it then. Again, these may not be the exact words, but it was
the discussion.
Senator Burdick. I am not clear just what he said to you.
Mr. GuNTHER. Well, he said, what's wrong with it, and then we
went into a dialog. And I said that he had no question what was
wrong in 1970, when he said we were going to clean it up; and appar-
ently I took it for granted that he knew, and if he didn't, he should
have known by this time, and certainly with the dialogs we had had
on this thing, he ought to know, being the chief executive of the State
of Connecticut, what the policies on that were.
He said, what would happen. And again, I wanted to see if we
could not stop it. I was interested in stopping this procedure. And
he said, well, if we do not, then what. And I said well, I would go
to the press, I Avould go public and put it all out on the deck. And he
said at that point, what are you going to do. Are you going to do
the Democrats' dirty work, because it is sort of a no-no to blow the
whistle on your own party, and I realize that. In my estimation it is
not, because I believe that in government I have other obligations
besides party obligations when it comes to procedures.
Anyway, when I left him at that time he said he would look into
it. So I waited a few days. I checked with Ed Kozlowski again and
asked i.f anything had transpired on that lease, and he said no, it
had not. Apparently it was going ahead.
^ Now, mind you, I have seen testimony that says that this lease was
signed, I believe, back in May 9 or something — I forget the exact date.
Anyway, I had never, I had had conversations with Gaffney, Koz-
lowski. and Avith Meskill, and at no time was I ever told that the
letter of commitment had been signed and the lease was final; and
there were even some newspaper clippings that related to a remark
that Kozlowski made relative to my press release on June 1 when I
405
came out and laid out the details in the newspaper. Again, my inten-
tion was to stop it. It was not just a case of blowing whistles. I wanted
to see the practice stopped, and that is why I did it.
Incidentally, I have also heard some remarks relative to why did I
not mention my May 23 meeting.
Senator, I was again being kind politically, if you do not mind my
saying it. I was hoping we could stop the leasing practices in the State
of Connecticut. I still had hopes that my Governor, under pressure,
Avould do it. So my deletion of any discussion on May 23 was purely
because I was still being kindly. Had I laid it out, and let me say in
retrospect I learned my lesson and I think that maybe those things,
maybe we should put them on the deck all of the time. But unfor-
tunately, I did not with this. That was the reason it did not appear
in the letter.
Senator Burdick. Is that the letter that appears on page 49(a) of
the leasing committee's appendix, is that the letter you are referring
to?
Mr. GuNTHER. I will have to check it. Senator.
Yes, sir. That is the copy of the letter.
[The letter referred to above is printed at page 211.]
Senator Burdick. That is the legislative committee report.
Mr. GuxTHER. Yes, that is the legislative committee's copy of the
letter I submitted to Governor Meskill on June 1, 1972.
Xow I have heard some remarks about my statements prior to the
June 1 letter, and as far as I am concerned, Senator, no matter what
transpired and who said what to whom, or anything else prior to June
1, the fat was in the fire June 1. I put this out on the deck because I
wanted to see it stopped.
Now, as a result of this going out, this letter, on September 7, 1972,
we had an investigation, and I served on that committee. I do not know
if you have a transcript of that Downes hearing. But practically every-
thing, and I will not say everything, but the greatest part of the testi-
mony that was brought in to the 1974 hearing we had developed al-
ready in 1972 in that 1 day hearing, the fact that Downes knew about
the need for a building. He was taken out there by Dickinson. It is all
a matter of record, and I have only one copy, but I certainly would
be happy to submit that to you so that we are not talking about work-
ing in a vacuum. Senator.
In September 1972, the investigation of our subcommittee
brought out the fact that there was prior knowledge to the Downes
lease, that they had had people in the department. If I remember, and
again I woukl have to go off the top of my head, I believe they knew
in October that the building was going to be requested in February
of the following year. They had taken options on it or had tentative
options or whatever it was at the time.
But all of that testimony is in September 1972. All of this was
pretty much out on the deck in the newspapers, all over. Not only
would we know about it in the State, but I am sure that most of the
men even down here, our delegation in the Congress have a clip serv-
ice, and when something hot like starts hitting the deck, I am sure
they all know about these things. I know I do not have a clip service,
406
but by golly we cover the whole State and get news back and forth.
I got a little bit off the track. AYoiild you like to get me back on ?
Senator Buedick. Do you have a copy of the September 7, 1972
document you referred to ?
]Mr. GuNTHER. Yes, sir.
Senator Burdick. Would you supply the committee with it?
IMr. GuNTHER. I would be very pleased to.
[The material referred to follows :]
Department of Public Works Leasing Practices Hearing, September 7, 1972
Present : Senator Lieberman, Senator Gunther ; Representatives Beck, Bigos,
Argazzi, King, Clarke, Tudan, Orcutt, Gudelski, Rock, Taneszio.
Senator Lieberman. Representative Tudan, who is the Co-Chairman of the
Committee is not here yet, but we are sure that he will be here. This is a con-
tinuation, as I guess most people who are here know, of our investigation or
consideration of the State's leasing policies and we aro beginning today, a series
of case studies of particular Lease Agreements or particular lease projects with
an eye of uncovering, as we did in our earlier work in the Department, some of
the Administrative procedures and seeing if we can't make some positive recom-
mendations. We're here today under the various statutory powers that a Legisla-
tive Committee has to investigate and we intend today to follow some of the
more formal rules, as we did on our earlier set of hearings, to require that wit-
nesses appear under oath as a formality and to proceed according to that kind
of formal procedure. Today, we're looking into the considered, I guess, lease of
a Lease Purchase Agreement for a Highway Garage in Waterford to be used
by the Department of Transportation on agreement with the Frank Downes
Construction Company and we intend to hear from three different groups or three
different individuals, kinds of witnesses. The first will be representatives of the
Department of Transportation, our old friends, honorary members of the Com-
mittee, Commissioner Kozlowski and Mr. Roscoe, and then a representative of
the Department of Transportation which was involved in this case, who is Mr.
Juliano and then Mr. Downes, John Downes, who is Vice President of the Frank
Downes Construction Company. So, let me introduce some of the other Members
of the Committee ; Mr. Hichard Nair who is a Staff Member, Representative
Bigos, Senator Gunther, Rick Ousler, who is a Staff Member, Norma Colton who
is Counsel for the Committee and Representative Argazzi, another Member of
the Committee. If I can, I'd like to call on the Commissioner and Mr. Roscoe to
come forward first and to, just by way of formality, could you please just raise
your right hands and swear that the testimony you are about to give is the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth. Commissioner and Mr. Roscoe,
the last time you were here on the general subject matter of Leasing Policy of the
State, we went over some of the basic steps that are followed, the kind of rules
that are followed, procedurally, in regard to leasing of State property and today
we'd like to do the same thing with regard to the Downes lease for the highway
garage in Waterford. So I wonder if I can begin with the general question which
is if you could give an explanation of some of the specific occurrences that lead,
finally I guess, to a Letter of Commitment, signed by the State, with respect to
this highway garage.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes, on 10-27-71, I received a request from Com-
missioner Wood, in this case from the Department of Transportation, who re-
quested that we seek and lease a garage for his Department in the Waterford
area and, very shortly thereafter, on 11-.3-71, which was about a week later, I
received a proposal, a completed proposal, from the Frank Downes Company. The
proposal was reviewed by my Department and we felt that it was too high. We
felt that it was unacceptable. We sent it back and our leasing people negotiated —
I requested that they negotiate further for a price that would be more realistic
and acceptable. They went back and came back with a price and I'd like to break
down the way that we consider it to be and the cost per square foot. I believe you
all have received a copy of this but I'd like to review it once more, whereby we
calculate that the co.st for the building is .$,3.0.3 per square foot. The cost for the
nine acres of land, minus the square footage on the building, is ^6(- per square
foot. So, we felt that it was important that we break it down. For example, at
60 Washington Street, we rented so many square feet and we didn't have any
407
land at all. So, it isn't fair when you're also leasing land, in my opinion, it isn't
fair to lump the whole package into one figure per square foot because it's more
than just office space, it's land. So, this is the method in which we calculated.
So, again, I will repeat, $3.03 per square foot for the building and 56<- per square
foot for the land. As I recall, the Downes proposal arrived and we did look for
other space. We suggested to the Department of Transportation that there was
State owned land nearby and — how many miles away? In East Lyme. The De-
partment of Transportation rejected that suggestion. They said no, they preferred
the location as presented by Mr. Downes. So, we decided to stay with that.
Senator Lieberman. Do you remember what the grounds for that rejection
were?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, I don't really recall. I just know that the
Downes location were far superior and it would be much more eflScient and
it was more desirable for the Department of Transportation. Then on February
27, we sent the Lease Proposal outline to Finance and Control for their approval.
On 4-13, the Lease, the final Lease Proposal Outline was sent to the Department
of Transportation and on 4-27, it was brought back into my office. That was this
past April. And on May 9th, I issued a Letter of Commitment because Finance and
Control and the Department of Transportation both agreed that this was a fair
Lease for the State. So I issued a Letter of Commitment on 5-&-72 and the Lessor
signed the Contract on 5-19.
Senator Lieberman. I'm interested to go back to the beginning a certain
extent. As I understand it, the original desire for the builduig, of course came
from the Department of Transi>ortation. They then sent a request to you on
October 27th of 1971 A week later, a proposal was made by the Downes Con-
struction Company. What was the source of that proposal? In other words, had
there — I guess what I'm really asking is why did Downes make the proposal?
Where did he hear about it?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Commissioner Wood had told me that Mr. Downes
had been in his office prior to 10-27. I'm not sure exactly when. Apparently, as I
recall, a Highway was built through — it was either built or being built through
some property that was owned by Mr. Downes and it would put him out of busi-
ness. So, while he was there, he asked Commissioner Wood, is there any new
business going on in the State. So Commissioner Wood said yes, they are, accord-
ing to a certain report and the Etherington Report also, that they are going to
consolidate several garages in that particular area and he indicated to Mr.
Downes the location, the approximate location. And that is how Mr. Wood,
Commissioner Wood had invited Mr. Downes to make a proposal.
Senator Lieberman. So that Mr. Downes came to Mr. Wood because of the
Commissioner Kozlowski. Because of some other business.
Senator Lieberman. And that is the reason why he was able to submit a pro-
posal a week after.
Commissioner Kozlowski. So soon after, yes.
Senator Lieberman. In fact, had himself talked to the Transportation Depart-
ment before DPW had formally learned about it. Why was the — in what way
was the proposal too high? Do you recall?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes, because it wasn't comparable with other — the
cost of other garages in the area in the State. And we had negotiated, the Public
Works Department had negotiated other leases and there was a recommendation
from my leasing section, after my review also, and I agreed, that it was too high
and that's part of our leasing procedure. If we decide it's too high, we go back
and asked them to sharpen their pencil.
Senator Lieberman. This is figured on the cost per square foot basis primarily?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Correct.
Senator Lieberman. And the original proposal did not stack up well on that
basis.
Commissioner Kozlowski. That is correct.
Senator Lieberman. Do I understand — was this from the beginning, going to be
a so-called lease Purchase Agreement or did that occur?
Commissioner Kozlowski. May I refer to a letter from Commissioner Wood?
Senator Lieberman. Right.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Because you may or may not have a copy of it.
Senator Lieberman. Is this the letter to the Committee?
Commissioner Kozlowski. No, his letter to me — his letter of request, ^hall I
read it? Do you have a copy of this. Senator?
408
Senator Lieberman. I think that we've just had a copy put in front of us.
Commissioner Kozlowski. This explains
Senator Liebermax. Maybe you could just summarize it.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well it explains the request — how the Management
Consultants had been hired to determine the cost of the operation, how it could
be lowered and more effective use of equipment and manpower. And one consult-
ant was Roy Jorgenson Associates and they recommended that certain outlying
garages be abandoned and the crews consolidated for a more effective control of
the daily programs. And inasmuch as the need to centralize several garages is
concurred in by our maintenance department Director, I am advised that it is
desirable to commence this operation in Southeastern Connecticut. I am herewith
requesting your assistance to provide us with a garage as follows : And he speci-
fies the location, pinpoints the location. Town of Waterford in the vicinity of
Routes 19.", S.J and 52 — sixteen stall garage, between 10.8 and 10 acres. Then he
felt that if a suitable agreement can be negotiated, I suggest that the facility be
completed by private capital with the State paying rental for fifteen years and
having option to acquire title by paying a stipulated sum at the end of the rental
term. So this is how it all started.
Senator Lieberman. Is that typical, that the Department Head would make
a judgment of that kind? In other words, he's making the judgment that it would
be better to enter into a Lease Purchase Agreement rather than building and —
building the State itself, or just plain leasing?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, it's my understanding that the Department
of Transportation is quite aware of the changes of traffic pattern throughout the
years and apparently they feel that to lock themselves in for a facility for
thirty years or more that fifteen years should be sufficient and give them the
option at that time, if new highways, perhaps there may be several new high-
ways, they may decide at that time, to move this particular location. So, it is
my understanding they do not want to commit themselves for a longer period of
time.
Senator Lieberman. I'm just wondering whether anybody at that ix)int. would
have said this is the kind of project which the State should better build, you
know.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, Commissioner Wood indicated the urgency
that it should be done right away and I have made a chart — if we went through
the Legislature, it would require a total of two years and four months for the
completion of the building through the State procedures and it would require
only eight months on a Letter of Commitment through private capital.
Senator Lieberman. Can you go into a little bit now, into the terms of the
Agreement with the Downes Con.struction Company? ^liat the annual rental is.
Commissioner Kozlowskl It's $956,500 rental for — that's over a fifteen year
period. Do you want the monthly account?
Mr. RoscoE. The rent would be at the rate of $64,500.00 per year, payable in
equal monthly installments of $.5,375.00 each — that's in his letter of Commitment.
Senator Lieberman. Allright. And how about — is that credited toward a final
purchase price or is that a separate item in the cost?
Mr. Roscoe. That's a separate item.
Senator Lieberman. And what it the final purchase price?
Mr. RoscoE. The Lessee has further option, upon termination of the initial
Lease terms, may purchase the premises for a lump sum of .$407,777.00.
Senator Lieberman. So, we're talking about a total State outlay for this
project of about $1.4 million over the fifteen years, until the point when we
purchase it.
I\Ir. Roscoe. That's if we exercise the option
Senator Lieberman. Right. Or about .$970,000.00 if we do not exercise the option.
And, I guess I'm trying to relate that to what the cost of construction would have
been to the State or in fact, was for the construction company. Are tho.-^e figures
available?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes. I believe you have a copy of thi.s — of a compari-
son of the Lease versus the capital project. At least it was xeroxed liy one of your
staff or personnel. And our calculations came this way. In comparison of a Lease
versus capital project. Total lease purchase at the end of fifteen years, which
would include the rental plus tlie option to buy. of .$1., 37.5,277.00 less the land
cost of .$91,000.00. making $1,284,277. If we were to enter into a capital project,
we would— it would cost about $1,274,511.00. That takes into consideration the
409
cost of the building, plus the Bond Interest of five percent, plus the maintenance,
plus the depreciation and it would have been about $10,000.00 less expensive. But
would have been a building that we would have owned, we would have had at
the end of that period of time, (inaudible) But it would have been two years
and four months. It was the time frame that really was the final determining
factor.
Senator Lieberman. My, I guess I've got a piece of paper here, that previous
investigation showed that the estimated cost of the building by the Downes
Construction was about $240,000.00 and adding in the fees brought the cost up
to $276,000. I guess there was about another $214,000.00 associated with the land
costs. So that there was a total, on this piece of paper that I've got anyway, there
is a total of $407,000 some odd dollars and a potential return of — I'm .speaking as
a layman, a potential return, over a fifteen year period, of $1.4 million. Is that —
in other words, what I'm saying is, that it sounds generous to the Downes
Construction Company. Am I wrong?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I think you are wrong (inaudible). When this pro-
posal was presented — when in the first place we asked why not build on State
property, why doesn't the State build it by capital project, fortunately at the
time, we had a capital project going in Farmington on the State Highway Garage
and what we attempted to do was figure out the cost of both and figure out the
time element and figure out which would be more advantageous at this time,
(inaudible) Generally speaking, we felt it would be more advantageous to lease.
We had already been requested to lease the facility but we just double checked
it because we wanted to make sure that this proposal was in the best interest of
the State. We also compared this proposal to other highway garages which have
been leased over the years and the price is very reasonable. For example,
Thomaston, now the annual rental there I believe, is something like $74,000 a
year. Here it's $64,000 a year so in fifteen years there is a savings of $150,000,
approximately. So we did examine it carefiilly from that standpoint, whether
we should build on State property or would it be better to lease or to purchase.
Senator Gunther. You're comparing again the leasing with State garage leas-
ing, not with private garage leasing. It's twice now that you have remarked that
the cost was too high compared with other State garages, even in the construc-
tion, in the first bid. But you're comparing only in house, you're not comparing
outside of the State. Was there any determination of why the Farmington garage
was that high? But you use this and I know, I believe what was that? $6.66 per
square foot.
Mr. RoscoE. That was the Thomaston.
Senator Gunther. Oh, that's Thomaston. I'm sorry.
Mr. Roscoe. The Farmington garage is a capital project.
Senator Gunther. But what was the cost running per foot for -the Farmington
garage when you people built it?
Mr. Roscoe. I don't — Im not very sure of the accuracy of this figure but I think
it was something like thirty two or thirty three dollars.
Senator Gunther. Dollars per square foot? And this was a garage?
Mr. Roscoe. Right. Now don't quote me as to the accuracy of that. But I think
that was it. When we made this study as contracting something like twenty one
or twenty five dollars. Those figures are very vague in my mind. Tliat's one of the
figures we did check into. Now these are very specialized garages. The Highway
Department can give you more information because they had certain require-
ments in that respect. It's not like — I don't know if you can compare these to
private garages. Certainly our comparison was among former State leases and
what the State w' as doing and what the Highway or Transportation Department
was doing, (inaudible)
Senator Gunther. You just said that you don't know if you can compare it with
private garages, why?
Mr. Roscoe. I think you better — the Department of Transportation is more
expert on that.
Senator Gunther. In order words, they should have the answers as to why you
can't compare —
Mr. Roscoe. If we can, I don't know, maybe we can but this is a specialized
service they perform. And we rely on their expertise in this matter.
Senator Gunther. In other words, all the recommendations relative to con-
struction is then the responsibility of the Transportation Department, technically
what you're saying.
410
Mr. RoscoE. Well, the Transportation Department, it is my understanding,
has certain set specifications which must go into these Highway garages and
they all must be met.
Commissioner Kozlowski. I'd like to answer that. Senator, that the require-
ments for any State facility comes from the agency. Public Works Department
does not specify the requirements. The requirements come from the agency and
we are a service agency and it is our statutory obligation to perform in the best
interest of the agency and also the State.
Senator Gunthee. Do we have, just as a matter of interest, do we have a copy
of the specifications of this garage? I haven't seen it. I'm sorry.
Senator Lieberman. Representative Bigos.
Representative Bigos. Commissioner, I understand from your testimony, that
the lease was negotiated on the basis of $3.00 a square foot for the building and
a separate square foot charge for the land. Is that
Commissioner Kozlowski. I said that this is the way that we calculate what
we feel is the fair method of determining the cost per square foot for the build-
ing plus the cost per square foot for the rental of the land. Yes.
Representative Bigos. Then I understand that the square foot charge for the
land was in the area around 50<*.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Right.
Representative Bigos. How much land is involved in here?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Nine acres.
Representative Bigos. Nine acres. So nine acres, fifty two hundred square
feet
Commissioner Kozlowski. It's 396,000 square feet, sir.
Representative Bigos. 396,000 so 50(^ on that— that's 198,000 for the rental of
the land?
Commissioner Kozlowski. No.
Representative Bigos. Wait a minute. What's wrong with mv figuring? You
got 396,000 square feet.
Commissioner Kozlowski. You divide 396,000, sir, into 21,450 which is the rent
that was attributed to land.
Representative Bigos. 21,450 annually.
Commissioner Kozlowski. That is correct.
Representative Bigos. I don't quite understand what the purpose is of separat-
ing the land from the building. I assume that the land is exclusive of the land
on which the building is located.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Sir, may I present this question to you? At 60
Washington Street, where we had broken our lease, all we had there was so
many square feet of office space, we bad no land at all. So I feel that that's — so
that if you don't have any land, that's the true value or the true cost of the
office space. Here we have only 13.000 feet of space, building space, and we
have 396,000 square feet of land. So, I feel, it is my opinion sir, that it should be
broken down to make a fair comparison.
Representative Bigos. Oh, I don't say you're wrong. I was just curious about
why you were doing it. In fact, maybe in answering these questions I am
Commissioner Kozlowski. I'll try to say this that to just take the dollars, the
total dollars- divided by the square feet of the building alone is an unfair com-
parison. In my opinion.
Representative Bigos. And you need the 9,000. the 9 acres of land.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, I don't need it but the Department of Trans-
portation put that down as a requirement. I understand that they are con-
solidating several garages in the area and they leave their plows outside and
sanding equipment and so forth and they need the area. They also stockpile of
sand and salt sheds and so forth.
Representative Bigos. This is improved land which can be used for parking
equipment and so forth? Is it wooded land or what is it?
Commissioner Kozlowski. AVell.
Representative Bigos. I mean nine acres of a forest, I don't see any use to it
at all. I don't care if the price is ten cents an acre, ^^liat kind of land do we
have here in these nine acres?
Commissioner Kozlowski. What sort of land?
Representative Bigos. Well, is it improved land? Is it a forest or is it valleys
and gullies? AVhat is it?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I would say that it is improved land. I haven't
seen the site myself. But I'll be very happy— to send you a plot plan, topographical
contour map of the site improvements. I don't happen to have one with me.
411
Representative Bigos. Well, wouldn't you have that at the time you negotiated
the lease, to find out if the rate of 50<^ per square foot for nine acres is too high
or right or what? Not knowing the land you're dealing with?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well sir, I didn't negotiate personally. It was my
Leasing Department that did the individual negotiating. And it was their rec-
ommendation that it was fair.
Representative Bigos. OK.
Representative Beck. Commissioner, I wanted to ask you about the basic con-
cept involved in leasing versus State construction of garages. You mentioned
that there is a shift in land use pattern or a shift in traffic flow patterns which
takes place and therefore, you feel that a fifteen year period of time is sufficient
commitment. Could you give me some figures, how many, either percentages or
numerically, how many garages we have then actually exercised our option to
jnirchase and second, what is the average length of time between major shifts
in highways in the State of Connecticut?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, I'm afraid I can't answer those questions at
the present time. But I will certainly have our people go back to our files and
get this for the Committee. And I'll be very happy to submit this to you.
Senator Gunther. On these figures that you're using on construction site and
that sort of thing, are these figures that are estimated by your Department?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes, they are.
Senator Guntheb. In other words, you do the actual estimation of the actual
cost
Commissioner Kozlowskl We have an Estimating Department on every project
before we go out to bid on and our standard construction projects and it has
gone through by our own people. And if the final bid comes in over ten percent
of the construction cost, there must be, of our estimate, then we must have cer-
tain reasons before we can proceed.
Senator Gunther. I take it you inherited the Farmington project.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes, sir.
Senator Gunthek. All right. Now, was an estimate done on that particular
project?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I'm sure there must have been, yes. That was the
policy. That was before
Senator Gu.mheh. In other words the cost of some thirty two, thirty four
dollars per siiuare foot apparently was estimated by the Department at that time.
Commissioner Kozlowski. I think thafs tiie actual construction — yes, I would
say it was estimated at that amount and it also came in at about that amount.
Senator Gunthek. Well, I tell you, I'd like to
Commissioner Kozlowski. Through competitive bidding.
Senator Gunther. As a Member of this Committee, I'd like to see the estimate
and the specs on that particular garage and I'd like to have them submitted to
this Committee and I asked before whether we had the specifications for the
Downes garage that were submitted. Do you have those?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I'll be very happy to submit them to your Committee.
Senator Gunther. I would like to see the actual specs.
Senator Lieberman. Commissioner, just to go back a moment, we have a situa-
tion where the Transportation Department had this garage in mind, I'm troubled
a little bit but you explained the circumstances with the fact that the Downes
Construction Company knew about the Department's — the Transportation
Department's desire for the garage before you did. We then have an October 27
request to you to proceed and a week later, the Downes Company comes in with
a proposal that you then negotiated down to a certain extent. What I'm wonder-
ing is, what other alternatives, that is what was the nature of the search for other
sites or other form, other contractors, in fact, during the period as required by
your rental procedures?
Commissioner Kozlowski. We felt that this was a good proposal, it was an
ideal site and we were in a hurry, the DOT was in a hurry to get this show on
the road so, for that reason, we didn't search any further. We thought it was
fair, we were able to negotiate down and that was it.
Senator Lieberman. The only other counter suggestion made was that there was
State owned property about eighteen miles away and that was rejected by the
Department of Transportation. Now, I guess I, the Senator just asked me, but
when we asked you before, why was it rejected and you said the Department
just didn't think it was an adequate location, I guess.
Commissioner Kozlowski. That is correct.
47-704—75 27
412
fcjeiiator Liebekma:\. We can go into that a little bit later with Mr. Juliano.
There was, 1 think it's fair to say, no sui-prise to anyone, that there have been
certain suggestions made about influence in regard to this project and I really
want to ask j-ou directly, whether, at any point in the negotiations over the proj-
ect, leading up to the Letter of Commitment, Mr. Brian Gaffney was involved?
Did he speak to you at any point in these negotiations?
Commissioner Kozlow ski. No, but I called him. At the beginning I was unaware
that Mr. Downes was his uncle. After 1 had found out, after I had received the
proposal, I found out, I did call Mr. Gaft'ney. I asked him if this would embarrass
him in any way. And he felt no, that just because he was related to him, that
isn't any reason why we shouldn't do business with him and that he should re-
ceive the same courtesy and consideration that any other contractor might or
anyone else who might submit a proposal. And that was the extent of Mr.
Gaffney's participation. I had called him.
Senator Liebekman. He had nothing more to say about
Commissioner Kozlow ski. Absolutely nothing.
Senator Liebekman. Was there any contact with your Department or with you
personally, by the Governor's Office in regard to this lease":' Favoring the lease?
Commissioner Kozlowski, Absolutely none.
Senator Liebekman. OK, Senator, do you have other questions?
Senator Gunther. You said, when we built this garage, it would have taken
two years to come back and get the Legislative approval for capital project and
that, and yet, when the Middlesex Community College, we set up a different
format. Xow you had the statute authority at that time, to set up a format
of a build with a lease-back and an amortization of mortgage at that time. Why
wasn't it done on this particular building?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, I think the reason why it wasn't done, it
just wasn't. I don't have a real good reason for that. It was just that it was
so new at that particular time and we just didn't do it.
Senator Gunther. I notice in your estimates and I don't have — the first I've
seen them, I'm sorry, on the comparisons, that on maintenance, you figure five
percent per year if the State were to build this. Do you mean on a new building,
we would consider the first let's say four to five years on a five percent mainte-
nance cost? On a brand new building?
Commissioner Kozlowski. That's the way it averages out, sir. That's what we
have figures that can substantiate that.
Senator Gunther. You're talking seventy five percent of the building over
the fifteen year period on maintenance. Am I right? I mean you figure $427,000
to build it on a fifteen year, five percent per year, that's .$354,000 maintenance.
Commissioner Kozix)Wski. That's correct.
Senator Gunther. That seems rather high. Again, this is the estimate by your
Department.
Commissioner Kozi^wski. That's correct.
Senator Gunther. Xow you also
Commissioner Kozlo'wski. But they are nationally accepted averases over the
long haul. The first two years I'm sure there wouldn't be that much. But then
your roofs and walls and everything else that goes with it. it comes out to ap-
proximately that amount.
Senator Gunther. But we're still talking almost, well sevent.v-five percent on
a fifteen year period. You also figure three percent depreciation. Now. that means
at the end of the fifteen year ijeriod, the State would consider that building to
be worth $260,000 and on the purchase-back on an option to bu.v, the same build-
ing from the Downes people, you put the estimated cost to purchase at $408,000.
or built into the contract.
Commissioner Kozlowski. That's not the estimated cost, that would be the
cost. Tliat's what they would be willing to sell it to us.
Senator Gunther. All right. But we are depreciating it, if we owned it our-
selves, fifty percent.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Those are theoretical figui'es. Senator. You realize
thnt, I'm sure.
Senator Gunther. I'm still — we're dealing with figures and w^e're trying to
take and substantiate why we do the.se things r.nd .vour substantiation here to
me. leaves a lot to be desired, frankly. And again, this is my opinion as opposed
to your estimators. So that I just can't help, in view of this, to take and — Would
we also be paying a five percent interest? Would we get, if we could, bond for this
particular building, would wc still be on a five percent in toda.v'.s market?
413
Mr. KoscoK. I just road in the paper this morning they put out a Serial Bond
Issue and it came to something like 4.87 or something so this five percent here,
at the time it was a little more than five percent. That was the bond market at
that time. At that time, those were the figures because I remember.
Senator GrxTiiEB. I might also put the time frame, two years and four months
which technically speaking is not true because of a law that we passed I believe
it was '69, which would have allowed yon to take and do the same thing that
you did on the Community College, technically. As far as going out, having it
built, have the pro-rated, the lease prorated against the cost of the purchase. So
that technically speaking, the two year four mouths does not hold on this side
of the balance ledger either. Even on the present, existing statute.
Mr. RoscoE. Well, you've got to remember that Middlesex Senator, is an ex-
perimental project. We don't know how this is going to work out. We're proceed-
ing very cautiously. We're not going to do everything like we did in Middlesex.
We' re proceeding cautiously in that area. AVe're not just going to go out and do
everything like we did Middlesex. It may be good. It may be bad. We have to
evaluate and weigh that and we don't want to rush into that kind of a thing. It's
a new concept. It's a concept which your Committee should explore and I hope
you will when you get into Middlesex and the whole design package concept. But
it's a new one and we're proceeding very cautiously. We're not going to spend
the State's money and rush out and do fifty of these.
Senator Gunther. You still had the statute authority for other than a build-
lease ultimate purchase type contract.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes. I would say that is correct.
Representative Tudan. Commissioner, what really disturbs me is Commis-
sioner Wood's recommendation as a result of their consulting firm saying that
making a reconnnendation, proceed with haste to acquire a spot for this Downes
garage. The point that I'm trying to make is that we have had certainly in all
the years that I've been In the Legislature, many, many, many study groups
coming up with very important recommendations and those things just sit down
in the file cabinets and nothing is done about it and for them, because a consult-
ing firm makes a recommendation to proceed \yith such haste, without the state
them.selves looking more thoroughly into the situation, really disturbs me.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, it was not only the consultants, the manage-
ment consultant firm, but it was also the Etherington Report that had recom-
mended this same situation.
Representative Tudan. There's no question about it. There's scads of recom-
mendations by the Etlierington Report that they won't even touch or look at or
do anything with. And what disturbs me. Commissioner, is the mere fact that
a consulting firm said this and so because they said it, boom, boom and they have
to proceed with such haste.
Commissioner Kozlowski. I also respect Commissioner Wood's opinion, a man
with some thirty or thirty odd years experience with the Highway Department,
I would think that that should
Representative Tudan. Yes, but he's to make a recommendation to you and,
of course, it's the Public Works Department that's going to determine and not
the Highway Department.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Sir. we are a service agency and our job is to per-
form a service for other agencies.
Representative Tudan, And for him to do his job is not for him to tell you to
do your job.
Commissioner Kozlowski. He didn't tell me, he recommended and I agreed
with his recommendation.
Representative Bigos. Commissioner, when negotiating a lease for a building.
is it your practice to invite competition for price, through advertising?
Commissioner Kozlowskl No, it is not.
Representative Bigos. Why not?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, it just has not been the policy. This is some-
tiling that we are considering in our new set of rules and regulations that we
hope to have before the end of the year.
Representative Bigos. Well, do you think it's good practice to invite bidding?
Commissioner Kozlowskl I don't think it's a bad practice.
Representative Bigos. I see. Now
Commissioner Kozlowski. It may have certain limitations but I don't think it's
a bad practice. I also know that many, some states do and some states do not. I
think just as many do not as do. So, we are not alone
414
Representative Bigos. You're not going by precedents of other states. Would
you not be going by wtiat you think is the best thing?
Commissioner Kozlowbki. I would evaluate the pros and cons of both systems
before I make the final recommendation.
Representative Bigos. What would be wrong with inviting bids, when you say
that you would have to evaluate it?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, for example, if the Labor Department needs
additional space and there is space upstairs in a particular building and if you
go out to public bidding on leased space and they have a little cubby hole half
way across town and you're going to have to divide up your operations, you'll be
forced into it through the low bidding procedure. That isn't practical. It isn't
reasonable. For that reason I feel that it is not good to advertise. It's best to
try to negotiate for the same price that you're currently operating with in this
same building for efficiency of operation. That is one particular reason.
Representative Bigos. Look at it this way, on bidding you are not bound to
accept, let's say, the lowest bid. You are not bound now. Now why, in this case,
could you not have asked for bids and still not being bound to take the lowest
bid or whatever bid, taking into account many other factors. You don't have to be
bound but you can still go out and ask for bids.
Commissioner Kozlowski. It's also time consuming and you must allow any-
where from a week to six weeks for — ten days to six weeks, for bids to be
advertised and to be submitted and so forth and you can waste many months
that way.
Representative Bioos. Well, then you think that money is a second considera-
tion in the thing. Apparently, if you're trying
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, there are many important considerations, sir.
I wouldn't say which one is most important in this particular case.
Representative Bioos. Well, you look around the area, even if you don't bid, to
see what is available, before you sign up.
Commissioner Kozlowski. We felt that the lease was fair to the taxpayers and
so we continued the negotiations and then we committed the State.
Representative Bigos. Well, Commissioner, I'll conclude with one observation
and it's this — that when we rent nine acres of land, not knowing even what kind
of land it is
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, that isn't true, sir. That's not a true statement.
Representative Bigos. Well, I asked you. You were not able to tell me.
Commissioner Kozlowski. I said that we have plans, we have topographical
locations and I did not do the physical negotiations, that I did not visit the site.
This was done through our staff, a very competent leasing staff and they assured
me that this particular land was proper and it was a proper lease. I reviewed it,
compared it with other leases that the State had performed over the past fifteen
years, and that stands right up there and it's as good as anyone and even better
than most.
Representative Bigos. Well, I'll still make this one observation. That I think
paying $3,200 a year for what is vacant land out in the country is kind of an
expensive rent for that.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, I'm not so sure it's vacant land, sir.
Representative Ttjdan. Commissioner, along that same line that Senator,
Representative Bigos, or is it going to be Senator, was pursuing, you yourself
had admitted just a few moments ago, that you had contacted Chairman Gaffney
as opposed to him contacting you.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Correct.
Representative Ttjdan. And — with the idea in mind that possibly this could be
a political hot potato, conceivably so. And this thing is fairly recent and certainly,
if as you said, you reviewed you know, it just surprises me that all facets of
this and as Representative Bigos said, the acreage of the land, certainly you
must know whether it's all cleared, whether it's all level, as he said whether there
are streams there, whether it's wooded or so. This really surprises me Commis-
sioner. Because this thing is, as we admit, that it could be a political hot potato,
that I certainly, if I were the Commissioner, I would have investigated all facets
of this thing.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well Sir, we have several hundred projects in con-
struction throughout the State
Representative Tudan. Yea, but you don't call Chairman Gaffney on every proj-
ect, I'm sure. But this is one that you did, sir.
Commissioner Kozlowski. That is correct.
415
Representative Tudan. That's what I mean. I think that you should be ac-
quainted with all the facets of tliis.
Commissioner Kozlowskt. Then as your opinion sir, there are just so many
hours in the day and I can visit so many
Representative Tudan. But you said you reviewed it.
Commissioner Kozlowski. I reviewed the proposal, not the site. I reviewed
the
Representative Tudan. Well the site is part of the proposal. Commissioner.
Commissioner Kozlowski. The physical site is what I referred to.
Representative Tudan. And this is what we'd like to know about, you see.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes, okay. And I did not visit the physical site.
Representative Tudan. Someone did.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Oh, yes.
Representative Tudan. And there must be a report.
Commissioner Kozlowski. And I say yes that there is a report and we would
be very happy to give it to you.
Representative Tudan. And you're just not acquainted with it? We would
appreciate it, sir.
Mr. RoscoE. Our leasing agent did look at the site at the time. In fact, he did
more than that. He looked at comparable acreage just for price in that area and
he reported back to me
Representative Tudan. Well, what do you know about it if he reported back
to you then ?
Mr. RoscoE. Well, that's his function. I accept his word for it. He's supposed
to be a competent expert on this. Our leasing agents are supposed to be com-
petent people. We don't look at every single site. I don't go out personally but we
have a leasing section that goes out and looks at sites and we have leasing
agents that do that. [Inaudible.]
It could be swampland for all we know.
Representative Tudan. That's what I'm afraid of, it could be.
Mr. RoscoE. It doesn't mean that the top oflScials in the Department neces-
sarily-
Commissioner Kozlowski, Plus the fact that the Department of Transporta-
tion visited the site and they thought it was most desirable. They are the ones
we are supposed to please.
Senator Guntheb. So actually they are the only ones that are really a check
on this fellow as to whether or not this is the true value and there has been a
search of the comparable prices in the area. In other words, you're depending
on one man. You don't go out and try to find any other appraiser in the area
and ask them for comparisons as to whether this is true value. We have enough
State appraisers we pay for in this State in our various Departments. Does
the DOT appraisers look at this thing at all? In other words, this is strictly
from the top, from the Commissioner.
Commissioner Kozlowski. I don't understand your question.
Senator Gunther. We have plenty of appraisers in the DOT, don't we?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I don't know. There may be one, there may be a
thousand. I have no idea.
Senator Gunther. But they don't — actually the appraisers themself, from DOT,
doesn't go out and look at the area and say that it's fair value and then your
appraiser
Commissioner Kozlowski. I am not familiar with DOT.
Senator Gunther. In other words, we are operating on a single appraisal and
that's in your Department, as to whether or not these are true and fair values.
Commissioner Kozlowskl Yes. We rely on our people. There's been an
experience.
Senator Gunther. We stopped. You gave us a runup of the presentation of
the request and worked through 10-27-71 up to 5-19-72 when you signed with
the lessor. What is the status of this lease at this point?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I believe that the plans are either completed or just
about completed. No. they're in the process of completion.
Senator Gunther. All right. But actually, right now, we have another step,
don't we? We have a Finance and Control or the Attorney General that has to
approve it at this point. Has he approved this?
Commissioner Kozlowski. As yet, he has not.
Senator Guntheb. Has he received this? Is this out of — I mean we're talking
about four months.
416
]\Ir. Rosc-OE. Senator, may I explain? What the Attorney General approved is
the tinal consumniatea lease. That lease will not be consummated until the build-
ins is built aud accepted l)y the Department. This is standard practice for years.
■\Ve do the same thing in capital project. We sign a contract that legally com-
mits us in many ways. That contract is sent over for approval by the Attorney
General. He knows nothing about that until it arrives in his office with an
executed contract.
Senator Gunther. You mean the building is completed and constructed and
then you have the Attorney General look at this Lease to find out if this is
proper, the whole procedure, the Letter of Commitment?
Mr. RoscoE. When we prepare a lease, what he looks at is the final consummated
lease and that's what he puts his approval on. He may not even know this exists
at the moment. That is the i)ro<ednre tliat has been set up.
Senator Gu>jther. But. mind you, the total contract, as I understand it, is to
Imild a building and to build it within this framework and then to lease it to the
f>tate. Now. how can he review the lease itself, at the time of completetl con-
struction, when to me the Slate is obligated at this point, with a letter of com-
mitment to build this thing and I believe at our last hearing. Commissioner, vou
said that he not only was to review it as to the legal ramifications of a particular
lease, but also the .substance of it.
Commissioner Kozi.owski. That was my understanding, yes.
Senator Guxthej!. Now. this you've .said twice now and how can he do this if
the substance is a matter, is anti-climatic at the time of the completion of the
luiiUling?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes, I'd like to answer that. Senator. I would say
that since the Attorney General has not complained about the procedure, I would
say that it's the procedure of the past fifteen or sixteen years and I would say that
ai)parently he feels it's satisfactory since he has not complained about it.
Senator (Juxthek. Is this normal procedure in other agencies? He complains if
it's wroni'?
Commissioner Kozlowski. If there's something wrong. I would hope that
another agency would complain, absolutely.
Senator Gixther. Well, how would he know the sul)Stance of it. Commissioner,
luiless you turn the materials over for him to i)eruse?
Commissioner Kozeowski. Well, he has the obligation to give us preliminary
and final approval and how he does it. that's his
Senator Gunther. In otherwords, what you're saying we don't have the policy
of turning this over at the time of the Letter of Commitment and this has been
the policy in the past also?
Commissioner Kozlowski. That is correct. It's always been this way.
Senator Liemekmax. I'll tell you what I'd like to do. Representative Orcutt
has wanted to ask a question and then because the Commissioner and Mr. Roscoe
are going to stay here, after the question, I'd like to call the other two witnesses
to the table and then we can proceed.
Rei»resentative Orcitt. Ccmimissioner. is it fair to say in this situation that
we have been discussing, that normal procedures were followed throughout in
terms of evaluating the site and of getting the Attorney General's approval. I
mean you just followed the normal Departmental procedures that have been in
effect for many, many years. Is that correct?
Commissioner Kozlowski. That is correct.
Representative Orcutt. Thank you.
Representative Bigos. Even if they're wrong, you could still do it.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Sir, I have never done anything intentionally
wrong.
Representative Bigos. If in your own mind
Commissioner Kozlowski. If I felt it was wrong. I would change it.
Senator Lieberman. Representative Beck wants to sneak a couple of ques-
tions in.
Ropiesentative Beck. I just really wanted to summarize three of the steps in
the decisionmakini: process. The first, the priority of the projects of Public
Works would undertake. Now in this case, the decisioji on the garage presumably
the reconnnendaticm of consultants, the matter of haste, this is i»resiunal)ly
written into almost any consultant's report. They say it is desirable to undertake
tills iuimediatcly in the interest of economy and all tliat. Now. who makes that
ultimate decision <.n tlic priortiy of projects? Is it you, the Commis.sioner of
417
Public Works? Do you negotiate this with several commissioners? I just want
to be sure who makes the clioice as to which is done next.
Commissiimer Kozlowski. In this jiarticuhir case, we proceeded tliroush
normal channels. It was a request from the Department of Transportation and
I took Commissioner AVood's word that it was a need plus the two reports
indicatinjr that there was a need and so we gave this a high priority. I would
say it was probably between Coumiissioner Wood, the Commis.^ioner of Finance,
A(iolph Carlson, otherwise he wouldn't have approved it either. We need three
approvals. So the three of us. although we do not sit down specifically and say
this is tirst. this is second, we take them as they come along.
Rei)resentative Beck, So. in other words, just to get t'hi.s processed in the nor-
mal case, as you go through a year, the process is then negotiated at the request
of the Department head, negotiation between you, the Department liead and the
Commissioner of Finance and Control, as to which would come next in your list
of priorities, is this correct?
Commissioner Kozlowski. That is correct and I would also suggest that the
Commissioner of Finance and Control must certainly work close to the Governor's
office to help and assist in priorities, from that end, before he gets approval to
make expenditures. I'm assuming this.
Representative Beck. So then this responsibility would be a shared responsi-
bility, routrhly, between three cabinet heads, if you want to put it.
Commissioner Kozlowski. That's correct.
Representative Beck. Then my second question — on the decision to, again on
this garage, to rent versus i)uying, that ultimate decision — I'm trying to figure
out who has the responsibility here — the ultimate decision, who makes that?
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, it was my recommendation and also Com-
missioner Wood's that in order to meet this very close schedule, that to build
would take too much — we couldn't possibly do it if we took on a capital project.
So it was the urgency of this particular situation that determined it. It was
my recommendation that we go this way ; also Commissioner W^ood's and Com-
missioner Carlson also agreed.
Representative Beck. So the three of you would be involved in that decision.
And then tliis final question which Mr. Bigos had raised about advertising, in a
.situation like this, where you do have high unemployment and presumably
a number of contractors who would seek these opportunities, and you have a
sort of questionable project, you presumably do get advice or do you pretty
much make that decision yourself or do you work with Wood and Carlson also,
or how would that kind of issue be resolved?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I'm sorry I think
Representative Beck. In other words, where you have this kind of ticklish situ-
ation, you did call me to ask whether there was any problem, it seems to me
if I were involved in this kind of issue, you know, I'd want to cover myself by
advertising and take into account that there is high unemployment and you might
just get a good low bid at a time like this. There are a lot of contractors floating
around, possibility of getting a low interest rate. So a decision is made where I
presume you did perhaps have this same kind of doubts would you work with
anybody on that kind of decision? Is that yours or, you know, do you have a
Committee or something; I guess this is what I'm looking for?
Commissioner Kozlowski. No, we do not have a Committee. It's my statutory
obligation to provide a service and I preserve it to the best of my ability.
Representative Beck. Yes. So, this is your — OK.
Commissioner Kozlowski. And as soon as I possibly can, at the lower cost.
Senator Liebeeman. Let's call Mr. Downes and Mr. Juliano to the table. I'd
like to simultaneously administer the oath to both of you, if I could. Do you
.swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God? Please be seated. Mr. Downes, I wonder
if you could identify yourself in the microphone and your relationship to this
matter under inquiry.
:^lr. Dowxes. Yes. My name is John Downes. I'm Vice President of the Frank
Downes Construction Company and I am the individual with the Frank Downes
Company who worked with the Department of Transportation to put this package
together.
Senator Liebermax. Mr. Frank Downes is the President of the Company?
Mr. DowxEs. That's right. He's my father and he's the President of the com-
pany. I'm the Vice President.
418
Senator Liebebman. And that would make you Brian Gaffney's cousin.
Mr. DowNES. Tliafs correct.
Senator Liebebman. We're interested — I guess you've been sitting here this
morning, so you appreciate our interest in documenting the events here. Why
don't you go bacli to the beginning and explain to us how the Downes Construc-
tion Company became interested in a building of this highway garage.
Mr. DowNES. Well, we've been active in leasing with the State since the mid
50's and had entered into a lease with the State for the Motor Vehicle building
at 1185 West Main Street in New Britain.
Senator Liebebman. How long ago was that?
Mr. DowNEs. That was in 1959.
Senator Liebebman. Had you entered other leases?
Mr. Downes. No, that's the only one.
Senator Liebebman. That was the most recent one before this one?
Mr. DowNES. That's correct. That was for a fifteen year lease. Ten years after
that lease commenced with the adjacent location to the highway, the State indi-
cated to us that they might want to change the location of the facility because of
the inconvenience of the highway set-up as it circled that particular Motor
Vehicle building. So, we took out an option on some land in New Britain and
prepared plans to move that site into New Britain. And had proceeded with
preliminary drawings and then the State decided to stay where they were, I
guess because they served Plainville, Farmington and this would put people at an
inconvenience. So they decided to stay where they were and they terminated
our lease and bought the building. At that time
Representative Rock. May I interrupt at this point? You mentioned the fact
that it's the State of Connecticut you're dealing with. Do you want to specify the
Agency you're dealing with in the State of Connecticut ?
Mr. DowNES. It was the Leasing Division.
Representative Rock. Public Works?
Senator Liebebman. Leasing Division of the Department of Public Works.
Could you date this?
Mr. Downes. Yes, the Lease was terminated in '69 and this action took place
right along with the date of termination. Let's see, then we agreed — they told us
what they would pay us for the building and we accepted that figure, with the
thought that if another lease became available that we would be interested in
pursuing it and coming up with some numbers and this finally developed. I got in
contact with a gentleman named Howard Dickinson who is with the Public
Works Department and told me that there was an interest in a lease building in
the Waterford area, right near the highway system, 85. 152 and 95,
Senator Liebebman. I think that Dickinson is with the Transportation De-
partment. Isn't he?
Mr. Downes. And at that time, do you want me to just proceed with what
happened ?
Senator Liebebman. Yes. Representative Gudelski?
Representative Gudelski. Senator, I just want to get this clear in my mind.
Now you are involved with the Public Works Department and Department of
Transportation. You are negotiating with both?
Mr. Downes. No. not really. At this stage of the game, Public Works was not
involved. It was strictly Dickinson who- — —
Representative Gudelski. Then you're dealing, at this point, only with the
Department of Ti-ansportation.
Mr. Downes. That's correct.
Representative Gudelski. OK.
Senator Liebebman. And what date was that again?
Mr. Downes. That was, I would say, in May, early in May of '71. We went
down into the area and looked at certain land that was available and we all
came to an agreement that this particular land that was subsequently bought, was
most desirable. And, at that time, we entered into an option for the land and
we prepared drawings and outlined specifications and work-ups of numbers of
what our cost would be and submitted a quotation to Public Works.
Senator Guntiiee. You took an option in May of '71 on the land, on the
strength of Mr. Dickinson's recommendation?
Mr. Downes. No, we didn't take the option in '71. we took the option in, it was
late '71, I'd say November.
Senator Guntiikb. This was strictly— this was with no contact whatsoever with
the Department of Public Works.
419'
Mr. DowNES. Thafs correct.
Senator Gunther. This was on the strength of what Mr. Dickinson related?
Mr. DowxES. That's right. Land by the way, in Waterford, in this area — we
gambled in taking out the option that it would be acceptable and that's why we
didn't buy it. That's why we took out the option. It was a gamble on our part
because we didn't have access to the land.
Senator Lieberman. The option then, was taken on the land actually before
the Department of Public Works received the formal request from the Depart-
ment of Transportation to proceed in this project. It was taken out in October
some time.
Mr. DowNEs. I'm not sure of the dates. We took out the option before I had
any contact with Public Works.
Senator Lieberman. Let me just go back and get clear again in my own head
how you, what lead you to make this proposal. In other words, you made the
approach to the Department of Transportation.
Mr. DowNEs. Yes, I made the approach that we were interested in entering into
working out a lease deal or proposition with the State and they told us that they
had need for one in Waterford, they told us the size of the building, how many
stalls they would need and what the facilities, the salt storage sheds and the
sand storage facilities and we worked and prepared a drawing showing these
facilities, worked up our numbers based on what they wanted.
Senator Lieberman. Is that parcel of land you took the option on in October of
'71 the one that construction is proceeding on?
Mr. Downes. Right.
Senator Lieberman. Was there another parcel of land involved at an earlier
date?
Mr. Downes. Xo. We looked at other parcels of land and we thought very
seriously of another one, but someone bought it before we had a chance.
Senator Lieberman. Let me ask you a question, if I can, about the costs in-
volved here. You heard testimony earlier that, in the itemizational costs that we
had for the project, it came to around $400,000.00, cost to your firm and over the
fifteen year period, in rental payments, it would cost the State about $970,000.00
and then an additional $400,000 or so on top of that to purchase— for the State to
purchase. To me, that sounds like a very favorable arrangement for your com-
pany. Does your company view it that way?
Mr. Downes. No. There are a lot of costs involved here that I haven't heard
anybody speak of. For instance, we are now taxpayers in the Town of Waterford.
We pay land taxes on the value of our property. We also have interest to pay on
the cash outlay to put this package together. We also have an obligation to per-
form maintenance on the building. If the roof goes bad, our phone rings and it's
our obligation to fix it. If there is some structural problems involved, it's our
obligation to fix it. So there are certain costs — it's not all gravy, so to speak. We
have a cost. The taxes alone go up to $7,000.00.
Senator Lieberman. But still, we've got on an investment of $400,000, a possible
return of actually $1,400,000 and it seems like a wide gap.
Mr. Downes. Well, if the State, of course the State could walk away from this
at the end of fifteen years and I've got a building that's a garage. I don't know
if I could find anybody to buy it.
Senator Lieberman. Let me ask you another question about the cost. We
noticed in the itemizational cost that the work on the land came to, I don't know,
the site work and land improvement along, came to $120,000 and a building cost
of about two hundred and some odd and that sounds very high. Why was, why did
the site improvement cost that much?
Mr. Downes. Well, this is a fully developed nine and a half acre site. We bought
the site graded and cleared to our specifications. Now, once that is done, we then
have to go in and put in finished site work which amounts to — I jotted down the
items — storm drainage, reinforced concrete pipe, catch basins. We have to exca-
vate and install water, oil tanks, septic tanks and field, gas tank and pump
installation. We have concrete pavement, bituminous pavement, bituminous slopes,
liituminous cui'bs. oil gravel pavement. We have to purchase top soil, fine grade,
fertilizer and seed. These items represent the $125,000. As an example, there is
over 17.000 square yards of bituminous pavement.
Senator Lieberman. How much did the land cost the Downes Company
originally?
Mr. Downes. We looked at the $91,000.00. And I said looked at it. When we
bought the land and .stood there on the site, we were quoted the price, we agreed
420
to the price of $61,000.00 for the nine and a half aore.'s. However, there was a lot
of site work to do and the topography was .--uch tliat there had to be a lot of cuts
and fills and there appeared to lie a lot of rock in the area and there appeared —
and there were a lot of trees. We refused that particular offer and the gentleman
who owned the land also owns the New London Sand and Gravel Company. And
we were expressly concerned about the rock involved because we could see the
large boulders protruding through the grade. He said I wouldn't worry about the
boulders. So I said well why don't you give me a — why don't we settle on a ])rice
to give me the job and the plan ro grade. And we agreed to add $30,000.00 to the
land cost of $61,000.00 and. believe me. wet got a deal. We got a graded site to
our needs, for .$91,000.00.
Senator Liebkrman. Mr. Downes, did you ever reque.st the assistance of your
cousin, Brian (TjifFney. in securing this lease?
Mr. DowNKS. At no time.
Senator Liebkrmax. Have you ever talked to him about it?
Mr. DowNKS. No.
Senator Lieberman. Never talked to him about it.
Mr. DowNEs. Not as yet. My father did. when it became clear that there might
be something coming out of our negotiations with Mr. Dickinson. He .spoke to
him and asked if there was a problem here becau.se we don't need the problems
and Brian told him that — li.sten, if you can work out something, whv should I
hurt you because I'm active in the Legislature.
Representative Rock. What kind of a problem were you referring to?
Mr. DowNES. He didn't want to embarrass Brian.
Representative Rock. Now you said there was a problem and vou spoke to
Mr. Gaffney.
Mr. Downes. The only problem I had that we felt that we didn't want to
embarrass Brian.
Representative Rock. Is it normal procedure to go with an option to the De-
partment of Transportation or the Department of Public W^orks?
Mr. DowNEs. I don't know.
Representative Rock. Well you went to Mr. Dickinson of the Transportation
with the option.
Mr. Downes. I had an option on the land at that time.
Representative Rock. Is this the normal procedure, I'm asking you.
Mr. DowNEs. I don't know. It was my land if I wanted to buy it.
Representative Rock. Commi.s.sioner. do you know?
Commissioner Kozlowski. I'm not sure of the question again. But if he wanted
to purchase land and present it to the Department of Transportation, I don't
see any law against that.
Representative Rock. No. But. is it normal procedure?
Comniis.sioner Kozlowski. I really wouldn't know.
Representative Rock. Who would know?
^ Commissioner Kozlowski. The many people who speculate in purchasing land.
I'm sure they must go into other agencies and ask them whether it is suitable or
not. I'm just assuming that.
Representative Bigos. A better question is — were you directed by someone to
go to a person or a Department?
Mr. Downes. Was I directed? No.
Representative Bioos. You or your father?
Mr. DowNES. No.
Senator Lieberman. You just went to Dickinson in Transportation of your
own volition.
Representative Bioos. You knew where to go? Now you were acquainted with
the operation.
Mr. Downes. With Dickinson's?
Representative Bic^s. No. with our State operation— where to go. You know
where to go now. You don't have to ask anybody.
Mr. Downes. Well, we've been active since the middle '."Os
Senator Lieberman. We were asking about Brian Gaffney. Were .you ever
involved in discussions with anyone in the Governor's office about this lease?
Mr. Downes. No.
Senator LiEBERAfAN. Your negotiations never involved any representatives of
the Governor's Office?
Mr. Downes. No.
Senator Likbfrman. Are there other questions from the Committee?
421
Senator Gunther. On this $30,000.00 worth of site work that was done, when
was that done?
Mr. DowNES. That was done in February, April and May — late February.
Senator Gunther. In other words, this was after you had actually presented
the proposal.
Mr. DowNES. Yes, it was done after we received word from the State that our
position was accepted.
Senator Gunther. Well, it wasn't accepted. It wasn't signed until May. You
had no letter of commitment 'til May.
Mr. DowNKs. Well, we had a letter of — what happened was that our option,
our option ran out and we had a letter — I don't have the date.
Senator Gunther. From what the Commissioner said, the lease was signed, or
the letter of coniinitment was .signed by the Lessor on May 19. You had a letter
of commitment May 9 and yet you did the site work, without knowing that you
were going to have a bona fide contract or letter of commitment with the State
itself.
]\Ir. Downes. That's right. We signed — our option ran out and we had to make
a move one way or the other. The gentleman who owned the land said that there
were other people that were looking at it and we decided, at that time, that was in
January, that we had signed the option and we decided at that time that if it
fell through then we owned a piece of land. It was a good piece of land and that
was the decision we made.
Senator Gunther. On the estimates of the cost of this garage which the Com-
missioner has said that his department worked up and you agree with those
figures as far as cost, site construction, you know, the contingency, architect,
liublic works, eiinipment and that? Do you do any estimating of your own or do
you use the Department's figures?
Mr. Downes. No, we estimated — I think the figures that I've heard today are
our figures.
Senator Gunther. Well, but the Department said they were their figures esti-
mated by their Department.
Mr. Dowxes. Then I'm confused.
Mr. Roscoe. I don't think you said that, Senator. We took the figures he sub-
mitted [inaudible]. We devaluated them. [Inaudible.] We didn't work up, on this
particular piece of property, actually when we worked up our estimates on the
Farmington garage to make a comparison [inaudible].
Senator Gunther. I asked specifically whether your Department had done the
estimating and you said yes. All right, in other words, you concurred with his
fisures. You had a $100,000 site work. I think it ran a little higher than that
wlien it was final. I think it was $130,000. Was that $30,000 included in that? In
other words, actually what you're talking about is $150,000.00 in site work for
that particular site. One second. [Inaudible.] Your home operation is New
Britain, isn't it?
Mr. Downes. That's right.
Senator Gunther. Normally, is most of your building in that vicinity or do you
build throushout the State?
Mr. Downes. We build throughout the State.
Senator Gi'xther. Now, in the .specifications for this particular garage, which
I understand is comparatively high, and that sort of thing as compared to other
garages, what's the difference between if I went out and wanted to build a garage
to put trucks in and whether the State wants to go out and build a garage to put
trucks in?
Mr. Downes. I'd .say basically the difference is in the site work involved — the
areas to store sand and to store salt. The gas facilities and the general large area
that they need to store their equipment.
Senator Gunther. You mean there is quite a bit of difference between the State
specifications that come out and what you would normally build a garage for
for let's say, any big hi ho Daddario or anybody like that, for the same t.vpe of
equipment.
Mr. Downes. I'd .say yes. T would say that most times they keep their equip-
ment on the job (inaudible). And the difference here I would say is the fact that
the site work is extensive site work, compared to tlie square foot of the building.
Senator Gunther. You had another site in the area that .vou were considering,
apparently, and somebody else bought it. Was it. would you say that this is a
more desirable site than the other one.
Mr. Dowxes. Yes, I would.
422
Senator Gunther. Was the site work of one higher than this site work?
Mr. DowNES. Yes.
Senator Gunther. Do you own any other land or buildings in the Waterford
area ? Is this the only one?
Mr. Downes. It's the only one.
Senator Gunther. It's the only one. And you boug'ht that because you knew
that there was apparently going to be some consideration in that area through
Mr. Dickinson from DOT?
Representative Bigos. Mr. Downes, you said that you gambled when you placed
the option for the purchase of tliis land and I got the impression that you know,
you took quite a gamble. How big was your option? How much money did you
pay?
Mr. DowNES. $2,000.00.
Representative Bigos. $2,000.00. For how many acres was that?
Mr. Downes. Nine and a half.
Representative Bioos. And that's the exact same amount that was sold to the
State?
Mr. Downes. Right.
Reiiresentative Bigos. You sold it all. Okay. Now, the cost to you for purchase
and improvement would run about how much? $91,000.00 is it?
Mr. Downes. We bought the site, graded, cleared to our lots for $91,000,00.
Representative Bigos. Now, you're getting in return for that $3200.000, you
get for the rental of the land alone.
Mr. Downes. Well, I never looked at it that way.
Representative Bigos. Yes, but I am looking at it that way. You spend roughly,
$10,000.00 per acre but in return, through the deal that was negotiated, with both
Departments, Transportation and Public Works, you are getting a return of
$3200.00. Is that correct?
Mr. Downes. Those are Public Works figures
Representative Bigos. Well, all right, it's $29,000.00 for the nine acres, is it
not? That's what I was told. Just the land part. Well, anyway those are the
figures that you gave me before, $29,000 a year. Am I wrong? What is the
correct figure?
Commissioner Kozlowski. $21,450.00 is what we considered a rental figure for
all.
Representative Bigos. For the land. All right, so then if you want to get into
an acreage basis, you divide the twenty one by nine, right? So that's roughly
$2300.00 a year per acre. Right? But they spent only $10,000.00 per acre. In
other words, they have complete recovery for the cost of land within four years.
Now, there's no maintenance on land. You know, you don't repair roofs, you
don't do anything except pay a few taxes and chances are the taxes on that part
of the property are low.
Mr. Downes. WeU, I didn't spend $91,000.00. I spent $214,500.00, sir.
Representative Bigos. For what? For the building and land?
Mr. DowNES. For the land as they are going to receive it.
Representative Bigos. Well, can I ask you to give me a breakdown on how
you got the $214,000.00? ^ . , ^ . ^,
Mr. Downes. We paid $91,000.00 for the land. The legal fees involved m the
closing, the options and so forth, were $2,000.00.
Representative Bigos. Well, wouldn't that be a part of the $2,000.00 (inaudible)
The options
Mr. Downes. These are costs that I have to have a finished land.
Representative Bigos. OK. All right, so you had a closing fee, OK.
Mr. Downes. $1500.00 for survey and soil tests. And I had $120,000.00 for the
finished site work which is a total of two fourteen five.
Representative Bigos. W^ell, in other words, you spent $120,000.00 for land
improvement, is that it? Not counting any building on that.
Mr. Downes. That's right.
Representative Bigos. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
Representative Gudelski. Mr. Downes, would you give me the exact location
geographically, of this garage and the land that we're speaking of?
Mr. Downes. Yes. The land is on the northeast intersection of route 85 and
interstate 52, in Waterford.
Representative Gudelski. Thank you.
Senator Liebekman. Who's your lawyer, Mr. Downes?
Mr. Downes. The lawyer is my uncle, John Downes.
423
Senator Lieberman. I had another question. I think maybe what I wanted to
do was bring Mr. Juliano who's been sitting patiently, into the discussion. (Jould
you identify yourself and I think you have a statement from Commissioner Wood.
Mr. Juliano. I'm Nicholas Juliano, Chief of Property Control of the Depart-
ment of Transportation. First is a letter to you Senator, from Commissioner
Wood. Dear Senator : This will confirm our telephone conversation in which you
excused me from the requirements of a subpoena for my appearance before the
Committee on State and Urban Development of the General Assembly on Septem-
ber 7, 1972. I indicated to you that I had unsuccessfully tried for months to
have the U.S. Postmaster General examine Bradley International Airport as a
trans-shipment point for the Air Mail and Parcel Post presently being delivered
at John F. Kennedy Airport. Last week, the Postmaster General instructed his
Chief of Justice to meet me at Bradley, inspect our facilities, review the many
ramifications that would be involved, including the construction of a Post Office
and the thereafter report with his recommendations. If we are successful, we
will have an important beneficial effect on the economy of Connecticut as to new
jobs, etc. I am instructing Nicholas Juliano, Chief of Property Control to answer
the subpoena and to be fully responsive to your questions. For many years, he
has been the employee in charge of the building needs of the former Highway
Department, now the Department of Transportation and he knows more about
the mechanics of purchasing, leasing and rental for our operational needs than
any other person. Respectfully, A. Earl W^ood, Commissioner, (inaudible) To the
Honorable Joseph Lieberman. (inaudible) I hereby submit, under oath, a full
and complete statement about my knowledge of the plans for a state Highway
Maintenance Center to be located in W^aterford, Connecticut. My predecessor, as
Commissioner of Transportation, George Conklin, retained a consulting firm of
Roy Jorgenson Associates of Maryland to make a detailed analysis of the pro-
gram, policy, practice and procedures of llie Bureau of Maintenance to determine
whether greater efficiency could be derived from the monies expended. Among
the many conclusions reached by Jorgenson, was that extreme inefficiency re-
sulted from the present system of having numerous small garages scattered
about the State. Particularly because it was not possible for the Maintenance
Management person to oversee the activities of the individual small groups.
Jorgenson recommended consolidating many of these small units into larger and
more centralized headquarters. Entirely separate from Jorgenson, the Governor's
Commission on services and expenditures also reached the same general conclu-
sion. Since both sets of recommendations appeared valid, I requested a member
of my Staff, Howard Dickinson, to examine the conditions and to recommend to
me where we could make a start. Some time in October 1971, a man came to my
office alone, and identified himself as Frank Downes of New Britain. He said
that the Department of Transportation had located an expressway corridor
through the middle of income-producing property owned by him in New Britain.
The property was occupied by the State Motor "Vehicle Department who paid a
rental to Downes until late June 1968, at which time, the State acquired thte
land by condemnation. As I recollect it, he said he was in the building construc-
tion business and if the Department of Transportation was ever in the market,
to have a building constructed by private capital, he would welcome the oppor-
tunity to talk further. I told him we were, at that time, trying to decide whether
to consolidate several of the small garages by substantially larger, new mainte-
nance center in the general vicinity of Waterford. We had previously looked at
the practicability of locating this structure at the State Farm for Women in
Niantic but the remoteness of the site involving accessive nonproduct travel by
our equipment, caused us to reject this location.
Senator Lieberman. Is that the other site that you were referring to or was
it not?
Mr. JuuANO. That was State land in Niantic. The State Farm for Women in
Niantic.
[Conversation Mr. Roscoe and Representative Beck inaudible.]
Mr. .Juliano. Possibly several weeks later, Mr. Downes contacted me to say
that he had a parcel available in Waterford and that he would inspect it and
found it suitable, he would like to make an offer to us. We did look at the prop-
erty and found it did meet our needs. I wrote to the Commissioner of Public
Works, Edward K. Kozlowski on October 27, 1971 stating that we had a need
for a sixteen stall garage in the Waterford area and that suitable arrangements
could be made by him to have the facility erected by a lease-purchase agreement.
I hoped he would do it. Subsequently, in discussing with Commissioner Kozlowski,
424
I advised him of Mr. Downes early decision with me of his interest in construct-
ing a garage to meet our needs and I recommended tliat Mr. Downes be contacted.
At this point, my direct contact with the matter ceased until a long interval
later, when I looked at some plans submitted by Public Works for review. As
Commissioner of Transportation, I had no statutory authority to negotiate for
rentals or property lea.ses. If I had the power vested to me, with the circum-
stances prevailing in this case. I would have negotiated a lease comparable to the
one herein referred to. A. Earl AVood, Commissioner of Transportation. Signed.
Senator Liebebman. Thank you. There seems to be a confusion or conflict of
information because that deposition describes conversations between Frank
Downes and Commissioner Wood and I had been led to conclude that you were
dealing with Mr. Dickinson as the primary point of contact.
Mr. DowNES. I heard when he read that. I think Commissioner Wood — I was
the gentleman he was seeing and he must have associated my name with
Senator Liebebman. Confused his Downeses. So that you had talked with the
Commissioner directly at some point.
Mr. Downes. That's right.
Senator Liebebman. In addition to Mr. Dickinson.
Mr. Downes. That's correct.
Senator liiEBERMAN. Weve been struck, Mr. Juliano, today by the — maybe we
■should be happy about it — anyway, we've been struck by the speed with which
there was movement on this consulting report. And I wonder if you could con-
sider for a moment, the question of urgency here. Why was it so urgent to move
on this project ?
Mr. JuLiAxo. Well, in my own experience, this Waterford location has been
something that we had considered for quite a while and when the report did
come out by Jorgenson, which more than justified the projection, we felt that we
should go ahei'd and make this the first facility to go ahead and the implementa-
tion of their recommendation. And what this will do, is give us a central garage
in the Groton. Salem, Waterford area. Along with this, we have terminated two
smaller leased garages in Waterford already and in addition to that, we had
deferred location of a garage in Groton. So that we would only go to the one
central, rather than have two small and two large ones. So this was our overall
plan in this particular area.
Senator Lieberman. Was the relationship that we've heard described here
between Mr. Downes and Mr. Dickinson prior to notification of the Department
of Public Works, a normal operating procedure for the Department of Trans-
portation?
Mr. Juliano. Well. I just want to make — I had no knowledge of it but in my
past experience on other projects that I have worked with, you would get into
the point of possibly looking at sites, probable sites, nia.vbe one or two or three
and then making a recommendation to Public Works to say that these sites are
available and this is the general area we would like to have the garage because I
think and agree with the Commissioner that we are the best ones to determine
where the spot should be.
Senator Lieberman. How do people hear — we've heard again a description to-
day about what led Mr. Downes to come to the Department of Transportation
but what's the normal way in which a relationship like this begins':' Does the
word get out or do you call a contractor or property owner?
Mr. Juliano. I have no contact with anyone myself. I can't say how the word
gets out.
Senator Lieberman. You don't know hf)w it normally happens within the
1) 'p.ii Unor^t?
Sen-itor Guntiier. Is tliis Mr. Dickinson the only one that knows the.se site
locitions?
Mr. Juliano. Well, he would in this particular respect because he is the liaison
hetwcv-n the Commissioner and the Division, the Director of Maintenance now.
.-senator Guxtiiek. You mentioned the Jorgen.son Report — this report apparently
doesn't pinpoint or give a relative area where these should be located for eflS-
ciency? Is this report available?
Mr. Juliano. The Director of Maintenance does have a copy.
Senntor Gunther. When yon say Director of Maintenance, this is only a De-
partment. Is it available to anybody else?
Ml-. Juliano. I assume if they ask for it. On the outside?
SeiL'itor Guntiier. Yes.
Mr. Juliano. No. No.
425
Senator Gunthb:r. How about the Department of Public Works? Are they privy
to the Jorgenson Report?
Mr. JiLiANO. Well, if they had requested it. I don't know if they had a copy.
Senator Guntheb. I might add to that. Have you ever gotten the Jorgenson
KeiK)rt V
Mr. RoscoE. (inaudible).
Senator Guntiier. How recently have you gotten that?
Mr. RoscoE. Oh, I really couldn't say. Nobody asked for it and (inaudible) and
we were considering building on State property (inaudible.)
Senator Gunthek. When this request came in on the Downes garage
Mr. JuLiANO. When the request came in from (inaudible) somewher<i along
that line
Senator Gunther. Is this the first garage that we've built in the past two
year.s? How long has the Jorgenson Report existed?
Mr. JLU.^NO. I believe the first of this year.
Mr. GiNTHEB. In other words, it's the early part of this year you finaily got
the Jorgenson Report. And the on)y ones that are privvy to that apparently, up
until this stage, has been Mr. Diclzinson — Mr. Wood, merely within the Depart-
ment. It seems that Mr. Dickinson might be a nice fellow to know. He's the only
one privy to this. Because if nobody else can get that information and we know
we have a plan that would seem to me that this would be made available to
anybody in the area. Because you don't pinpoint this. You don't actually say this
should be located at the junction of two highways.
Mr. JuLiANO. They should have one central garage.
Senator Guntiier. Now, in the consolidation, you say you dropped two leases
with garages in Waterford.
Mr. JuLiANO. Right. Too small.
Senator Gunther. What other garages are going to be discontinued as a result
of this?
Mr. JULiANO. We had deferred the one in Groton.
Senator Gunther. You say you were going to build another one through the
Department's construction? Is that right?
Mr. JuLiANO. Right. In Groton. It was programmed.
Senator Gunther. And how far along was that?
Mr. JU1.IANO. Only on a programmed basis. Everything was waiting 'til the
results of the Jorgenson Report came out. That held everything up.
Senator Gunther. And actually you're saying the Jorgenson Report came out
the first part of the year and said that something should be located — Your
Department didn't actually go out and try to survey the area to find out whether
there were any other sites.
Mr. JuLiANO. I didn't do it.
Senator Gunther. Again, with the urgency in giving up two leases, dropping
a programmed garage and that, your Department actually didn't go out and see
whether there were any other areas around there that could suffice for this?
Mr. JuLiANO. In talking for myself, I had to say no. I don't know about Mr.
Dickinson or any other
Senator Gunther. Your department was never notified in advance — the De-
partment of Public Works, then that you were going to have to locate one in this
area according to this Jorgenson Report.
Mr. JuT-iANo. I think we did notify them when we terminated the two Water-
ford small garages.
Senator Gunther. When was that?
Mr. JuLiANO. It was February, the beginning of the year.
Senator Gunther. In other words, then they knew that the Jorgenson Report
had recommended?
Mr. JuLiANO. We were having recommendations from the Jorgenson Report
but we didn't say specifically Waterford. We said we were terminating two leases.
Senator Gunther. So really, they didn't know that they were going to have
to locate; that is the Department of Public Works. So that actually, don't
you think that if there wur an urgency to drop two leases, to drop the program,
programmed garage and that, don't you think you should have taken normal flag
u,p to the DPW and said look, we're going to need one in a helluva hurry and
let's go out and see what we have at that date? I know that that's not your
responsibility and I know you probably can't answer that.
Representative Tudan. Mr. Juliano, have you seen the Jorgenson Report?
Mr. JtnJANO. Have I seen it?
426
Representative Tudan. Yes.
Mr. JuLiANO. I've seen portions of it, yes, where it refers to my responsibility,
yes. Such as what the disposition will be on certain buildings and so forth.
Representative Txidan. Well they made many recommendations, evidently.
Are you familier with all the recommendations they made? Are you Commis-
sioner?
Commissioner KozLOWSKi. No.
Representative Tudan. You're not. Because I'm just wondering — you said you
perused through part of it anyway. Are you aware of any other recommendations
they made in the report?
Mr. JuLiANO. I am in respect to what buildings will be terminated, either
at the close of the lease term or State-owned they will be put out —
Representative Tudan. But are several projects involved?
Mr. JuLiANO. Additional large sized projects?
Representative Tudan. In other words, projects similar to the one that we are
talking about here now.
Mr. JuLiANO. Yea.
Representative Tudan. Were there many larger projects than that recom-
mended?
Mr. Juliano. One that I am aware of.
Representative Tudan. One.
Mr. Juliano. Actually, the Jorgenson Report will then increase the number
it will decrease the number. As a matter of fact, since January 1st. we have
reduced the number of leased facilities.
Representative Tudan. Now, they made a recommendation to establish in that
general area. Was that their number one priority recommendation?
Mr. JuLTANO. It was ours.
Representative Tudan. No, no. I'm talking about the people that were hired,
the Jorgenson — you're not aware of that? Are you Commissioner?
Commissioner Kozlowski. No.
Representative Tudan. You're not? Basically, I'm concerned with how many
recommendations they made, the size of them, the price of them and if there
are other recommendations there sitting in that book perhaps they have a greater
priority. It's just that why we jump along on this one first? That's what I'm
concerned with.
Mr. .Juliano. Again, going back to my experience in the programs that I have
worked on since '61 and that's Chief of Property Control, I would say Waterford
was number one.
Representative Tudan. Yet you proceeded along with this acquisition because
it was a recommendation of the Jorgenson Report.
Mr. Juliano. It only proved that we were on the right track in projecting
our
Representative Tudan. And I'm just wondering if there were other recommen-
dations that they were trying to make and if they listed any priorities. Now
you say you don't know. I see.
Senator Liebicrman. Yes. Representative Bigos.
Representative Bigos. I'm sorry, but somewhere along the line I missed just
what you do in the Department of Transportation. What section of the Depart-
ment are you in?
Mr. Juliano. I am Chief of Property Control and I'm responsible for the
maintenance, repairs and upkeep of buildings and— —
Rei)resentative Bigos. You have nothing to do, then, with purchase of a — we're
involved here with a matter of purchase and leasing right now.
Mr. Jtliano. I am involved because I take care of the paperwork concerning
leasing. In other words, someone malvcs a recommendation for a purchase or a
lease or capout. I am the one that puts it together with tlie justification to be
submitted by our commission to tlie Public Works Department.
Representative Bigos. Well, there are some questions
Mr. Jultanos On this particular one. I did not prepare it.
Representative Btoos. Well, wouldu't there be someone who could answer some
of the questions winch were asked of you but you were not able to answer?
Mr. Juliano. It would have to be someone in Maintenance, right.
Representative Bigos. Maintenance. Now, would Mr. Dicldnson be the person?
Mr. Juliano. Right.
Representative Bigos. Maybe we should get him. Now the cost of terminating
two leases, which you did, what was the cost of that?
427
Mr. JuLiANO. One we terminated on February 28tb, was $2,340.00 and one on
January 31st was $600.00.
Representative Bigos. Well then that bad a very short period to run, is that it?
Mr. JuLiANO. That's a yearly rent.
Representative Bigos. A yearly rent, oh, I see.
Mr. JuLiANO. [Inaudible.]
Representative Bigos. Ob, I see, it's renewable from year to year, is that it?
Mr. JuLiANO. Right.
Representative Bigos. OK. I have no other questions.
Senator Lieberman. Commissioner Kozlowski, I think it's fair to say that the
members of this Committee, I know speaking for myself personally, have come
off of our various conversations and meetings with you with considerable respect
for your administrative ability and frankly, as I bear this whole case, it bothers
me that so much was done before it got to you as the Commissioner of Public
Works and there does seem to be a way in which the parties involved here perhaps
particularly the Department were putting you under a great time pressure to act
and I just wonder, reflecting on it, how you feel about that personally and whether
there would be any way in which you would consider trying to discourage the
State agencies involved from going off so much on their own before projects get
to you.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Well, I must agree, it does put me on the spot to a
certain degree. I would prefer to do our own negotiating right from the beginning
to the end and that is the case in most of our projects. But I went along with this
one because of the urgency and my respect for Commissioner Wood.
Senator Lieberman. Might you
Senator Gunthee. If I might just inject Commissioner, this is contrarj- to the
policy on page two, right in your general policy statement. It's quite succinct, all
searches must be done by the Leasing Division only and apparently, we parted
from this procedure even in the existing procedure by allowing the Transportation
this privilege of doing this.
Commissioner Kozlowski. This was done, Senator, prior to my knowledge. I
had no knowledge of it whatsoever and the package was (inaudible). My concern
was I felt the cost was too high and it was even negotiated down. So that was my
contribution.
Senator Gunther. Actually, the point here that I'm making. Commissioner, is
the fact that we do bend these policies.
Commissioner Kozlowski. Yes. They are guidelines and there are certain cir-
cumstances where we would probably make exceptions.
Senator Lieberman. I wonder. Commissioner Carlson I know has had a busy
morning, between the Court and the Capitol. I wonder if we could call you to
the stand at this point for a few brief questions about this particular case. We've
been administering oaths today. Commissioner, so do you swear that the testi-
mony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Commissioner Carlson. Yes, sir.
Senator Lieberman. Could you identify yourself for the sake of the record?
Commissoner Carlson. Adolf Carlson, Commissioner of Finance and Control.
Senator Lieberman. And I wonder if you could describe the involvement of
the Department of Finance and Control in this particular lease, so that the High-
way Garage in Waterford.
Commissioner Carlson. The role, primarily, is a fiscal one. Is the money
available? Is the money in the budget of the agency to support this activity? I
also, in the case of buildings generally, leasing as well, like to satisfy myself
that the agency, in working with Public Works, has done their homework in
the sense that an accurate measurement of the State's need, publicly served and
the constituency to be served by the particular location, be it general public or
just a regional oflSce of whatever it might be. So we ask and are criticized fre-
quently by operating agencies, of sticking our nose in their business but I like
to be satisfied that they've done their homework. And this we do. Also, we try to
encourage the use of existing state land or buildings wherever possible so again,
we test and ask. have you reviewed other possible sites, particularly state-owned
facilities to do the job satisfactorily. So broadly and specifically speaking, those
are the three areas that I adjust my.self to. I don't like to get into or I don't get
into the negotiations of lease or into the discussions with the architect for in-
stance, of the building as it progresses but in general, make certain that what is
being put together, be it a building or else, is suflBcient for the job but not super
47-704—75 28
428
sufficient. The money is then placed, be it bond funds or construction or lease
money as the case may be in the situation. And also, it's an agency that does its
homework generally. And finally, that there isn't other facilities to serve this
purpose. We try to help coordinate this activity in the leasing, with Public Works
and be an assist to the State in that capacity. So broadly speaking and specifically
.speaking, those are the areas we concern ourselves with.
Senator Liebebman. How do you think the Department of Transportation
measured up to those standards in this particular lease?
Commissioner Caelson. We were back and forth several times on this. I was
concerned about the site, not the site specifically, but the site generally in the
sense are there other facilities that do the job of the highway garages, whatever
that might be. And I was satisfied with romniissioner Wood and his Department
had done a good job in of themselves and also by outside assistance as to what the
needs of the Department were and providing a service. I was satisfied. I don't
I)retend to be an expert but the answers he gave assured me that they hadn't
done this thing capriciously, without good thought.
Senator Liebebman. Do you feel that the — we've had testimony earlier about
the rental term amounting to some $970,000 total over the 15 year period. Does
that seem to be a good bargain for the State or arrangement for the State'/
Commissioner Caelson. My concern again, was had this thing l)een negotiated?
Had other people who had the direct responsibility done a job there? And I felt
on li.ilance. and had been assured that they had. Again, it's a lot of money,
whether it could have been done cheaper is .something else. I didn't and I chose
not to, intercede in the negotiations on leases, nor as I said, discussing with
architects or builders on the construction. But I make certain that those who are
responsible, have done the job and I was satisfied.
Senator Liebebman. I wonder and maybe this question could be addressed to
Commissioner Kozlowski as well, but why those rental payments over the fifteen
years did not appear to be applicable to the final purcha.se price. In other words,
we liave fifteen years of rental and then basically, if there is a purchase option
exercise, the contractor retrieves at that point, his original investment, besides
the fifteen years rent.
Commissioner Caelson. I did not get into the specifics. One of the things I
know they talk about is the settlement figure at the end of the fifteen years and
when you have a big settlement figure when the lease is due apply the settlement
figure, or a settlement figure and the lease figures not to apply to it, is not the
same really. So, how they approached it and how they packaged it. I did not
relate it. Granted recognizing the procedure you suggested is a legitimate way
and we have done it.
Senator Liebebman. We've had considerable discussion today on our earlier
consideration of the State's leasing policy about the whole question of the obliga-
tion of the State to search for additional space when space is required to I don't
know, advertise or something of the kind. Does your department get into that at
all, or do you think it should?
Commissioner Caelson. We feel the responsibility to work towards a better
centralization of State space and facility and this is the thing that beli)ed Public
Works, my staff works closely xAith Mr. Kozlowski's staff in these matters. If ;i
mere inflect in the Budget Division for .some reason or what have you, although
the State Building Program Commission was abolished in the last se.s.sion of the
special General Assembly, certain of their records and staff have insi-sted that we
(inaudible). Biit we are doing right now and you may be interested in this,
we are striving now, to come to, I'll call it a central inventory of State owned
and leased facilities and I say I call it an inventory because as a practical matter,
we may not go to a central file at one place, but identify in one place, whether the
information is as needed, (inaudible.) As well as my own Budget people and of
course. Public Works leasing and the last division have a great deal of detail.
What we are trying to do and of course, Tran.sportation has their own, but we're
trying to plug all of them together, Environment, Transportation and other State
agencies. We own or need space, use a central file, so that as a request is made
of anyone, I need an office to serve the people on Probation in Bridgeport area, I
need so many square feet of space, we will be able to he of assistance to that
agency. Public Works along with the project itself, to say yes, T think we can
work this out in this facility we already have. Rearranging people, using people
and I am «iuite pleased with the spirit of cooperation that we have in other
agencies. It's a lot tougher than I thought it would be if you throw it all together
429
Imt I am optimistic that it will Ite acoomplislit'd and therefore, will serve to
accomplish the things that we are concerned al>out. Are we making the best
use of our land, facilities that is now under State control. I say control which
means owned or leased. So as to prevent the construction or new leasing along
with the needs.
Senator I.iebekman. Do you have other questions for the Commissioner?
Senator Gx'nther. Commissioner, we do have two over views on leasing. We
get one initially I believe, and then you get one according to their chart when
the tinal lease is signed and the Letter of Conunitment then goes to you? So that
actually, your first over view is on whetlier monies are available and that sort
of thing I should imagine. Or is this i)rimarily what — V
Ciimmissi(mer (\\rlson. Senator, we inquire tests that is l)eing sought. In other
words, our last view is, I won't say it's routine, but it's we feel to make certain
everyone has done their homework and the money is in place (inaudible).
Senator Gunther. That's what I was trying to find out. What or why the dou-
ble over view with your Department if you, in other words, if you're working on
it and evaluating whether this is a good lease for the State and that sort of thing
it would seem in the preliminary areas, it would be and this is what you do.
Commissioner Carlson. Part of the reason we do it, that first view, is
by the time the lease itself becomes a public document, everybody is set into
a position or to a posture which the legal flow of paper and at that iK)int,
Ave at Finance and Control raise questions or shout it down for some other
reason which we can still do, it tends to make — it's a tougher thing to do be-
cause people plan on a thing at that point. The.v go back and then we come
in and say oh the price isn't right. We don't have that money in the Budget.
Or I don't think you need that much space.
Senator Cixi her. In other words, you're pretty much committed after the
first view. And then, as you say, it's routine.
Commissioner Carlson. If we had made a jmsitive statement at the first review
and it comes to us in the same substance again, then we don't if we had
our say at it, unless something's dramatically changed. We do not see all leases
in a iireliminary l<iok. But we do see this type of a bill lease. We generally try
to see or hope to see all, new leases.
Senator Gunther. Now. \Ahen you said that you make sure that each Depart-
ment has done tlieir job, you're estal)lishing this mainly on the precedent
that has been estal dished. In other words, if we have a procedure, you don't
(piestion the procedure. You actually go along with the procedure if there is a
precedent for it.
Commi.ssioner Carlson. Yes. I don't concern myself .so much with the procedure
l)ecause again, I don't want to be doing everybody else's task.
Senator Guntmek. But you're known as an efficiency export, let's not kid
ourself. So actually, you don't hesitate to take and jump into things if you feel
they are improper or if there is a more efficient way of doing it or if there
is some question.
Commissioner Carlson. I feel this is a re.spon.sibility I have and
Senator Gunther. But again, the only way you can determine from this,
inasmuch as you don't apparently do an in-depth study on each one of these
leases, in otlier words, you don't go into it and see whether the breakdown as
far as the leasing mat is comparable, let's say, to private industry or private
type corpoiations ha\e in the same structure, construction, constructing lease
and that sort of thing ?
Commissioner Carlson. We don't go that narrowly and if we find, for instance,
we ask an agency simple questions on need or justification and we think it's
deserved unaudible. ) And therefore, I am inclined to ask more specific informa-
tion and more questions on that (inaudible) if it became apparent at the outset
that the agency hadn't really thought through what their need was and pretty
well satisfied themselves. That was the only way to acknowledge that.
Senator Gunther. But you really don't do an in-depth study, physically, on any
of these things?
Commissioner Carlson. When you say physically, we will on .some new par-
ticipating again, with Public works, physically to inspect the .site. For instance,
if there is a part we need for clients to be served, (inaudible.) In the facility,
again, whether it's owned or leased, I don't think that enters into it.
Senator Gunther. But with the one we're doing now, you didn't physically go
into the construction of the garage, location, cost, that kind of thing.
430
Commissioner Carlson. I asked questions on this to satisfy myself that the
thing put together was basic to the needs of the Transportation Department
and
Senator Guntheb. Actually now, in retrospect, do you think that this advisory
group which we washed out in the last session that this could serve a useful
purpose if we had itV This State Building Program? Just by the fact that we're
going in and checking these leasings and that sort of thing V I think you're
probably aware that they poll these advisory groups which I couldn't find it in
the statute, but they could, but they polled them by mail as to the acceptance or
the rejection of these particular leases and sites. This is the advisors, not the —
and do you think that in retrospect that it wouldn't be good to have control and
to have advisories but more in the letter of the law rather than the way it was
administered?
Commissioner Carlson. I'm not that familiar with the Citizens Advisory
Group. So I can't really react to that.
Senator Guntheb. Actually again, let me, on this business of this second over-
view, you're the last stop, really before construction. Is this correct Com-
missioner'?
Commissioner Carlson. Yes, we have to get their approval.
Senator Guntheb. In other words, you're really the final approval
Commissioner Caelson. There have been times where Finance and Control has
rejected a final, where the agency and Public Works has agreed but Finance and
Control has not agreed. We must have agreement three ways.
Senator Guntheb. But then he is the only stop before construction becau.se
from what you said, the Attorney General doesn't get the final approval of the
leasing luitil the building is constructed. And this is an awful lot of responsibility
to put on these people. I am. you apparently have the legal advisors in your
Department to over-view this lease or construction even, do you?
Commissioner Carlson. Not legal advisors in the narow sense. Again, this
is a function better carried out by the people responsible. My concern is more of
a common sense type of job.
Senator Gunther. In other words, we don't have any legal over-view until the
building is built. It's completely constructed and we go into the leasing program
according to your charts.
Commissioner Carlson. I would say that's essentially correct but most likely,
mind you Senator, that as far as responsibility is concerned, a great deal of it
is on my shoulders because last year I personally signed over $50 million worth
of contracts.
Senator Guntheb. I know. But I'm just saying that before we have, let's say
the legal beagle of this State who is the Attorney General, look at these things,
and as you said he had an over-view other than the legal concepts and that sort
of thing in the leasing, we don't do this. We're already committed. We have a
building and it's built and it's constructed before the
Commissioner Carlson. He still has the right to refuse it.
Senator Gunther. You mean the Attorney General does. Tlien we'd probably
buy a building anyway, whether we wanted to or not.
Representative Bigos. Commissioner, I would like to ask your opinion and
advice on this matter. And I don't care what vA-as done in the past because that
seems to be an answer here. Well we did it that way for the past fifteen, twenty
years and that's what we're going to do again. It seems to me that when' you get
into one of these projects, wo kind of exclude competition. The public at large,
does not know that they are getting into a building like this. Now, do you think
that it would be desirable to let the public know, through advertising, not be
bound by it, or in some manner, let them know that a project like this is being
undertaken by the State?
Commissioner Carlson. In leasing matters it's difficult because your variables —
you know, it doesn't lend itself cleanly to that sort of situation. I think one of the
big concerns that we .should have the best possible product as a result (inaudi-
ble). And leasing facilities, there are all kinds of varieties from office space .such
as Motor Vehicle offices (inaudible). It's a tool to be used and it has been used
very, very carefully because there one of the key elements is the area to be sure in
which it is to be located. You don't always have the land. In other words, you have
a college and you want to build a campus and you want to build a new library,
that's pretty well fixed and you can't have the site. So one of the variables you get
into this sort of a thing, the.se highway garages, is the site and again, when you
come into a di.scussion of it, would the State be better to buy the site and draw
431
plans and go to construction. This is a wrestle that we all have. I think this is
the best way, quickest way and most desirable way to provide the facility for the
State needs.
Representative Bioos. That's true, Commissioner, but the variables apply to
everybody and I don't think like Downes in this case, had a monopoly on the
variables so they could come up with the best answer. Because for the land in
question on which an option was taken, an option could have been taken by some-
one else too, if they had such an opportunity. And my question is it seems to me
that from all this that garages, this time or previous time, were built to the exclu-
sion of others who might have wanted to build them and given the State a better
price. I know that's happened in this case and other cases but I'm trying to get
around that. See if there is some way that we can give others a chance to bid on
these things and come up with a better price for the State.
Commissioner Cablson. The specification of the land would probably be the
biggest roadblock to that. I understand what you are saying and I basically tend
to agree with you Hnaudible).
Representative Bigos. Well, when you make a judgment as to whether or not
you go along with one of these deals, do you take into account who the landlord
is? You don't?
Commissioner Carlson. I mean other than his competency to build the building
as being called for. This I know.
Representative Biqos. Right. And then being a good landlord thereafter too —
that's the only consideration you give it. OK.
Representative Beck. Commissioner, I wonder if I could ask you in the course
of decision making, when you talk about funding, how much of a problem is a
shift from a leasing to an ownership situation? How much of a problem is cre-
ated by the fact that we have made so many heavy bonded commitments? Does
this limit our ability to shift over to constructing our own buildings?
Commissioner Carlson. It's a factor in the process, the process we go through
because the lease payment, of course, is a charge on the operating side (inau-
dible ) . Where the ownership and the indebtedness that goes with a bond for a
constructed building also imparts the same fund, a different account perhaps.
The biggest variable is the interest element and generally, I tend to be very con-
cerned with the ascending curve of the debt service element in our budgets. But I
don't put that at such an overriding factor as I do with separate leases because
the leases cost is still a cost factor. I don't know if I'm answering your question
or not.
Representative Beck. Yes, well this is why I wanted
Commissioner Carlson. Debt service is a very heavy expense that keeps grow-
ing and yet I wouldn't be such an ostrich to say let's lease everything and keep
debt service under control because it would have the same type of expense, hope-
fully not as large as another account on the o])erating side. It's a factor on the
scale but it isn't the one that completely tips it either way.
Representative Beck. My second question is in arriving at these priorities I had
asked Commissioner Kozlowski whether more or less, the consultations are
between him and the particular Commissioner involved and then you as another
party here. In working out the year's projects, how do you adjust to changes, how
do you work this out in a reasonable fashion? How does this consultation process
itself out? Do you do this regularly, do you do it once a month? Roughly, what is
the format that you have for this?
Commissioner Carlson. If you're talking specific lease, generally that would
be handled by my staff, dealing, appropriate staff in the agency involved in the
Public Works Department. So that they would come to know each other, particu-
larly my staff and Public W^orks staff, on a time going basis and they frequently
go out in the field and inspect the area. In talking about the capital element and
the bond indebtedness, it's a little different procedure because it's generally
further down the road in the sense of reality. The reality of building the facilities.
And there, that generally flows along with the general budget review we make,
where the agency will make its request to l»uild a new library and wants .$5
million for this facility and its request to the Budget Division who in turn,
working with me and my people, make a review of this, talking to Public Works
on cost estimates and so on, also dealing with the agency on the need, its priority,
among its other activities that are happening at that particular college, for
instance, to the eventual recommendation to the Governor who in turn then
decides if he wants to recommend it to the General Assembly. So, on the capital
bonded element of new construction, it is primarily a heavy element of the
432
review process of the budget cycle. Tlie leasing piece flow through individually
throughout the year. In other words, we don"t get an over-view of all the leases —
the Welfare Department at one time. A lease that was placed eight years ago
and has an eight year lease, pops into the office today. We don't see that as a
preliminary review situation which was a question we had asked earlier. We
don't see it. On that one, we dont see it until all of a sudden, pop, there it is.
And we review that sort of the same way that we do a new proposal. So that
doesn't come in a total view of the Welfare Department's leasing facilities or
needs. It is one specific, in that specific area, serving a specific time test. At
that time, we'll ask the questions about price cost, other facilities. So leases come
into our oflJice sporadically and are handled primarily by staff in my office who
go to the field, go to Public Works, talk to the agencies and then talk with me
and advise me and I satisfy myself of what my view would be based on informa-
tion. Whether it is sufficient or I feel or he feels that its sensitive or has
(inaudible) Generally, it's a staff function to recommend.
Representative Beck. You mentioned the leasing question as it comes along!
and I just have one final question which I haven't particularly thought about
before but you recall the problem of the Hartford Community College, I'm sure.
It would seem to me that there have to l)e problems of jurisdiction and the moral
of the commissioners involved and all the rest of this sort of thing, would you
normally expect and I know it's unfortunate that I picked that particular issue^
would you expect normally that a decision such as that would have been made
by the Commissioner of Public Works and then normally would come to you,
fairly late in the process? I mean it seems to me personally, that that's a very
reasonable procedure for the interest of the commissioners involved and that
this perhaps was one incident which is too bad but it's a reasonable procedure.
Would you say that you should have shifted, should have your own involvement
earlier or that this was, aside from the issue, that this was a good time for the
whole thing?
Commissioner Carlson. This was one of, happil.v, a few that we had to turn
down. The process there was the same as any other. It was a tougher one to turn
down. Frankly, the Commissioner of Finance generally will not win any popu-
larity contest among his fellow commissioners. So be it. The situation that existed
there, was we asked questions. We are not satisfied that the people who had
handled the thing to that point had not done the best possible job and it had all
kinds of problems. And our rejection of it was very specific. I came in late in the
game and we knew it was one year at the present facilit.v. Whether we will see
alternate proposals on this, I don't know. I would like to .«ee it earlier In that
particular case, I don't recall all the details (inaudible) As we ask questions,
we encountered more and more feeling that the agencies involved had not done a
thorough job that they could have. So with that base, we could not endorse what
they had done at that point. We heard later on that the price could have been
nullified. They assured me that perhaps we were correct in our assumption that
they had not negotiated as toughly as possible. That's hindsight.
Representative Beck. So what you're saying is that the procedure in accounting
was normal and looking back it was a problem that might have been made earlier
but you would still normally follow that time table, in terms of responsibility.
Commissioner Caklson. Well, the timetable varies and we say what we're into
now, means a stronger and stronger strengthening (inaudible) in the Depart-
ment of Public Works— in the field at that time. And we're also trying to put in
place this inventory code of State controlled facilities. Some of the questions as to
why don't you use thi.s — it's there as a tool for everyone to use so the Public
Works Department can use it as well as anyone else.
Senator Liebermax. Are there any other questi(ms for any of the
Senator Gttnthp^r. Have you given your final approval on the Downes lease?
Commissioner Carlson. I actually don't recall.
Senator Gitntiier. In other words, is it in construction. Commissioner? In
other words, his would be the final approval before construction, wouldn't it?
Comniissioner Kozlowski. Well. I would say so, yes. His was the final ap-
proval before the Letter of Commitment.
Senator Gunther. Before the Commitment.
Comniissioner Kozlowskl Before the Letter of Commitment.
Senator Gunther. Well. I thought on your chart — I thought that he was
after — just before the Attorney General.
Senator Lieberman. So. basically, it's on its way to construction at this point.
433
Commissioner Kozi,owski. If we ngree that the phins, listing our specifica-
tions, all the liuiUling codes and once it's approved by our agency why then we
proceed, (inaudible.)
Senator Likberman. Does anybody else at the table want to add anything
before we close? Okay, if not, I thank you all for your time and we can adjourn
the hearing at this point.
Senator Burdick. Did you ever get a reply to your letter to the
Governor of June 1, 1972 ?
Mr. GuxTiiER. No. I never received an answer. Wait a minute, now.
I do not believe so. I did not have it attached to my letter. I usually
attach replies.
Senator Burdtck. Is there any other lease you wish to testify about ?
Mr. GuNTiiF.R. Do you mean involved in this particular proceed-
ing? Well, again, I am not acutely aware of all of the details of the
Tomasso leases, but these follow the Downes lease, and mind you, they
were still in the process of being worked on. In other words, they were
not finalized at the time I had this call. But the call did relate to the
fact that there was a Tomasso lease for a garage in Winston, and they
identified the area it was going to be in.
Now even if you can apply no knowledge at all to the Downes
lease and that I said nothing to stop it, and that there was no dialog
at all as of June first, and I related in my letter to the Governor
that there were other leases I would like to see stopped of a similar
nature.
Now, the Tomasso lease came on later than June, and I do not have
the dates to that. Subsequent to that, incidentally, there was another
Tomasso lease which was for a building in Weathersfield. I have read
some of the, I believe it was the last hearing, where it was implied
that Governor Meskill was involved in the laws we passed in 1973
relative to leasing.
All I can say is I was on that committee in 1972, and I have copies
of the bills here, incidentally the sponsor of that bill were all com-
mittee members in 1972 legislation. We squired those bills through.
About the only input that I know of that Governor Meskill had on
reforms in leasing was the fact that he signed it. I do not know how
he could have avoided signing it.
The reforms that we put in — one was the requirement of advertis-
ing prior to leases. In other words, there would be a period of ad-
vertising so that the people would know, the general public would
know if they wanted to come in and say they had areas to be leased
by the State of Connecticut. The other was for the disclosure of any
interest people had in any particular lease so that it would be made
public knowledge, so that we would not be going around finding out
after that other people had interests in leases and that kind of thing.
I misrht point out to you that 5 days before the effective date of
that bill that we passed, signed by the Governor in October of 1973,
when it became effective. 5 davs prior to that the Tomasso lease for
the Weathersfield Transportation Department was signed.
Now no one can say that they did not know anything about leas-
ing or that there was no question on the leases or that there were no
investigations or no knowledge of some of the abuses in these prac-
tices. So. T say there is plenty of area here. Senator, T believe that
they can impugn my honesty and my integrity as much as they want
434
but apparently I have been dishonest for 1 month that I can figure —
from the early part of May to the first part of June. That is a very
dark era in my life if I have been dishonest during 1 month and the
rest of the time I have been honest and aboveboard.
Senator Burdick. Why do you say you were dishonest for that
month ?
Mr. GuxTHER. I say this because of some of the testimony I hear
and the impugning that I have heard and reading in the testimony
itself.
I will not concede that, but let me say this. If that is what is hold-
ing up a good look at this whole leasing situation, then, you know, tab
me a liar, but look into the rest of it. I think there is a lot to be looked
into, again not criminal, but I believe nonfeasance. I would hope that
this committee does not feel that the only disqualification for a man
to be put into a judgeship is being a criminal. I think there are other
things that certainl}^ I know you are considerate of, judicial tempera-
ment and that sort of thing.
Senator Burdick. One more question.
You claim that the rental was too high on this Downes lease. Was
there an}- evidence of what a fair rental value would be ?
Mr. GuNTHER. I would not know that. Senator, and I think that
Senator Burdick. Was there any development
Mr. GuNTiiER. I believe it has been develo])ed by the leasing com-
mittee: but just on the face of it, if you tally it up, it is $64,000 for 15
years, and you see tlie amortization would take place, and the moneys
involved. I liave had — well, you have to realize that the way the amount
was determined on the lessor's cost. Novr if he inflated costs, that would
give him an inflated lease. And if you talk to people in the building
game, ask them what they could have built an identical structure for,
and it was nuich less than $22 per square foot.
Senator Burdick. On April 30, 1974, did you write a letter to Sena-
tor Lowell Weicker ?
Mr. Gunther. Yes I did, sir.
Senator Burdick. And here is what you allegedly said :
Dear Lowell: After reading the enclosed [these are comments on leasing]
please hurry and appoint Tom a Federal judge so that he can be indicted.
Sincerely,
Doc.
, Mr. GuNTTiER. Again, if I might say I publicly admitted that that
Avas in poor taste. It was a quick emotional response to a particular
article, and I am always amazed at my note to Lowell, signed. Doc,
which I loelieve was a little bit of a connotation that we did have a
friendship, and I ^vould probably have to say past tense because of
some of the remarks I have made.
At no time was it ever brought out what was attached to this letter.
He has done this before the leasing committee in Connecticut, inciden-
tally. He has read the same letter. Wliat was attached to that was the
Phoenix situation, a chronological dialog of what happened, where
the Phoenix l^uildiuff was offered to the State of Connecticut; where
there was correspondence directly to ^Meskill's office. This gave a chron-
ological breakdown of the Phoenix louilding. Under the circumstances
I was a little bit miffed, to say the least, that this was going on, plus
435
the consideration of the second highest judgeship in the country being
considered. I just felt I had to react to Lowell Weicker.
Now, I know that Senator Scott mentioned a question of my saying
I had discussed leasing, what was going on in the State of Connecticut
with Lowell Weicker,
If I might respond to that because frankly Lowell Weicker and I
have been very close, I thought, not that that should make him feel that
he has to do anything to back me up on things that I have said and
done that he does not think I should be backed up on. But I can docu-
ment that I had discussed leasing and specifically the Downes lease
with Lowell Weicker. I have talked to him not once, I have talked to
his staff many times. I have talked to an awful lot of people in the
State of Connecticut, and Senator, I wish this hearing Avas in Con-
necticut. I meant this very sincerely when I sent the letters to you with
some of the clippings and that type of thing, because to know about
all of these things that are going on you have to down there where the
action is and the action is in Connecticut.
I have talked to an av.ful lot of people and have had people volun-
teer that they come and substantiate on a hearsay basis at the time that
I said that I had met with Governor Meskill and the things that I had
said, because I am rather a vocal guy and I am dubbed as a character
and that type of thing. But when I say that I can document one time
that Lowell and I did not have a private conversation and I brought
this out in response to statements that he made to the leasing hearing in
Connecticut. Very frankly, he contributed nothing, but tried to im-
pugn me in that hearing.
At that hearing I had not even remembered the incident until I got
home that night and my wife reminded me. When the now President
Ford was being sworn in as Vice President, I was down here at a con-
ference with my wife and we visited with Lowell like we usually do.
During that visitation, I discussed very openly about the leasing situa-
tion. This was back in 1973. 1 can document it. I even saved my airplane
tickets. My wife was down here with me. So anyone who said they
never heard anything about them, my discussions relative to leasing,
and specifically with Senator Weicker, I think this again, maybe this
will jar his memory when my wife and I were in there talking. In-
cidentally, I have had enough remarks made about my integrity that
I would love to submit two letters from Lowell Weicker as sort of a
documentation of my integrity.
One is dated November 8, 1972 :
Dear Doc, congratulations on your well earned victory. Persons of your calibre
and integrity are vitally needed if the cynicism gap between the American public
and the Government at municipal, State and Federal levels is to be closed. You
have my total support as you shoulder the opportunities of office. If I can be of
any assistance whatsoever, please don't hesitate to contact me. Again, well done.
Then again, November 7, 1974. Mind you, this is after I wrote that
letter, after I had done things that, you know, I must be a real hor-
rible person. But on November 7, 1974, 1 get a letter from Lowell :
Deab Geoege : Congratulations on a well earned victory. Winning in this elec-
tion means you can win any election. It is on the shoulders such as yours that the
Republican Party through hard work will become the majority party.
With highest regards.
Sincerely,
Lowell.
436
If you would like that I would like to have that as a character
reference, a little bit to myself, because I have heard enough remarks
made to the contrary.
Senator Scott. Senator Weicker might like to explain them.
Mr. GuxTiiER. I have them framed on my wall in my office in Hart-
ford. I think it is a great reminder to me that there were better days.
Senator Scott. I said "explain."
Mr. GuNTiTER. Pardon?
Senator Scott. Never mind.
Senator Burdick. Senator Hruska?
Senator Hruska. I will defer to Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Senator Gunther, I see in the leasing committee's
report at page 46
Mr. GuxTHER. Is this the appendix. Senator?
Senator Scott. The appendix, page 46.
First. Mr. Gaifney made the point that he could not stop the lease
because he was already committed. There was later reference to the
fact that the lease was signed on May 19. 1972. and countersigned. That
is on page 48. Around May 11 you had testified that you had asked
Mr. Doyle to arrange a meeting with the Governor regarding the
Waterford lease, and that this time you gave the list of figures to Mr.
Doyle. Do you still say that you gave him a list of figures ?
[The material referred to is in item 11 of the appendix at page 210
above.]
Mr. GuxTHER. That is my recollection, Senator.
Senator Scott. Now, Mr. Dovle savs on February 14, 1975 in a letter
to Mr. Walsh, that :
Other than my occasional reading of newspaper articles I have no knowledge,
records, or correspondence regarding any state lease or piirchase of either the
Phoenix Building or any properties or buildings owned l)y Messrs. Downes or
Tomasso.
Do you have any reason to guess as to why Mr. Doyle would so
state ? ■ "
Mr. GuxTHER. "Would you want me to suggest it, Senator? It would
be merely my own personal thought.
Senator Scott. Yes, I think we ought to get everything on the rec-
ord. Wo are lookino- into motivations here.
!Mr. GuxTiiER. All right.
T think that John Doyle and all of the kiddie corps really had a
great lovaltv. and rightly so, to Governor Meskill. After all. they
worked for him : they were his staff. They went through a campaign
and that tvpe of thine. I honestly believe that there is not one of them
who would not cut his tongue out or cut his throat before he would
say anything that would iniure anv chances for Governor INfeskill to
have any consideration for this position.
Now, affain, this is like calling a man a liar. T suppose that that is
the wav it goes. But. really, these young people worked very closely
with him. nnd T feel that. well, even if vou would look at the escalation
of their incomes and that, and airain there is a lot to be said for that.
You cin start off witli n ronple of hnndrod dollars or a hundred dollars
a week, or a Imndrod and fiftv, and f^o up to 3, 4. .5 hundred. Some of
them went up as high as $500 or $600 a week in some of the jobs they
437
ultimately ended up in. I do think that there is a certain amount of
hano;up here. It is like whacking your employer in the eye.
Senator Scott. You are entitled to state an opinion here, but I am
pointing out that Mr. Doyle flatly contradicts you, and I want to point
out how many other people flatly contradict you, just to see who is
right and who is not.
So, at least he has that.
Now, ISIr. Earl Wood says on February 5, 1975, to Mr. Walsh :
At no time did I have any contact with the Governor about leases or rentals
for State government purposes, orally or in writing, directly or indirectly.
Does not some of your testimony involve Conmiissioner Wood ?
Mr. GuNTiiER. No, not with Commissioner Wood. No, sir. I had
nothing myself to do with Commissioner Wood. He is in the Trans-
portation Department.
Senator Scott. You would agree that he was right?
Mr. GuNTHER. Well. T cannot agree ; well, yes, I would agree because
I have no knowledge.
Could I ^et back to one statement that you said. Senator, that Brian
Gaflfney said he could not stop the lease because there was a letter of
commitment. I believe this is a very gray area because the Phoenix
Building was apjiarently stopped ]:)Osthaste once they found out that
the fat was in the fire on that. I think that they had a letter of
commitment.
Senator Scott. Whether they could or not, I was only asking you
whether they told you that they could not.
Mr. GrxTHER. He said he was committed as of the last time he had
talked to me.
Senator Scott. ISIr. Dickenson said he has no records and can add
nothing to the statements he made at the hearing. Does that contradict
any conversations you had with Mr. Dickenson?
iVIr. GrxTHER. No, I have never had any conversations with Mr.
Dirkenson.
Senator Scott. You have never had any.
All right. On page 40 again. Senator Gunther, the statement that
Senator Gunther saw Mr. Doyle one day in the State capital and asked
to see the Governor, and said if he did not see the Governor he would
make the Downes lease proposal public information.
Did you say that to Mr. Doyle ?
Mr. GuxTiiER. Yes.
Senator Scott. And yet in your
IMr. Gfxttter. I am trying to find that section, Senator.
Senator Scott. Page 46, about the 10th or 12th line down.
jSIr. Guxtiier. All right.
Senator Scott. If you did not see the Governor, you would make
the DoAvnes lease proposal public information.
Mr. Guxtiier. Yes. All right.
Senator Scott. All right.
Now. you did have a meeting with the Governor the 23d of May.
^Ir. Guxtiier. That is correct, sir.
Senator Scott. And you have told us your version of that, and the
Governor denies it. In your letter, however, of June 1, which every-
438
body admits existed and was received, let us see liow you treat the
Downes lease.
As I read the third paragraph, page 49 (a) , you refer to a news story
about leasing, and say a day or two after that news story a small item
appeared in the newspaper indicating that you were going to look
into this matter of leasing.
Now, I submit that the next line shows that you had not mentioned
the Downes lease, certainly not to describe it either in talking to IVIr.
Doyle or in the meeting of the 23d because you bring it up as if it
were a matter of the first instance.
Now, let me read :
I would like to call to your attention some information relative to leasing
pending in this State, that I feel fits into this same policy and should be stopped.
Then you go on :
I understand that a Frank Downes is presently negotiating with the Public
Works Department of the State of Connecticut to build, and lease, a State high-
way garage on Route 85 in Waterford.
and so on.
Now, why would you say in your letter that you would like to call
this to his attention if you had already called it to Mr. Doyle's atten-
tion on the 11th and to the Governor's attention on the 23d? Why do
you start as a matter of first instance in the letter ?
Mr. GuNTHER. First of all, may I backtrack one track further, Sen-
ator. The news item was not relative to the Downes lease prior to my
letter. There happened to be a story and I do not recall it but I am
sure if I went back and searched through the papers at that particular
time, I could probably come up with the answer of what lease we were
talking about.
Oh, I know what it was. It was a New York Daily News reaccount-
ing of the Cohen lease which was one of those exposed back in 1969,
which did not have any relationship at all to the Downes lease news-
paper story. I might relate there
Senator Scott. I did not say that it did.
Mr. Gttnther. No, but I am doing that as a matter of clarification.
This might solidify the position that you are taking. But I will take
my chance with that.
I was not referring to a Downes lease, but to another lease. Now, my
letter — and I mentioned it before, I thought you were here — as far as
I was concerned I was being political and kind regardless of whether
you want to acknowledge it or not. I did not want to lay the Governor
out that I had already had a conversation with him. I was interested
in stopping the lease. To my knowledge, Senator, on June 1 I did
not know there was a letter of commitment was signed on, whether it
was on May 9 or whatever day it was. In my estimation and to my
knowledge and to the parties that I had talked to, whether it was
Kozlowski, whether it was Gaffney, whether it was Meskill, or anyone
else. I had never been given any information that would have made
me privy to a letter of commitment signed on the ninth of May. I
never knew that date until we went into the leasing committee and it
was brought to my attention at that time.
Senator Scott. Well, Mr. Gunther, that is not responsive to my ques-
tion, which is basically, why on the 11th of May did you say you gave
439
the figures of the Downes lease to Mr. Doyle, and on the 23d of May
you protested to Governor Meskill, and we know now that the lease
was signed on the 19th of May, 4 days before. And yet, you do not tell
us that the Governor said the lease has been signed 4 days ago. And
then, on the 1st of June you write a letter which says I would like to
call to your attention some information relating to leasing pending in
the State. And then you lead off with the Doyle lease.
Now, are you so sure that you are right in having twice brought this
up and then writing as a letter of first impression ?
Mr. GuNTHER. Yes.
Senator Scott. You are sure ? Explain that.
Mr. GuNTHER. In my explanation, and again, perhaps I am still a
little naive, maybe I cannot get totally apolitical, let me put it that
way. But I was still playing the part that this is my party. I wanted
to stop the lease. I never knew that this letter would be before your
committee here. I was not interested
Senator Scott. That is the trouble with letters, you never know
when they will turn up.
Mr. Gunther. I am learning — as long as I have been in politics, I
learn every day. In retrospect, if I knew what was going to come up
today, I would have mentioned the 23d meeting. But that was not the
intent of writing the letter. It was not my intent to put this out on
the deck. Senator. I was interested in one thing, terminating what I
considered to be a bad policy for the State of Connecticut.
Senator Scott. I understand that, but I cannot understand why,
we do certain things instinctively when we write letters, and we use
certain phrases that are often tell-tale phrases. And you bring this
up as a matter of the very first impression. As far as the letter goes,
you are telling the Governor for the first time, and I am simply asking
you how do you explain that you told him for the first time on the 1st
of June, if you told his aide on the 11th and you told him on the 23d.
That is what I am getting at.
Mr. Gunther. Again, I will have to reiterate, Senator, that my in-
tention here was to put it out public, but certainly not to expose him
to the abuse that he might get if they knew that I had already gone
to him on the 23d.
Senator Scott, Would not your letter have been stronger if you had
said, as many would have attempted to say, as I have already cautioned
you, we have heretofore discussed this, or I am still concerned about
the matter we discussed on the 23d. You do none of those things, do
you?
Mr. Gunther. No. I should have had the wisdom to do that, possi-
bly, but T did not.
Senator Scott. It is very unfortunate because you do not give us
a chance to see for ourselves whether you really Imew anything or
whether you really told the Governor anything up until your letter,
which gives me trouble.
Mr. Gunther. Senator, I would like to say that if this were in Con-
necticut, and if certain parties — and I have had people who have come
forward— and one of the things that bothers me was the appendices,
incidentally. Senator. It does not list my mentioning three people who
could substantiate, and it is hearsay, I know, but that is the only way it
can be.
440
Senator Burdick. The purpose of the gavel was not to stop the ques-
tioning but we have a frantic call from the floor. They need us badly.
Senator Scott. If I may be allowed to go on, I will stay here.
Senator Burdick. All right.
[Senator Burdick left the hearing to go to the Senate floor.]
Senator Scott. I follow two lines of inquiry here.
Mr. GuNTHER. May I finish what I started, Senator?
Senator Scott. Yes, certainly.
Mr. GuNTHER. In the appendix, it does not list that the committee
had interviewed two of the three people I mentioned in the leasing
testimony that could substantiate that I did have on the day of the
23d, that I had had a meeting with the Governor, and the statements
that I made. Since then I have had — I can name them for you. One is
the head of Common Cause, Yvonne Koche, a young pressman who
drives back and forth to my home. He lives in Stratford. Philip Smith,
and also Senator Edward Caldwoll who was the majority leader
at that time remembers my discussions, as I was ([uite upset over
the fact that some of the dialog we had had on that Ma.y 23
meeting. Since then I have had former Senator Tom Dowd, who has
come to me and said Doc, do you remember that you came in here and
we were discussing this. Senator, I am sure that on the basis of hear-
say, and being a rather open person myself that I have said this to
many, many people who remember. But unfortunately we are down in
Washington, and to get these people down here we would need some
backing. It is pretty difficult.
Senator Scott. You do admit, I am sure, that whatever you said to
somebody else about what you are alleged to say would be hearsay?
Mr. GuxTiiER. Absolutely ; I would agree to that.
Senator Scott. And would perhaps be self-serving?
Mr. GuNTHER. I would hope not. Senator.
Senator Scott. Well, it is a legal term.
You got an anonymous call and you got certain figures about this
lease ; and you told Senator Burdick that the rental was too high. You
were not at that time in possession of counter figures, were you, as to
how much too high it was ?
IVfr, GuNTiiER. No, I was not. Senator.
Senator Scott. So, you were concerned that it was too high ?
Mr. GuNTHER. Yes.
Senator Scott. You were really questioning the Governor's judg-
ment or the judgment of the people who were doing this, and you
were expecting the Governor to exercise his judgment and do some-
thing about it?
]\Tr. GuNTHER. I would hope so, sir.
Senator Scott. But your complaint really comes down to the fact
that you thought that the rent was too high but the people who made
the decision did not, and you thought the Governor should know about
it. You were not charging at that time any fraud or corruption, or
criminality on the part of the Government, were you ?
Mr. GuNTiTER. Senator, let me clarify. I started off by saying that
at no time, whether it was in 1972 or if I go way back to 1968 and
1969, when I was disenchanted with this policy of the State, I have
always been quite succinct in relating to the leases that there is nothing
criminal. This is a bad policy, in my estimation, and in the estimation
441
of a lot. of other people, but it is not a criminal action that is taken here,
because I cannot substantiate. Whether there is or not is up to someone
else to investigate, and I believe that you have had testimony that
they are going into that phase.
But as far the parties that are concerned in this, and the leasing
policies of the State of Connecticut, I have never said it is criminal, I
have never charged anybody with a crime. I say there is nonfeasance
here when you know something is going on but you do nothing about
it, but certainly not criminal action.
Senator Scott. "Well, as the "Waterbury Sunday Republican" said
on March 2, the report tells us that Gunther and Meskill talked spe-
cifically about the Downes lease on May 23, 1972. Then the letter tells
us that sometime after May 28, 1972, Gunther reads about a bad lease
and tells ISIeskill he knows about another one involving Downes. Now,
tliat is the story the reporter got. You said you wish you were back in
Connecticut. Well, I am suggesting that if you were the Waterbury
Republican reporter would be listening.
Mr. Gunther. That is one reporter and one editorial writer, and I
would admit that the statements of the Waterbury Republican have
not been too kind to the Governor, so it might have an impact to it,
but I think you can take ten times the editorials. Senator, that have
been written in the State of Connecticut and the dialog that has been
Avritten about the leasing policies in the State of Connecticut if you
want to read it in the papers down there. It outweighs by the ton to the
fraction of an ounce.
Senator Scott. The leasing investigation makes no finding or wrong-
doing on the part of the Governor, does it ?
^iv. Gunther. No one ever said this. I have never said this, Senator.
Senator, if I might, if you will take a look into — and I am trying to
recall now, I think it is, well, j^ou can find it in statements given to
you and you can find it in the leasing statements, in fact I think there
are some in Governor ISIeskill's own testimony, the ones that brought
criminality into this, and the ones that have brought the pressure of
the judgeship into leasing investigation in Connecticut are not the
Leasing Committee, themselves. Senator. All the dialog on that is
related to remarks made by Senator Weicker and by Governor Meskill,
himself. I have never heard the Leasing Committee ever say that they
were looking into the criminality involved in these particular leases.
They were trying to do a job, and everytime that we get this statement
on crime, and I think I can relate to it here, I think it is in Governor
]Meskill's testimony before you. It says the committee has said it is
not looking into the acts of illegality or impropriety.
I am sorry, it is in one of these, but I will say, Sejiator, that they
certainly cannot hang that one on me, of accusing anyone of any crime.
I have said this from the inception and again I think that the thing
has been brought in many times. I have stated I think it is a red her-
ring to try to take and to sav there is no crime involved, everything is
okey-dokey. I must, cannot help but feel that nonfeasance, and this is
what I am leaning on, I think this is something that is a very definite
weakness and, certainly, should be considered in this particular hear-
ing, and is the reason I am here.
Senator Scott. Finally, Mr. Gunther, quoting the Waterbury Sun-
day Republican again, it says Senator Gunther also testified that he
442
told U.S. Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Republican of Connecticut,
about the Downes lease, and the report goes on to say that : but Weicker
denied this under oath. Now you said you had corroboration of your
conversation with Senator Weicker. Would you now tell this commit-
tee what your corroboration is that you discussed not leasing, but the
Downes lease, with Senator Weicker ?
Mr. GuNTHER. Mind you, this is prior to 1974, not at the time of the
1972, to corroborate what I have said and discussed. Lowell Weicker
has said he has never heard anything about the Downes lease, now
mind you, and that I never had conversations with him. In 1973, and
I believe
Senator Scott. Let us keep it closer to the Downes lease now.
Mr. GuNTHER. It was part of the ballgame, because any time I dis-
cussed leasing and the leasing practices in the State that was bound
to come up, because it was the most ludicrous of all.
Senator Scott. I am asking you what you said, not what was bound
to come up.
Mr. GuNTHER. You asked again how I could corroborate that.
Senator Scott. That is right.
Mr. GuNTHER. At the time my wife and I were here at the conference
at the time Gerald Ford was sworn in as Vice President
Senator Scott. And you told you had the airline tickets.
Mr. Gunther. Yes. and we were there, and my wife, she could be in
the same category I am. Senator, but she sat there and listened to a
discussion and, of course, again, you might go into saying that this is
self-serving, but my wife happens to be very honest too.
Senator Scott. Let us recreate the conversation. You said : Lowell.
He said : Doc. You said : How are you ? He said : I'm fine. Now, from
there, take it on and see where the Downes lease comes in.
Mr. Gunther. As they have painted me as alwaA^s griping about
what was going on, I would gripe, and the exact verbiage, please do
not hold me to it, because I could not, but I Avould gripe — if you want
to put it in that phrase — about the goings on in the State of Con-
necticut, that Brian Gaffney and the Meskill administration Avere ruin-
ing the Eepublican Party, and especially relative to the leasing and
Gaffney's uncle being involved, and that dialog went on anytime I
met with people, and I say I could name other names in this,* but we
were talking about Lowell Weicker.
And, Lowell knew I discussed this. I was pleading, whether you
believe it or not, with a man who has stature in our State and a nian
that I defended for his position on Nixon and the Watergate affair and
that. Here is a man that I thought should have gone into the State and
said, look you fellows, knock it off, you are going to ruin the party.
That is what I would love to have seen. Senator.
Senator Scott. Well, you may wonder where you would get help on
that proposal, but
Mr. Gunther. Senator, I cannot believe that Senator Weicker, with
the efficient staff that he has, was living in a vacuum down here in
Washington when all this stuff was going on. It was in the papers in
1972.
Senator Scott. Let us not keep getting away from my question.
My question is how do you corroborate that you discussed the Downes
lease, not anything else.
443
Mr. GuNTHER, Only that my wife could back me up on it, Senator.
Senator Scoit'. What did you say about the Downes lease ?
Mr. GuxTHER. I said that the JNIeskill and the Gaffney administra-
tion— and I have to put them too:ether, there is no such thing as sep-
arating— that they were ruining the Hepublican Party in the State
of Connecticut, and I think that the policies were still going on in
the leasing field and that kind of thing.
Senator Scott. But you have testified under oath heretofore that
you told Lowell Weicker about the Downes lease and you discussed
it with him, Xow ^-ou are still under oath here. Did you or did you not
disiHiss the Downes lease by the kind of description that you, yourself,
have given under oath? Did you?
]Mr. GuxTiiER. T have said this, yes.
Senator Scott. You have not said this today.
Mr. GuNTiiER. All right, I will say it again, Senator, I have dis-
cussed the Downes lease. I have discussed the involvement of Gaffney.
Senator Scott. Did you discuss the Downes lease
Mr. GuNTHER. Yes, I have discussed the Downes lease.
Senator Scoit (continuing). With Senator Weicker?
Mr. GuxTHER. Yes, with Senator Weicker.
Senator Scott. By name ?
]Mr. GuNTHf;R. By name.
Senator Scott. And you say under oath that have discussed this
Downes lease with Senator Weicker ?
Mr. GuxTiiER. Yes, I did.
Senator Scott. When was that ?
Mr. Gunther. That was at least in December of — was it 1973, 1 am
sorry, I can check the tickets in just a second if you want me to.
Yes, December, it had to be. 1 do not know when Gerald Ford was
sworn in, but it had to be probably on the 6th or 7th, I believe, of
December, because that was when we were down here. Yes, I was here
from the Cth to the 8th and I was ciuite sure it was the 6th or the 7th.
Senator Scott. 1973?
Mr. Gunther. 1973, yes, sir.
Senator Scott. "What did Senator Weicker say to you when you
told him about the Downes lease?
Mr. GuxTHER. I cannot remember specifically, but I am sure, you
know, Lowell did not take and jump up and down and get on his
white horse and go out and correct it. That is one thing.
Senator Scott. Well, what did he do?
Mr. GuNTiiER. Not a darn thing that I know of.
Senator Scott. Did he vocalize a little to you? Did he sing?
Mr. GuxTHER. I do not know whether he is in good voice. Sena-
tor, but he does not usually sing with me.
Senator Scott. You have testified under oath as if you had a good
recollection, and you say you told him?
Mr. GuxTHER. Yes, I have a recollection but not to the specifies
and
Senator Scott. Now, we know Senator Weicker's reaction to wrong-
going from the Watergate situation.
Mr. Guxtiier. I know, sir.
Senator Scott. And I am asking you whether he reacted here at
all, one way or the other?
47-704 — 7.0 29
444
Mr. GuNTHER. All I can say is, histrionically, no. He did not re-
act to it.
Senator Scott. What did he say? That is interesting? Or, that is
uninteresting ?
Mr. GuNTHER. Nothing except a general conversation, hello and
goodbye, after we got through.
Senator Scott. Can you remember any word he said ; not 10 words,
just 1, 2?
Mr. GuNTHER. I can think of nothing dramatic that he told me.
Senator Scott. Well, how did he react? You were looking at him,
you were not looking out the window?
Mr. GuNTHER. Disgustedly, if I can recall that much anyway.
Senator Scott. So, he looked disgustedly?
]SIr. GuxTHER. Yes.
Senator Scott. I guess we will have to ask him to show us that ges-
ture sometime. But you cannot remember a word that was said by
him?
Mr. GuNTHER. No; it was a general conversation, and it related
around the leasing and the problems we are having in this State.
Senator Scott. About the Downes lease, did you say how much it
cost; did you use those figures that you talked to Doyle about, as
you say?
jMr. GuNTHER. I do not believe so at that particular time.
Senator Scott. Did you say it cost too much ?
Mr. Gunther. Of course.
Senator Scott. You did say that?
Mr. Gunther. A^Hienever I relate to the leases, they are abusive.
Senator Scott. Did you say why they cost too much, or give any
figures ?
]Mr. Gunther. I do not believe so, sir.
Senator Scott. So what you are really concerned with was that a
lease had been negotiated which you thought cost too much, and you
have, as you said under oath, reported it by name and by description
so that there would be no misunderstanding as the Downes lease?
That is correct, is it not?
Mr. Gunther. That is correct.
Senator Scott. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Hart.
Senator Hart. I apologize, Mr. Chairman and Governor and others,
that I have not been able to be faithful in my attendance. I will do
my best with the record.
Mr. Gunther. This is the second time I have missed a session in
my 9 years in the Senate, being down here, sir.
The* Chairman. Senator Tunney.
Senator Tunney. I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gunther, how long have you known Governor Meskill?
Mr. Gunther. Just since the 1970 election. I have known of him,
but not to be associated with him until the election.
Senator Tunney. How well have you known him?
Mr. Gunther. I have known him very well after tlie election, and
I worked verj^ hard to get him elected, and I might say, if you look
at my record in my district. I am quite proud that I ran ahead of
everybody in the party, so apparently I am doing something right,
445
and I hope that the people reflect on me if I endorse a man; and
since that time, 1 have been very close because in 1971 I was his liaison
man and helped him to establish the liaison between the Senate, the
House, and his office. That put me in touch in 1971 in the early parts
of the session, two or three times a week, and later on, almost daily,
and I was also at most of the meetings, or all of them, in 1971 when
we met with him at 8 o'clock in the morning and earlier to discuss the
business of the day before the legislature
Senator Tuxney. Did anything occur in your relationship with the
Governor Meskill that would have poisoned it to the point that you
felt some degree of vindictiveness toward him?
Mr. (titxtii?:r. Xo: I do not believe I am vindictive toward Tom
]\Ieskill. Senator Tunney. I will say that, when you say did something
happen, frankly, I am not— if you would look at my history, I would
love to lay my history out here — I am not the type of person who is a
strong party line politician. I do not go into the tank very easily, I
do not take directives, and I am not subservient to the executive. I
feel very strongly about the three branches of Govermnent and work
very hard at it, and I will say that I think what was expected of me
as a liaison man was not delivered to Thomas ]\Ieskill in the Senate
during the year 1971, because I think that he expected us to go back,
which the House did, and whip the boys in line and keep them right in
line to make sure that no one gets out of line. That is not my bag.
Senator Tunxey. Did bad blood develop between you as a result
of your political differences ?
5lr. GuxTiiER. I do not think it has been bad blood. I notice it has
been rather cool in here today, but I know that up until today it has
been rather cordial and at least, hello, and that type of thing, but
as far as actual bad blood, Senator, I might resent.' I might not like,
the things he does, but I do not consider it hypocritical in politics be-
cause, if you disagree with a man, you are not necessarily unfriendly.
Senator Tuxxey. I, unfortunately, did not have an opportunity
to hear all of your statement either, and just so that I have some of
these matters straight in my own mind, the meeting that you had with
Governor ISIeskill on May 23 and at which you have testified today
under oath that you described to him, in general or specific terms, as
the case may be, and please clarify whether it was general or specific,
the Downes lease, it is niy understanding that Governor INIeskill has
stated that you never discussed this matter with him in that May
23 meeting, correct ?
Mr. Gux'^ther. Correct.
Senator Tuxxey. Did he testify under oath ?
Mr. Guxther. I do not believe the Governor has ever been put under
oath. I think all of the dialogue relative to whether he spoke to me
or did not was via the rnedia and informal situations there. I know
that back when the Leasing Committee first started he said he never
met with me and he never discussed — first of all, he never met with
me and then he never met with me to discuss leases. He said I know
I have had some testimony in the Leasing — The Leasing Committee
asked me did I meet on April 17, and I went back to my patient log
and found that I was in the office that day and could not possibly
have met with him. But, even that was not relative to the leasino- and
of course, right up until the time that I gave testimony and produced
446
my log, that I had had a meeting with him on May 23, at 11 :30 in the
morning. It was at that time, it refreshed his memory, and he said,
yes, I had a meeting with him. Now, what transpired at that, I read
his tCvStimony, Senator, as far as what he had said to me, and, like, if
voii do not tell me what is wrong, what can I do. That is in the
appendix.
Senator Tunney. Did Governor Meskill testify before the Leasing
Committee ?
Mr. GuNTiiER. I do not believe so.
Senator iiuRuicK. For your information, the Governor testified here
at the last hearing and he was placed under oath at the last time we
met.
Mr. GuNTHER. I am sorry, Senator. My reference was to the ap-
pendix in his testimony.
The Chairman. I understand.
Mr. GuxTHER. Now, he has never been sworn in and the testimony
before the Leasing Committee, it has been on an informal basis.
Senator Tunney. Now, you say that you talked to certain persons
right after the May 23 meeting.
Mr. Gunther. Not immediately after, Senator. I had to go up to a
gaming luncheon immediately after, but back to the Capitol after that
where I had discussed it Avith people \vlio frequent ni}- oiiice and are
close to me.
Senator Tunney. "Who did you discuss it with ?
Mr. Gunther. Again, I testified at the Leasing — and this was partly
because these people come forward and remembered it, because there
are many people. I have had probably one of the most popular offices
up there. We have an open door policy. Eveiyone comes and goes, and
the people who come to me and volunteered that I had discussed it
witli that day or closely thereon, in other words, it may not have been
exactly the 23d of May, but it could have been the next day after,
but at least in that relative period, were Yvonne Koche, who is the
head of Common Cause in Connecticut; Philip Smith, he is a free-
lance newsman, a young fellow, who drives back and forth with me
frequently from Hartford, and even the majority leader, Senator
Caldwell, recalled that I had discussed it with him because frequently
he drives back and forth because he comes from a sister town.
Senator Tunney. Did they testify in the Connecticut hearing?
Mr. Gunther. This was the thing that bothered me in the appendix,
that the two who were called in informally who were Yvonne Koche
and Philip Smith, they discussed it with them on an informal basis,
but that is all.
Senator Tunney. Did they say that you had told them about the
meeting, and did they
Mr. Gunther. Some of the statements.
Senator Tunney. Did they also say that you also discussed with
them the fact that you told the Governor about the leases, the Downes
lease, and so forth ?
Mr. Gunther. Yes, I think specifically when the remark was made,
what are you going to do ? The Democrats' dirty work ? I was a little
bit miffed at that.
Senator Tunney. And that statement took place on the May 23
meeting ?
447
Mr. GuNTHER. That is correct, sir.
Seniitor Tunney. So these two persons who you indicate spoke
informally with the State legislative committee indicated to the
State legislative committee that you had, between May 23 and
June 7, discussed the meeting and discussed the Downes lease with
the Governor? . o i.
Mr. (k NTHER. I would say I have not read their testimony, Senator.
I know they were called in,\and that they said that they corroborated
it. I know it is hearsay, but they had said it. Senator Caldwell had
not been called in, and subsequent to that former Senator Tom Dowd
of Bridgeport also came to me and remembered that he had discussed
this with me during that relative period of time.
Senator Tunney. It is an exception to the hearsay rule, corrobora-
tion that a statement was made, not that it is the truth, but that it
was said.
Mr. GuNTiiER. I am not a lawyer. Senator. I do not know the tech-
nicalities of law.
Senator Tunney. Did Governor Meskill tell you of the letter of
commitment at the May 23 meeting ?
Mr. Gunther. I haVe never heard from any of the parties that I
discussed this with— and I am talking about the direct relationship,
whether it be Gafney, Kozlowski, or Meskill, or anyone has ever told
me. INIy first knowledge of when the actual letter of commitment w-as
signed was when the Leasing Committee developed this.
Senator Tunney. The American Bar Association witness — T was
not here this morning — but apparently he said that Governor Mes-
kill never checked with the State Attorney General to find out the
lesral effects of the letter of commitment. Do vou have any knoAvledge
of this?
Mr. Gunther. No. I do not, sir. I do know, and I have s=o testified
here, that apparently the Phoenix lease was almost a parallel, and
thev stopped that without too much trouble.
Senator Tunney. You may have already testified to this here, but I
would like to have you recount — if you have testified to it here already,
do not do it again, but if you have not just recount how the meeting
went, how the May 23 meeting went with Governor Meskill. What
you did. You came in. what yon said to him, what he said to you, so
that I have a better understanding.
Mr. Gunther. It would be recounting, but I do not mind.
Senator Tunney. Just from the time that you arrived at the Gover-
nor's mansion, or wherever it was.
Mr. Gunther. It was in his office in the Capitol, which is on the
second floor, and I said that I would make it quick because both of us
had commitments and that I was aware— well, that I was sure that
he knew why I was there, and that T had fome relative to the Downes
lease, and that I had gone over this with Doyle, and that I had checked
with
Senator Tunney. Doyle is his assistant ?
Mr. Gunther. That was his liaison man. Incidentally. John Doyle
was the chief honcho from the Governor to the legislature. Everything
that we related on a day-to-day basis — and when I say day-to-day and
minute-to-minute and all of the details, John was our contact man and
448
tx competent one. He would report every darn thing that happened.
In fact, some of the things tliat we did not want him to report.
But when I went in there— and I try to recall and be as honest as I
can about this in the dialogue that went on — but we discussed the
Downes lease. It was the only lease in existence at the time. I knew
about the possibility of the Tomasso lease, but I had no knowledge of
it and knew nothing of the details of the Tomasso leases, so the only
thing that was before us, as far as the conversation was concerned, was
the Downes lease. When I told him I wanted to see it stopped
Senator Tunney. Now, Downes was what relationship to the
Governor ?
Mr. GuNTHER. Everybody knew, anyone in politics in the State of
Connecticut knew John Downes, other than the fellow who just walked
into the Capitol, knew that John Downes was Brian Gatfney's uncle,
and Brian Gaffney was State chairman only because he was anointed
by Tom. I think w^e knew enough about politics to know that when the
Governor goes in, he picks his man, and that was his man, and I do not
think you can separate, incidentally, Brian Gaffney and Tom Meskill
because they were one and the same, because without the Governor
he had no authority, no patronage, he had nothing, so we have to
identify those two together.
I know that Downes — and it was common knowledge that they were
all a very close New Britain .family, and w^lien I say family, I mean
it in maybe the ethnic sense, as a family because it is in the New Britain
political family that all of these people are very closely related and
practically go to bed together, as far as that goes, so that to talk about
John Downes, anybody in the Capitol would know that there was an
association between Gaffney, and Meskill. He was a former, I believe,
law partner with the brother.
Senator Tuxney. The brother was a law partner ?
Mr. GtjNtiier. I believe that Downes had some relative who was
apparently in practice with Tom Meskill or associated one way or
another. I would not be that sure, but I believe that they were
associated.
Senator Tunney. Okay.
Mr. GuNTHER. But anyway, when I said that I wanted to see it
stopped, he said, what's wrong with it, and at that point, I reiterated
what I had said back in 1970 just after the election, that this was
one of the areas that I felt very strongly about, and he had just been
elected, and I said you can stay in here to the extent that if we clean up
the back room in politics, and specifically leasing and the public
works department, because that is the most abusive area I find in State
government — and I do not think, incidentally, that it is just Con-
necticut either. Senator — that we could stay in there 90 years if he
were to clear this mess up.
He gave me his hand on it and said, we are going to do it, George,
Doc, Avhatever he called me at the time, and here we were just liy^ years
later, and he said what's wrong with it ?
Now, at that point, why I said, of course we went tlirough this
exorcise, and he said, well, if we don't stop it, then what, and I said
I intended to go to the press, and he said, are you going to do the
Democrats' dirty work? And I said, it was not the Democrats' dirty
449
work; it was my dirty work as a Senator, and I intended to continue
on it, and at that point it terminated any conversation.
No; I am sorry. One last remark, he said, I will look into it, and
that is why I Avaited a couple of days, and checked with Kozlowski,
who was then public works director, and found nothing was being
done. It was still being scheduled to be signed, and incidentally — now
this is ^lay 23 — Kozlowsik at that time never told me the letter of
commitment was out.
Senator Tunney. Kozlowski was what ?
Mr. GuNTTiER. He was the public works director at that time, but
has been replaced since then by Mr. Manafort, who happens to be part
of the family in New Britain.
Senator Tunney. As I understand your testimony, you waited what,
about 8 days, a week ?
Mr. GuNTHER. A week.
Senator Tuxxkt. And then you wrote this letter which Senator
Scott referred to in which you referred to the Downes lease in the first
instance ?
Mr. Gt'xttier. That is cori-ect.
Senator Tunxey. And as I undei'stood that testimony, \x)u said you
were trying to protect the Governor ?
Mr. Gux'^TTTER, I thought I was being kind to him. Senator. I think
if T had laid it out that I had gone to him and that I had tried to get
him to stop the leases and laid that out to the public, I think he
would have gotten a lot more lumps than he did, but very frankly, in
retrospect, maybe I should have done that, because we could have
stojiped the leasing in 1072, and that is what it is all about. I had hoped
that we could do that.
Senator Tuxxey. But I want to get just one last point clear. Has the
Governor ever denied that you told him those things, or has he said,
I cannot remember ?
Mr. GuxTHER. No, he has denied. I have never seen any statement
that he ever acknowledged that T ever said anything relative to leas-
in-r. "Wait a minute. I think I would have to pull back a wee bit. I think
somewhere — I am trying to recall now, he might have mentioned a
word about leases somewhere in all this testimony. I have been trying
to — that I miirht have said something to him, but I know it has been
imnlied that T was rather irrational, in his testimony, that he could not
understand me. and T think anyone who knows me knows I am quite
direct, succinct, and to the point.
Senator Tfxxey. Just back up, so I understand the chronology.
You testified already that you had spoken to Doyle, his aide?
Mr. GuxTiTER. Yes, sir.
Senator Tuxxey. And you had spoken to Doyle on what date. May ?
Mr. GuxTHER. Not in any specific — are you talking now relative to
getting the meetincr set up ?
Senator Tuxxey. Yes.
Mr. Gux'^THER. Incidentally, these dates, I cannot be that positive
because in order for me to develop a date, I had to start with May 28,
which I was lucky that I found that on my log. T should not say,
lucky, but I am glad that I had it in there, and then worked back from
then on the sequence of dates, and I think it was — it would have to be,
450
you know, about the 11th or 12tli or somewhere in that area because
I believe I had traced back on Gaffney on the 10th, and this was at
least a day or two— and I think it was a Friday ni^ht, so make it 12th,
13th, something like that.
Senator Tunney. Did you ask Doyle to set up the appointment with
the Governor for the purposes of discussing the Downes lease ?
Mr. GuNTHER. Yes.
Senator Tunney. There is no question in your mind about that ?
Mr. GuNTHER. None in mine, sir.
Senator Tunney. How^ many times did you discuss it with Doyle be-
fore you got the appointment ?
Mr. Gunther. I would not want to put a numlier on it. Senator,
because as I said, John Doyle we used to see almost on a day-to-day
basis up there. He Avould make the rounds. I was in the minority office
at the time. I think as much as I can recall, I would ask him when are
we going to get together and that type of thing as far as the Governor
was concerned.
Senator Tunney. So you discussed it several times with him ?
Mr. GuNTiiER. I would have to say several times, but I would not
want to put a tab on it. as every day.
Senator Tunney. What would you say, when am I going to get mv
appointment.
Mr. Gunther. When are we going to get together on this ; yes.
Senator Tunney. Did you have a feeling that when vou saw the
Governor, when you walked in, that he knew what to expect in the wav
of conversation with you ?
Mr. Gunther. I am almost certain he knew. I do not think that you
can live the way we do in politics and when you have a problem sur-
facing like this that you could not know, especially when it was laid
on the deck.
Senator Tunney. How long did this meeting take jjlace with the
Governor on the 23d ?
Mr. Gunther. Ten, fifteen, twenty minutes. No more than that.
Senator Tunney. And that was the only thintr discussed other than
the time of day ?
Mr. Gunther. I don't even think we bothered with that. I think
under the circumstances that the niceties were not to be observed.
Senator Tunney. I have no further questions.
Senator Hart [presiding]. Senator Mathias.
Roman, have you had your time at questioning? I am not aware of
wdio has had their shot.
Senator Hruska. I have no questions. Do you have any ?
Senator Mathias. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Gunther, you have referred in your testimony to a manual of
policy procedure at least in your State, and I wondered what was the
official status of that manual ?
Mr. Gunther. Senator, when you say the official status
Senator Mathias. Has it been adopted as an official guide ?
^ Mr. Gunther. This was adopted in 1968 and siciipd by Commis-
sioner Sweeney who was Public Works Director at that time. I believe
that John Dempsey also adopted this. This is in a previous adminis-
tration. This was a Democratic administration. Senator, and I would
451
take it for granted that tliis was tlie policy, unless someoiie else coimtei-
inanded it and said this should not be it. We had testimony incidentally
during the September 1972 hearing, which is in the document I gave
to I am sorry, he does not have his name up — the Senator over there.
I believe there was testimony in there on the procedures relative to how
they would operate under this policy.
Senator Matiiias. Would you say that this was the equivalent then
of a departmental regulation?
ISIr. GuNTHER. I would say that it had that status at that time.
Senator ^Iatiiias. Is it still in force ?
Mr. GtxTHER. I would hope not, Senator, because— I will have to
backtrack. This was a horrible thing for the State of Connecticut, as
far as I am concerned. This was abused, and it was not conforrned to,
and if it were, the policy on a regulatory basis, then our administra-
tion— and I say that as a"^ Republican — was not adhering to it.
The wliole procedure can be laid out, and it was laid out in that
committee to the extent that we requested to change the procedure in
1072.
Senator Matiiias. Thank you.
Senator Hart. I did make one note. When you were talking to
Senator Tunney you mentioned the Public Works Director, Kozlowski.
Mr. GrxTHER. Yes, Kozlowski, sir.
Senator Hart. As I understand it, following your meeting of May
23 with the Governor, you waited a few days, and then got in touch
w4th Kozlowski and asked him what ?
Mr. GuxTHER. I asked him if anything had been done to hold the
lease, if any action had been taken.
Senator Hart. "Wliat did he say ?
Mr. Guxther. Nothing had been done, and this was again, Senator,
this was to give the tlie Governor — when I left him, he said, well, let
us look into it, and I thought if he was going to take some action
at least with a couple of days inquiry w'ould have been made.
Kozlowski said nothing had been changed in the status, and I had no
reason to believe it was not sot to go ahead, and it was.
Senator Hart. Senator Kennedy ?
Senator Kennedy. I think you have stated in your testimony that
you mentioned the Downes lease specifically. Do you have any recol-
lection of the number of times that you mentioned the Downes lease
during the conversaticm ?
Mr. GuNTHER. Senator, that is a tough thing to do. I have talked
about these leases so many times, and you identify them by the party
involved with it, not — technically we should have said the Waterford
garage lease, you know, but these leases for years have been political
patronage plums, and you identify whether it was De Matteo or who-
ever it might be. In fact, if you ask me to identify the places some of
these leases were, and there are quite a few of them, I would have a
devil of a job identifying them.
Senator Kennedy. You do not then recollect whether you actually
used the words "Downes lease" ?
Mr. GuNTHER. I am certain at the time, sir, and if we are talking
about the period in May, the only lease that was pending was the
452
Downps lease. There was nothing in my knowledge — I knew that there
was a Tomasso lease that was coming up.
Senator Kexxkdy. That was not my question. Can you testify now
under oath that you used the words, "Downes lease" ?
Mr. GuxTHER. I would say positively, when I would be discussing
those leases just by the nature of the situation.
Senator Kenxedy. And your testimony is that you used beyond
that, whatever words in addition that you did use, you are satisfied
in your own mind were clearly understood by the Governor to relate to
the Downes lease ?
Mr. (tux'ther. Yes; I believe that to be true, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
Senator Hart. I am asked by staff whether the departmental pro-
cedures cited by Senator Mathias as having been established for the
Department of Public Works during the Dempsey administration are
the same procedures which the Connecticut Leasing Committee cites
and discusses on page 10 of the report of that Connecticut Committee.
Mr. GuxTiiER. Which report is that, Senator? Is that in the
appendix ?
Senator Hart. It is a report of a Connecticut General Assembly joint
committee transmitted to the members of the Standing Joint Com-
rjiittee on Appropriations in a letter dated January 7.
Mr. GuxTHER. I am soriy. I have never seen that report. I have the
appendix here, but I have not had an opportunity to get a copy of
that particular — that is the first report that they have.
Senator Hart. I am asking that the page to which reference is made
in my cpiestion be shown to you.
[]Mr. Gunther inspected the document.]
Mr. Gunther. Does it continue on into the next page? Or just that
one section?
Senator Hart. I will ask staff to indicate.
JNIr. Gunther. That is the procedure, Senator Hart.
Ml-. Westthal. Is the report you referred to the same as that?
[Indicating.]
]Mr. Gunther. This is the procedure adopted by the Dempsey
administration in 1968 and supposedly adhered to.
Senator Hart. It may have no relevance at all, but I was just sur-
prised that you said you had never seen this re]wrt that I just cited.
Mr. Gunther. Seiiator, I am on 17 conunittees this session, four
statutory and 18 subcommittees. Tliere are only seven of us poor
Republicans left there, and I honestly have not had the opportunitv
to get that report.
Senator Hart. You arc talking to an understanding, sympathetic
audience when you explain why you cannot read everything.
Mr. GuxTHER. Thank you.
Senator Hart. But this was about tlie Xo. 1 item of your concern
and activity, was it not?
Mr. GuxTHER. I know. Senator, but there is just one of me and only
so much time in a day, and I have asked for copies of that, I just have
not had them. I just was lucky to get this appendix, xcvy frankly. I
had somebody scrounge it for me so I could get it, and also the copy
453
of the testimony in the last hearing. I did not have a copy in the first
hearing down here.
Senator Hart. Senator Tunney.
Senator Tunney. 1 liave no further questions.
Senator Hruska. The chairman indicated the next witness would be
Senator Weicker who would like to be heard at this time.
Senator Hart. Are there any further questions by membere of the
committee of Senator (nnither ?
Apparently not. Senator, thank you very much.
"Sir. GuNTHER. Thank you. and I appreciate your having me down
here, as I really wanted to come.
Senator Hart. As indicated by tlie chairman, Senator Burdick,
whom I am advised will return in about 10 or 15 minutes, the next
witness is oui- colleague, whom we all welcome, Lowell Weicker.
TESTIMONY OF LOWELL P. WEICKER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
CONNECTICUT
Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senators, I am going to try to be very brief because I know you are
here to elicit such information as you want from either Governor
Meskill or other individuals who have been named in the matters
brought before your committee, but I think that there are a few com-
ments I should make in light of the testimony of this witness and
also in light of the presentation of the American Bar Association, and
as soon as I am through, as I have indicated, Governor Meskill and
those witnesses are available to the committee.
Yesterday afternoon I was walking through the Capitol with Tom
Meskill, and I said, do you know, Governor, I think there is a lesson
in what has gone on here over the past several months for all of us
because if men of power, such as ourselves, such as you had as Governor,
such as I have as a Unitpd States Senator, get pushed to the wire on
a matter such as this by some unjust activities, and we manage just
to keep our head above water because we do have that power, what
happens to an average citizen in this country when these types of actiA'-
ities go on. when there is patent unfairness and prejudice? And as I
said, I think it is a lesson for each of us, and one that I would hope
we would apply on behalf of other Americans who do not have the
power we have.
Now, Mr. Chairman, reference has been made by Senator Gunther
to the fact that he told me of this Downes lease which I denied in
testimony that I gave before the Leasing Committee in Hartford. I
think that the best evidence of what it is that Senator Gunther is
about can be liad from the transcript of his testimony before the Leas-
ing Committee on this very point.
And then I also intend to repeat the testimony of Senator Gunther
liefoi-e the Leasing Committee on his conversation with (lovernor
Meslvill, which I might add, has already been submitted for the record
to the committee at tlie January hearing, and I think it will become
very obvious to you as to what these warnings consist of and how spe-
cific and factual they have been.
(The interview referred to is printed above at page 96.)
454
Senatoi- Weicker. I now read the. transcript of the testimony of
Senator Gunther before the Leasing- Committee relative to his Avarning
me here in Washington of the Downes lease :
GuNTHEB. I've even discussed it with Senator Weicker.
Lenge [that is a State Senatcu- on the Leasing Committee]. Wlien did you
discuss it with Senator Weicker?
GuNTHEB. Way back in 1972.
If I may just leave the transcript a moment, we already have his
own testimony that it was in 1973.
Back to the transcript :
Lenge. When in 1972?
Gunther. Well ... it would be after the leasing. Now, if you want a specific . . .
I don't know. P.nt this I can back up with my wife's . . .
Lenge. What did you tell Senator Weicker?
Gunther. I told him that they . . . meaning Meskill and Gaffney . . . were car-
rying on the same old ball game that the Democrats had written the book on and
that if these people ... if somebody didn't stop them . . . that they were going
to ruin the Republican Party.
Lenge. All right. And what was his response to that?
Gunther. Well I don't know what you'd call response. He was blase maybe . . .
if that's it. I don't . . .
Lenge. He didn't think it was very important?
Gunther. He didn't go up through the ceiling and go out on his white horse
and say God we're going to stop them Doc ... I can tell you that. But he's
aware . . .
Lenge. But what . . . did he condone it? Or did he . . .?
GiNTHEB. I don't think that he condoned it. I think . . . he's been up here . . .
he knows the ball game . . .
Lenge. He just shrugged his shoulders?
Gunther. Pardon?
Lenge. Would you say that he just shrugged his shoulders?
Gunther. No I think he was disgusted with tlie conversation. But I don't think
he pursued it.
Lenge. Did you mention the Gaffney-Downes situation?
Gunther. I mentioned the whole ball game and when I say that . . .
Lenge. Did you mention that you had talked Jo the Governor about it?
Gtnther. That I had talked to the Governor? . . . Yes, I'm almost certain
that . . .
Lenge. You told the Senator that you had talked to the Governor?
Gunther. Yes Sir . . .
Lenge. When do you pinpoint this conversation?
Gunther. Between 2 :00 o'clock yesterday afternoon and 2 :00 o'clock this
morning I was scrounging. Whether I can go back and get some dates ... I was
in Washington.
LENfiE. No . . . no . . . We're not interested in the minutiae of your recollections.
Just relate to whether or not . . .
Gunther. You know you're as bad as Shure. . . .
Lenge. Well . . . just relate it to whether it was before or after May 23rd?
Gunther. Oh it would have to be after May 23rd.
Lenge. It was after May 23rd?
Gunther. Certainly.
Lenge. How soon after?
Gunther. Now you're asking me to . . .
Lenge. All right. If you can recollect. If you can't . . . you can't.
Gunther. I can't recollect the specific time . . . you know . . . becau.se T was
very disturbed over what . . .
Lenge. Where did you meet Senator Weicker?
Gunther. Oh in Washington. When I go down there we make the rounds and
shake hands and talk to the boys but . . .
Lenge. Not the girls?
Gunther. No I had my wife with me.
Lenge. Okay . . . anyway . . . What did you tell the Senator and who brought
it up?
455
GuxTHEB. Well I thiuk it was just a general ... I would proltably Ikuo ;;one
out of iny way if I really wanted to relate to you . . . that I probably went out of
my way to take and bring it to their attention because I was sincerely concerned
about what these people would do to the Republican Party, I think . . . you know
. . . the 20-20 vision of hindsight in this ... I think that we've seen it. But . . .
Lenge. All right. I think that we covered these. '^
Senatoi- "Wktckek. Tlmt is the testimony of Senator Gimther before
the Leasin<T Connnittee us to the ^yarning that I received as to the
specifics of this leasing sintation. Note how it equates with his testi-
mony about his meeting Avith the Governor.
Again, his testimony before the Leasing Committee in Hartford,
which this committee already has a copy of :
Dice. Why don't you tell us what you told him as far as your objections were
. . . how you described the lease to him . . . Why don't you go into some details
if you can recall?
GuNTHER. I didn't go into any great detail because I know or I have known or
he should have known what the!>e leases were all about.
And then later on, and the whole record is before your committee.
Shure is counsel of the committee :
Shure. Well ... I appreciate his understanding of your attitudes but what
I'm more particularly asking you is whether or not the Governor gave you the
impression that he knew specifically when you arrived what you were coming to
talk to him about and that is the Downes lease?
GuNTHER. Well I . . . yes I think that he was well aware of it. I think there
had been enough prelude in the setting up of the meeting. I'm sure that .John
Doyle is fully competent in carrying coals to Newscastle, as he's done many
times in the past on many issues.
And later on :
Shure. Did he know about the details of the lease when you came in or did
you have to explain them to him?
Gunther. No we did not go into the details. Again . . .
Dice. That isu"t the question. Did he know the details of the lease or did you
have to explain to him what the details of the lease were?
Gunthee. No I don't recall going into the minute details of the lease itself.
As I say I think that I prefaced that well enough with anything that Doyle would
have to bring in to him.
Dice. Were you under the impression though that he did know the details of
the lease when you were discussing it?
GuNTHEB. That he didn't know?
Dice. That he did?
Guntheb. Oh . . . yes, I'd say that he did know about the lease.
Dice. You didn't explain them to him but he knew the details of it?
Senator Weicker. And so on throughout the testimony. Now, gentle-
men, let me just say this, that certainly I do not think anyone is more
committed to the cause of good Government than this Senator, and I
am sure possibly also Senator Gunther, and the members of this com-
mittee, but you cannot go ahead on this type of information and im-
pute— never mind the legalities, leave that word aside — even impropri-
eties. That is basically what has been done here.
I have never seen so much generality in my life, and the unfortunate
aspect of it is that you are not just going ahead and saying, this man
is a bad governor. That is not what is at issue. There is the implication
that there was wrong-doing, and this is something a man has to live
with. He can answer for himself. In that testimony that I gave before
the Leasing Committee when I went to Hartford, and I have got these
and will submit them to the senators here.
456
I made a couple of observations which I would like to repeat here
this afternoon, i said, ''1 appear before this committee" — this is when
I appeared before the Leasmg Committee :
not to impart knowledge pertinent to your inquiry. I haven't any, but to reaffirm
my willingness to speak out against injustice and unfairness regardless of the
consequence to me or its perpetrators. It is not what each of us does in our polit-
ical, philosophical, or personal self-interest that gives credibility and worth to
the elected official, but how vigorously you stand with those persons and ideas in
opposition to our own when they become the subject of low blows. To explain
one s work in terms of Democrat, Republican, conservative, or liberal is easy.
To adhere, in one's advocacy to the terms and spirit of the Constitution, Con-
necticut or U.S., is tough. But by choice, that is my lot — not because, as my critics
state, I'm holier-than-thou, but because sooner or later the life and prosperity of
each of us as Americans will depend upon the integrity of our political institu-
tion.s, and the importance this Nation accords the truth.
And then as 1 concluded, 1 made the statement relative to the spe-
cifics and relative to that testimony which I read to you earlier :
I appreciate all the concern exhibited by State Senators Gunther and Lenge
during Friday's testimony although it seems- to me that the time for concern
is when the alleged rip-olf is taking place, especially when both those worthies
along with the Governor and their Republican colleagues controlled the State
Government, lock, stock, and barrel.
For myself, my political estrangement from the Republican party has never
stood me in better stead. Since 19 il mine has been an exile from the patronage,
power, and purse of the Republican party of Conaecticut. That is why I am with-
out knowledge as to what all of you have been doing over the past several years.
Now, that is the fact of the matter, and my first comment relative
to this matter is that it should be put to bed on the basis of what is
on the record, if this is going to go ahead and condemn individuals
in this station of ours, and give them a bad name, God help us. I just
don't think we are doing our job.
As to the matters that have been raised by the American Bar As-
sociation, I can only say this. I think someone had better go back to
tlieir books in the m tiie American i>ar Association as to what the
justice system of this country is all about, and I might add that when
I hear someone say that because someone has counsel, that is an implica-
tion of guilt, someone had better start to read the Bill of Kiglits as
to what is going on and what rights individuals have in this country,
but to hear it come from the moutli of the President-elect of the
American Bar Association is absolutely incredible.
I would suggest to you that in the course of justice, we have just
been through an exercise where ad hoc groups try to perform the func-
tions of the established agencies of Government. The Senate Judiciaiy
Committee is the proper forum for this hearing. The staff of the Senate
Judiciary Committee has the obligation to investigate. The FBI, at
the request of your committee, is a proper agenc}' to investigate those
persons who come before your committee for nomination.
The coui-ls of this land are proper agencies. But this type of opera-
tion, as far as I am concerned, that was conducted up in Hartford, and
you will hear about it from other other witnesses, to me is no more
than an ABA plumbers' operation. It is simple and clearcut. and it has
no })lace — it has no place.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, the law enforcement agencies of
this country, the courts of this country, not the American Bar As-
sociation, not a series of investigators going out and constructing a
partial case, and what I suppose makes me the most ashamed is that
457
it was done by lawyers who are supposed to understand the value of
the law.
Last. I. liavinu' dealt Avith these leasino; hearin^js, now get to what I
consider to be tlie most pertinent, which are the qualifications of the
GoA-enior. You have testimony before you as to his background, Gov-
ernor of Connecticut, Congressman for 4 years on the Judiciary Com-
mitee. mavor of Xew Britain, corporation counsel for 2 years, assistant
counsel for 2 3'ears, editor-in-chief of the University of Connecticut
Jyaw Review. Those that testified for him— -the president-elect of the
(Connecticut Bar Association ; Jolin LaBelle, the State's attorney out
of Hartford, a Democrat; Governor IMiillip Xoel. Governor of Rhode
Island, relative to the Governor and his cai^acity of attending to the
human needs of the State; Chairman Rodino and two members of
the House Judiciary, both Smith and Hungate ; the dean emritiis of the
Univei'sity of Connecticut Law School. Bert Hopkins; Judge Mulli-
gan of the circuit court, former dean of the Fordliam Law School;
and Judge Timbei-s, who is the other sitting Connecticut judge on the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The list is long as to those who have testified on the plus side to
this man's qualification to sit on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Tom Meskill, just as is indicated in that article — there may be reasons
why you should vote against him, if indeed you feel that the criteria
of the American Bar Association, which has never been put down
in writing, is to prevail. And if you prefer to rely on their judgment
rather than your own, that is fair enough. Say so. It does not impute
any wrongdoing. If you do not like his personal views, his philosophy,
fair enough. That is something a man can live with. Those are fair
enough, but not this. Not this.
This does a disservice, as I say, not just to our system of justice,
hnt iiideed to this committee and to those of us who belong to the
U.S. Senate, and on the plus side, yes, I am proud of Tom Meskill.
I have disagreed with him probably more than any other man in a
philosophical and political sense, but I think he has the qualifications
not just to be a good judge, but a great judge, and let me say this:
As one who lias been more on the liberal side of things than has the
Governor, maybe the stress of these confirmation hearings, which have
now irono on for almost 6 months, and tlie first-hand experience as
to what can happen when someone does a number on a man. will stand
him in good stead when he sits on the bench, so that, if your committee
favors him with the nomination and the Senate does, when he sits
tliere and he has people without power standing befoi-e him. he will
understand what it was to have been subjected to some of the worst
sides of our society and our thinking and be able to stand up in the
face of it and see that every man and every woman in this Nation
abides by the principles of the Constitution and the principles of
decencv and fairness.
And so now. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do then is to say
to the committee that the Governor is here. John Doyle is here, whose
name has been mentioned — Colin Pease, a^ain part of the Governor's
staff. Stuart Smith who is specifically available on the Phoenix lease,
which has been mentioned. They are here for any first-hand testimonv
that the members wish, and if any member has a question to ask, I
would be glad to respond.
458
Senator Hart. Senator, this is a subcommittee, and I am not a mem-
ber of this subcommittee, but as one who would look to the record in
the full committee, I think it would be useful if jou would testify
as to the conversation you had with Senator Gunther in 1973, the date
which he has fixed by the airline tickets. What did he say to you.
Senator Weicker.' Senator, I do not recall the instance of even a
visit from the Senator and his wife, never mind leasing. I do not even
recall the visit. It is ])erfectly possible that a visit took place, and as
I say his corroboration as to what he told me about the Downcs lease
are apparently two airplane tickets cominij to Washington, D.C., al-
though he says he came here to honor President Ford, not to honor
me with his connnents relative to the Downes lease, but I honestly
do not recall, you know, any such meeting, although such a meeting
could have transi:)ired in a social sense.
But I think you know me well enough to know that anyone who
bounces into my office— boy, let me tell you, I am alive today politi-
cally because I 'make sure when somebody dumps one in my lap, it is
going to get substantiated, and the facts are going to be put on the
line darned fast. I had too many things dumped in my lap in the last
couple of years, and as I say, I am still here. It is not something I treat
lightly. It does not make any difference that I do not have anything
to do 'with the State of Connecticut, and as I said in my statement,
I have been literally cutoff by the party in the State of Connecticut,
so what it is that they are doing, it is their affair and not mine, but if
anybody came in with wrongdoing at any level, believe me I would
protect myself by immediately trying to ascertain what the facts were
and get them to the proper party.
That is why I have no recollection of such a meeting, but a subse-
quent meeting I do and very clearly, and that would have been, as I
testified before the Leasing Committee, during the week of
>3.
September 2v
Senator Hart. 1973 or 1974 ?
Senator Weicker. 1974. Senator Gunther had appeared in Washing-
ton after your first hearings on the Governor's nomination and he had
no appointment with me. There was no appointment set for him in
my book but I received a call on the floor that he was in my office and
I came up to my office.
Now let me just read the paragraph that alludes to this in the testi-
mony I gave before the leasing committee. I said, why, when he was
in Washington during the week of September 23, did George Gunther
not contact the Senate Judiciary Committee. Wlien he paid a visit to
my office during that week, why did he not respond to a request for
specifics? At that meeting my admhiistrative assistant. Hank
Harper — and he is here today, he manages my Bridgeport office nor-
mally, I have had him brought down for any questioning under oath
by your committee — and Mr, Fred Gardiner was present.
' The meeting had not been scheduled. That is wliy it does not show
on my calendar. It was a courtesy call which can best be described as a
heated confrontation. Gunther kept warning me on what a bad sort the
Governor was. and I asked him for the facts. Response : Further ex-
pletives about the Governor. I got so mad I hated myself later. I said,
"Doc. bring me the facts or give them to the Judiciary Committee, or
knock off the generalities. You are not hinting at a man being a bad
459
Governor; yon are imputing criminal wrongdoing."' No facts. I
cliecked with the Jndiciarj^ Committee on Saturday. Gnnther never
went to them, with the exception of his newspaper clippings.
So I do not recall the Dieeting with the wife ; but I specifically recall
this meeting, and there is, as I say, JNIr. Harper here to testify that,
well, I will tell yon — j^ou gentlemen know me, I usually do not try to
hide my emotions, but at least I feel that I can explode with you. You
are all on equal footing and fair is fair, but constituents — you are not
supposed to do that.
I was never so mad in my life because I could not get any facts,
and I suggested to him that he go down the hall. I said, Doc. get
out of here. Go down the hall. Go see the Senate Judiciary. Give tliem
your facts, and that would bo the extent, as I said before, of trying
not just as I said, not just as I have alluded to, of meeting and shuck-
ing these things off. I do not shuck them off. I am too darn committed
to making sure that patronage — even though I have not shared in it — ■
just is not going to run our Government.
But I will tell you what I cannot do. As the Governor testified, I
believe when he first testified before this committee when the same
thing happened in his office, and the Governor asked Senator Gunther
in his office, what do you want me to do ? "Write a "To Whom It May
Concern in the State Government: Knock it off"'? No, there has got
to be a factual basis for these types of allegations, and I tried to get
them, but even to the point that I can understand if he did not want
to talk to me, I consider your committee, as I say, the buffer, the com-
mittee responsible for getting the facts.
I directed him to your connnittee to give you the facts.
Senator Hart. Just this last question : if you can recall, when did
you first hear the expression, the "Downes lease," and from wliom?
Senator Wetcker. Senator, I would suppose it was when the actual
hearings of the leasing committee were going on. This does not
mean to say that people could not have sent me newspaper clip-
pings, et cetera, but understand that in 1973-71, I had a few rather
important investigations of my own going on, and candidly, I was
not involved at all in the matters of State leasing, never having par-
ticipated in any of this business that was going on in Connecticut,
and very frankly having to retrict my activities here to Washington.
I would suppose the first time I heard about the Downes lease as
such would haA^e been when the actual leasing hearings were being
held by the General Assembly which was whenever it was in 197i.
And incidentally, I have to plead guilty to another thing. Everyone
who walks into the State capitol is supposed to know Downes. I have
never heard of Downes. I have never heard of John Downes — -thei-e
are two Downeses. I do not even know who they are. I have never met
them. I have never heard of them, so the first time that I could pin-
point any sort of knowledge would be actually when the matter was
raised in the hearings before the leasing committee, the subcommittee
of the appropriations committee of the State Senate.
Senator Hart. Senator Tvmney.
Senator Tunney. I have no questions, other than I want to thank
Senator Weicker again for being here. I think that what we. of
course, are dealing with now are conversations that Senator Gunther
had or did not have with other persons, other than Governor Meskill.
47_7n4 — 7o 30
460
I have great admiration for Senator Weicker, for his honesty, and
his enthusiasm about causes that he believes in, and I would not want
him to feel that if — and I have not made up my mind, until I hear
Governor Meskill testify on the specifics, as to whom to believe in this
particular case — but I would not want Senator Weicker to feel that
there is anything at all personal in any Senator's evaluation of the
facts as they exist.
Senator Weicker. Absolutely not. Let me say one thing right now.
As I have indicated, there sits before me the greatest civil libertarians,
for heaven's sake, in the Nation, and I have never once felt that any
questions directed in this inquiry or any actions have been directed at
me.
The only reason why I mention the Gunther thing vis-a-vis me is
that a man sets a pattern. He sets a course of behavior, and that course
of behavior — do not forget, it would have been very easy for me not
to go to Hartford and put myself under oath. I knew what I was
doing. As soon as I go under oath, it is possible for someone to say, he
has committed perjury, or there is the possibility of perjury because
there is conflicting testimony. I knew that when I took that course of
action. It made no difference to me. Hell or high water, I am going
through there when I see someone wrong.
The only reason I mention it — not that it relates to what is before
your committee — is that except, yes, I think it clearly shows the way
a man behaves, and I think that is perfectly proper since you have an
identical situation vis-a-vis Senator Gunther.
Senator Ttinney. Thank you.
Senator Hart. Senator Hniska ?
Senator Hrttska. No questions, thank you.
Senator Weicker. Thank you very much.
Senator Hart. Thank you very much.
The nominee. Governor INIeskill.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. MESKILL, NOMINEE
Mr. Meskill. Mr. Chairman, I assume that I am still under oath
from the recessed hearing.
Senator Hrttska. He has been sworn. I think announcement in the
record to that effect, and that he continues under oath.
Senator Hart. Is there an}" question about being continuing for
purposes of the oath?
]\rr. IVTeskill. Not on my part. I consider myself still under oath, but
I would ])e happy to be sworn again if there are any questions.
Senator Hart. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to
give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
noth^iirbut the truth, so help you God?
Mr. ^M^ESKTLL. T do.
Senator Hart. Governor, T have already pled that I liave not yet
read the record on the earlier proceedings, so I am scarcely the fellow
to undertake an examination. But you have been sitting here throug-h-
(»nt tbe (lay. Would you want to make a general statement before
fjuestions are directed to yon?
IVTr ;Mfsktt,t.. Thank vou. 'Mr. Chairman, at the close of the session
of January — I believe it was 24th — when this subcommittee i-ecessed
461
to await the delivery of the appendixes from the Legishitive Commit-
tee of tlie Connecticut General Assembly, I said — and I would like to
repeat, not so much for emphasis, but for the fact that 1 know some of
the Senatoi-s were not liere at tliat time — I think there are three issues,
really. One involves my credentials, one involves my temperament, and
the third really involves my intej^rity, or my jud^rment, depending on
whether you consider the complaints about leasing to be illegal, im-
moral, or other ^^•ise.
As far as my qualifications and credentials and my temperament, I
think those are areas which liave been covered by other witnesses, and
I do not think that anything T can say could be considered anything
other than self-serving.
On the issue of my integrity, or my conduct as Governor as it relates
to leasing, there has been an attempt on the part of the bar associations
who have appeared and testified in opposition to me, to create the im-
pression that, fiist of all, I knew about what was going on, that it was
very bad. and that I condoned it ; and certainly, if I did not condone
it. i did notliing about it.
Nothhig can be further from the truth as I have testified at an
earlier date, and I do not have all the things with me, but I refer
you back to my testimony of the 24th. When the allegations were made,
or Wiien we had an in(iuirv in my office concerning some Bridgeport
leases where a woman Avas not being paid her rent, and I look into it
and the lease looked fisliy and smelly, I immediately called in the
States attorney and he investigated, and there was an arrest made.
A lequest was made of the attorney genei-al to void this lease, and
also another lease with the same party, because there were other legal
problems in that. When the attorne}' general raised the question about
the Phoenix lease, I immediately looked into the matter and ordered
the public works department to go no further with it; to start over
again and consider all applicants to make sure that the particular
transaction had the complete public confidence. Any time that a com-
plaint A^as raised to me about any activity in State government, we
checked into it. and we were satisfied that the complaint had either
been taken care of, or if thei-e was something wrong with it, some-
thing Avas done about it.
When T testified on the 24th. T said, by way of a general statement,
that at the time my name originally came up for nomination, prior
to my being nominated. I said to Senator '^\''eicker — and I have repeated
it to him since then — that I knew that tlio American Bar Association
was going to oppose me ; that my nomination would be subject to the
closest scrutiny. And I knew that if thei-e was anythinfi- in my back-
ground wliich would be embarrassing to him. or to President Ford —
or to President Xixon, originally- — that it would conip out. And I as-
sured him — and at the session that we had on the 24th, I assured the
members of the committee — that there was nothing in my public or
private life which aa ould embarress the U.S. Senate, if I am confirmed.
Now, if there is something in my public or private life which would
be embarrassing, then I have perjured myself, and I did it \'olun-
tarily without anyone e\"en asking the question. I repeat that pledge
today; there is nothing in my background which, if I am confirmed,
will embarrass the Senate after having confirmed me. I sat here on
the 24th, willing to answer any questions; and I am here today to
462
answer any questions. Now I can only answer questions that I have
personal knowledge of. I will not speculate; I will not say what some-
one told me someone else said. But realizing that questions have been
raised and questions would be raised about which I have no firsthand
knowledge, I have asked the members of my staff who were closest to
me and who might have that knowledge, to be here. And I am talking
now about Stewart Smith, who was an administrative assistant to
me and who handled matters concerning higher education, and more
than anyone else on my staff he knows about the early negotiations
concerning the so-called Phoenix Building.
And Robert Leuba, whom it was mentioned somewhere in one of the
reports having been the motor vehicles commissioner, and then later,
my executive assistant and counsel. He is here because he can answer
questions I cannot answer concerning the Phoenix Building.
John Doyle is here, not at the request of the committee, but at my
request and at his own expense, and here for the second time, to answer
any questions that may be raised about conversations that he has
had with Senator Gunther. And Colin Pease, whose last post was a
deputy transportation commissioner, but prior to that he occupied
the same position Mr. Leuba occupied in my office. And he has recol-
lection— he was sitting in the outer office after the famous conversation
between Senator Gunther and myself on May 23.
I want to say this, I do not think that Senator Gunther is mten-
tionally trying to mislead this committee. T do not think he is in-
tentionally misrepresenting anything. I think that he believes that
what he says actually happened. I think you can judge whether or
not his recollection, or the witnesses who have refuted what he says,
is true. I would like to tell you my version of the meeting.
Senator Hart. Governor, before you or as you do that, I have been
in long enough to get a feel of some of it. What were you told by
this man, Mr. Doyle, as to why Senator Gunther wanted to see you?
Mr. Meskill. I do not recall being told anything, Senator. What I
doremember, at the time of this meeting it w\as at the very end of the
legislative session, and the way the general assembly operates in Con-
necticut, early in the session very few bills are passed. It is similar
to the Congress, and at the end of the session there is a rush of
leo-islation passed. If the general assembly is still in session, it has
to'^be signed or vetoed within 10 days. If it has adjourned, then I
think the Governor has 20 to 25 days, but there is a tremendous work-
load in the office. During a session, normally anyone from the legis-
lature who wants to see the Governor, can see the Governor on fairly
short notice. .
During this particular period of time, he may have had to wait a
short wlnle, but the conversation, itself, I do not remember anyone
talkino- to me in advance about what he wanted to see me about. He
was a "state senator, he was a leader in our party who had to see me
about something important, that was all I knew.
The meeting was very brief. I do not remember if he even sat down.
There was no one else i3resent in the room at the time, and that per-
liaps is unfortunate. The conversation went something like this : The
Senator said to me. Governor, there is something wrong; there is
something you have to do something about. And I said, tell me about
it. And l7e said, well it is terrible, it's bad, it's not fair to the tax-
4G3
payers, and so on. I said, Avliat's wron<;? He said, I can't be too specific.
And I said, who is involved ^ And lie said, I don't want to name names.
And I said, well what department is involved? And he said, I would
rather not say.
Now this sounds fantastic, but then I said. Doc, when I got an
anonymous letter tellino- me that the tolltakers were stealing money
at a certain toll booth, I turned it over to the State police, and they
invesigated. And any time I have ever had any complaints about
Avrongdoing or malfeasance of govenmient personnel, I have investi-
gated^ But. I said, unless you tell me what is wrong, and who is in-
volved, I cannot investigate. And I said to him. something to the
effect of, I cannot just send out a memorandum to all my commis-
sioners addressed to whom it may concern, whoever is doing anything
wrong, cut it out. I said. I would look like a laughing stock; unless
you can tell me what's wrong, I can do nothing about it. And he
said, that's all I can tell you. He got up and left.
I walked out of my office and I said to Colin Pease, who was out-
side. I just had the strangest meeting I have ever had, and I related
what had happened to him. and I said, do you have any idea what he
is talking about ? He said he did not, and we have complaints about
everything. "We have complaints about State employees cars being at
Little League ball games. I had no idea what he was talking about.
I never knew, and in fact, to this day, I do not Imow that that is what
he was talking about. But I have to assume that that is the meeting
he refers to. But he did not mention the Downes lease, leasing, or any
lease.
And to correct another thing, I have never denied that any meeting
took place ; the only thing that I ever denied was that I had a conver-
sation with George Gunther about leasing — this one, or any other
lease — but I would like to say, I think we are getting bogged down —
the meeting of the 2od — because there is a dispute as to what I said
and what he said. But I think the committee should understand that
between the 2.3d and June 1 when he wrote the letter to me, nothing
transpired concerning this particular lease. So it is important, from
the point of who you are going to believe. But from the point of view
of what happened to the particular Downes lease, is that nothing
happened, '^tiiether I was first told this the 23d, the 1st, the 25th. or
anything else.
The first I learned was not the letter of June 1. This was not the
first information T had of the Downes lease. The first information I
got was from reading a newspaper article that I was asked about at a
press conference. This may have been the first or the second; I do not
remember. But the letter of the first came to my office and was clocked
in at. I believe, 12 or 16 minutes after 9 o'clock in the morning. That
same day in the newspaper was a story about the letter, and I know
I saw the contents of the letter in the newspaper before I ever saw the
letter.
Senator Hart. Was that the first time you had ever heard of the
Downes lease ?
Mr. Mesktll. That's correct. The Governor's office does not get in-
volved in selecting sites, either by purchase or by lease. This is all
handled by the agency and the public works department and the de-
partment of finance and control in the attorney general's office.
464
Senator Hart. What did you do, beginning June 1, when you saw
this letter in the newspaper and then, I assume, read the letter. What
did you do about the lease ?
Mr. ISIeskill. My recollection is that the newspaper article carried
the story, either that day or the next day, stating that Commissioner
Kozlowski said that it was a good lease and it was a good deal for the
State. In fact, there has been some testimony about when the lease was
signed. At that time the practice was for the State to send out a letter
of commitment, spelling out the terms of the contract to enter into a
lease. And this was sent out early in ]May and it was signed by the
lessee. I learned of this last December, when all of the leasing hearings
were going on. I then checked into the various steps that took place,
and learned that — or that I had the meeting on the 2od or the 25th —
that the contract had been signed prior to that meeting.
Senator Hart. This was the meeting
Mr. Meskill. Between Senator Gunther and myself.
Senator Hart. The lease, you say. had been signed ?
Mr. Meskill. No, the contract to lease ; the commitment.
Senator Hart. The commitment ?
Mr. Meskill. To enter into a lease.
Senator Hart. Prior to June 1 and before May 23 ?
Mr. ]\rESKTLL. That's correct. But Senator, T do not want to imply
tliat that's the reason we didn't do anything. There has been some
statement, or repor-t, that I used that as an excuse for taking no action.
That is not true. The I'eason I pointed out the dates was because at
that time Senator Gunther was was quoted in the newspapers as say-
ing that he warned me before the contract was entered into, and my
i-esponse was— and this was December 1974 that it was being talked
about. November or December — my response was, if in fact he did
warn me— and he didn't— it still was, in fact, 4 days after the con-
tract to enter into tlie lense was signed. If. in fact,Mn checking, my
commissioner said, it's a bad lease, the State is paving doubleNvhat
thev should pay, we olnnously would have taken steps.
But the man with the department who has the expertise said it was
a ^ood lease, so as far as I was concerned, there was no action to be
taken.
Senatoi- Hart. The letter to you from the Senator, whicli I do not
have, must have described the lease as bad for a number of reasons?
Mr. Meskill. The cost.
Senator Hart. The cost. Was the only action then that you took to
get confirmation from Kozlowski ? The' newspaper report'tliat it is a
good lease was an accurate quote ?
Mr. Meskill. That's right. That's correct. Senator. Meaning a jrood
lease for the State.
Senator Hart. It would not be a good lease if the price disparity
that the Senator described this morning had been accurate?
Mr. Meskill. That's correct.
Senator Hart. You did not aslv Commissionei- Kozlowski specifi-
cally what he thought the price should have been? Simply his state-
ment, it is a good lease
Mr. Meskill. His statement to — I don't know which member of our
staff— was to the effect that it was a good lease. Either a good lease
or a good deal for the State; I could not give you the quotation, I did
not talk to him directly.
465
Senator Hart. You did not talk to :Mr. Kozlowski directly?
Mr. Mesktll. No.
Senator Hart. Well one reason I never want to be Governor is I
never want to have these problems. I like to think I would have done
more than to just ask him if he thought it was a good lease.
Do yon have any questions. Senator Hruska?
Senator Hruska. I have no (questions at this time. I will defer to
Senator Tunney.
Senator Tunney. There are a few thinizs that I would like to have
a better understanding of. Governor, with respect to the leasing pro-
gram. In the first place. I think it is fair to say that the reason that
action has been delayed on your nomination the last 2Vo months is
because the investigation Avas going on in Connecticut.
As you know, there would have undoubtedly been a finding much
earlier as to judicial qualifications other than integrity if it had not
been for these matters. I would just like to get some of these facts on
the record. T do not ask the questions in an inquisatory sense, but I do
feel that it is important that the record be made clear.
With respect to the Downes lease, the Downes Construction Co. is
located in New Britain, right ? Is that correct ?
Mr. Meskill. It Avas. I'm not sure if it still is or not. It was when
I still lived in New Britain.
Senator Tunney. And you have known the Downes family for many
years, according to allegations made to this committee ?
Mr. INIeskiel. When you say Downes family, to whom are you
referring?
Senator Tunney. I don't know ; how many members are there?
Mr. Meskile. I can tell you who they are and what the relationship
is if it will help the connnittee. There are two John Downes. First of
all, John Downes. the attorney, and Frank Downes, who is the Frank
Downes of Frank Downes Construction Co. are brothers.
Frank DoAvnes has a son, John Downes, who I believe now runs the
company for him. I practiced laAv between 1956 and — I Avould have to
look at my personal diary— until 1958 or 1959, with John DoAvnes. the
layAver. I haA^e knoAvn him for some time ; he Avas my father's attorney.
I met Frank DoAvnes through his brother.
Senator Tunney. I see. The State chairman of the Republican
Pai'ty, Avhat is his name ?
Mr. ^Meskill. Frank Gaffney, the former State chairman.
Senator Tunney. Does he have any relationship to the DoAvnes?
Mr. Meskill. Which DoAvnes? The ansAver is J^es; but there is a
difference.
Senator Tunney. The John Downes that you AA-ere associated Avith?
]Mr. Meskill. That is his uncle.
Senator Tunney. His uncle. And the John DoAvnes is the uncle of
Gaffney. oi- Gaffney is tJie uncle of John Downes, I am sorry.
]Mr. Meskill. Brian Gaffney "s mother
[Laughter.]
5lr. ^Ieskill [continuing.] Is the sister of John DoAv^nes, the hiAvyer,
and Frank Downes. the contractor.
Senator Tunney. Uh-liuh. Thank you. Don't ask me to repeat it.
[Laughter.]
^Ir. Meskill. The Irish are close-knit families.
466
Senator Tuxnev. On June 1. you received a letter from George
Gnnther in wliicli lie apparently indicated that the lease was excessive
in cost to the State, and he urged yon to sto]) the lease. Now, when he
mentioned the Downes lease — with the association that yon had with
the Downes family — did that ring any bells with you one way or the
other? Did it make yon feel that either the thing shonld not be "pursned
because yon knew the Downes would not be involved in a bad lease, or
did it make you feel that perhaps because they were good friends of
yours you ought to contact the Downes and just find out — either per-
sonally or through an aide — whether these charges that were being
made by the State Senator, and which he said he was going to pub-
licize, were in fact, correct ?
Mr. Meskill. Well first of all, he didn't tell me he was going to
publicize them. It didn't ring any bells, because I first checked to find
out what the people I relied on thought of the lease, and I was told
this was a perfectly good lease. And by good, the message was that
it was good for the State of Connecticut,' not good in that it was a valid
lease that we couldn't get out of. I mean that it was a good deal for
the State.
Senator Tunney. Did you make any connection between the conver-
sation that you had had with Gnnther. on May 23, and the letter that
you received from him, dated June 1 ?
Mr. Meskill. No.
Senator Tunney. You did not think that the letter was referring
to the wrongdoing that he had told you about ? You did not associate
the two ?
Mr. Meskill. No; because in the form that the letter took, it pretty
much ruled that out. The fact that it was calling it to my attention
for the first time — at least that was the message I got from the letter
Senator Tunney. I yield to Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. May I ask. Governor, just to get back to this
conversation that yon had had with the Senator; I listened to his recol-
lection of the conversation, and to yours. It must have been a matter
of just complete disbelief on your' part, would it not, if you had a
respected member of the State Senate come in and— if T understand
what you are saying — say it's trouble, it's bad news, or whatever char-
acterization that you have used, and then— do I understand you, that
he did not ask you to do anything ?
Mr. Meskill. He just said I should do something about it.
Senator Kennedy. About what ?
Mr. Meskill. This probleui that he had.
Senator Kexnedy. And he did not tell you what the problem was?
Ml-. ^Meskill. No.
Seiiator Kennedy. Did you ask him what the problem was ?
]Mr. Meskill. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Did you say. T can't do anything about it if I
don't know what the probleln is ^
]Mi'. Meskill. Those are almost my exact words.
Senator Kennedy. And what did he say then ?
Mr. Meskill. He said, that is all I was going to say.
Senator Kennedy. Did you not say. listen, haven't we known each
other long enough so that you can understand when you say you have
467
a problem and you ask nio to do something about it, bow can I do
somothinff about it if you don't tell me -what it is ?
Mr. ]\rESKiLL. '\Miat I said to liim was. I related to liim the fact that
other people had complained about problems and I had taken action.
But unless he was more specific, T couldn't send out a letter to whom
it maA' concern and iust sav. if there's anvthino; wronii- out there in anv
of your departments, you better cut it out.
Senator Ivexxedy. Did he say he was going to get back to you?
Mr. Meskill. No. I had no idea what he was^alking about. In fact,
the question I raised in my own mind was whether he was just, in
effect, trying to put me on notice that no matter what happened and
went wrong, he could say he warned me.
Senator Kexnedt. Why would he do that ?
Mr. Meskill. I think earlier there was a question of Senator
Gunther's relationshi]) witli the leader of the party at that moment
and the Governor's office which was not the best.
Senator Kexnedy, Are you suggesting that he came in to do this
just so that he was able to get response politically ?
Mr. Meskill. I have no idea.
Senator Kexnedy. ^Yhy do you think he is doing this? Why do
you think he would be down here testifs^ng on this matter? What is
in his interest?
Mr. ]Meskill. That I don't know, Senator, and I would not want
to speculate on the man's motivations. I can only say that there had
been bad blood between him and Mr. Gaffney.
Senator Kexnedy. TMiat was the basis for that, of your own
knowledge ?
]Mr. Meskill. Well, my own knowledge is
Senator Kexxedy. "\^liy should he have not mentioned that to you ?
!Mr. Meskill. He didn't. There was no discussion of any person.
That was what was so frustrating about it.
Senator Kennedy. Well, if he had had it in for Gaffney, why would
he not mention something about that ?
Mr. Meskill. He has mentioned that on other times.
Senator Kennedy. But this time
Mr. INIeskill. That's negative. There was no mention of any in-
dividual, any departments. There was no mention of leasing.
Senator Kennedy. If a person did that, I would think the normal
reaction of anyone would be, you had better go home and take a rest
or something. [Laughter.]
JNIr. Meskill. Senator, maybe that is what I should have suggested
to him. T tried to press him, but he would go no furthei- than telling
me something was wrong, and I should do something about it. Perhaps
he assumed I knew what he was talking about, but I did not.
Senator Kennedy. You had no idea ?
Mr. Meskill. I had absolutely no idea.
Senator Kennedy. Were there any other kinds of allegations or
charges about the leasing program? Were you aware that the leasing
procedures were
Mr. Meskill. The leasing program was not under fii'e that I can
recall.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ever ask anyone to follow up with him ?
468
Mr. Meskill. I asked, as I said, Colin Pease if he had any idea what
he was talking about, and there was a period of recollection of tiying
to think what it was — is there anything going on, do we have any
problems growing that you are aware of? And, as I said, there was
one thing that was mentioned; the fact that a complaint had been
made that a commissioner's car had been seen at a Little League
game with a State tag on it. Someone had written in and complained
that State cars Avere being used for personal use, or sometliing like
that. But Ave had no idea Avhat he was talking about.
Senator Kennedy. Do you ever remember using the words, "doing
the Democrats' dirty work"?
Mr. Meskill. No, not with him.
Senator Kennedy. You have used them for other people?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Meskill. Like Senator Weicker, I have been in politics a long
time, but I remember no such conversation.
Senator Kennedy. We have heard words like tluit before.
[Laugliter.]
It just seems to me that, as I am sure you can understand, someone
who had obviously pressed to try to get in to see a legislator, or
taking up the time in the final days of the session, and then to come
in and make those sort of comments or statements
Mr. Meskill. Senator, let me just say, like Senator Weicker, I
liave a desire for survival too. And this is 1972. No judgeship is
in the offing, or being considered. And if anyone came in and told
me about a situation that was bad. and that he was going to go to the
papers with it or anything of that nature, I can assure you that I
would have done something.
And it was not until — as I said — 2 years later when Ave talked about
having him come in to see me, that we went back and looked at my
diary and came up Avith the date that he had been in to see me on that
date.
Senator Kennedy. Let me just — I guess in the letter that you had
referred to, the time that you find out about the Downes case ; is that
riglit ? Did you not indicate
Mr. Meskill. I didn't find out by the letter; I found out by a
neAvspaper story. It was published in the paper actually before I read
the letter.
Senator Kennedy. When you found out did you say, my God, noAv
I know Avhat Gunther Avas talking about ?
Mr. Meskill. No, because the letter, as I say the neAvspaper account —
the letter refers to it as you know, this is something I am bringing to
your attention for tlie first time. There is nothing in there that would
tic it back to a meeting earlier that week or the week before.
Senator Kennedy. He, in his letter, had indicated that :
For several years now I have been very critical of some of the policies of the
State of Connecticut in "leasing" and have been very vocal abont the need for
change.
Were you aAvare that he had been ?
[The letter referred to appears aboA'e at page 129.]
Mr. Meskill. He Avas on a committee tlint liad investigated leasing
earlier. He has been critical of a lot of things, and has been quite vocal.
Senator Kennedy. What as the committee he Avas on investigat-
ing-
469
Mr. Meskill. It was some — in 1971 or 1972 I think — a legislative
committee that went into leasing, and I don't remember whatever
came of the report. But then there was the subsequent committee Avhich
was appointed and met almost 2 years later.
Senator Kennedy. And you never remember any conversation with
him at all, at anv time, that mentioned the word "leasing", or talked
about it ? "
Mr. Meskill. I don't recall any conversation during my term as
Governor, when he talked to me about leasing in general, or any speci-
fic lease.
Senator Kennedy. Had he served on this committee on leasing at
the time he had the INIay meeting with you ?
Mr. Meskill. I don't remember. I don't want to — I am not sure. I
think that that committee predated the ISIay 23 meeting.
Senator Kennedy. May I ask Senator Gunther — just as a point of
information — about the dates that you w^ere on the leasing committee ?
Senator Guntiier. There was no leasing committee prior to Septem-
ber 7, 1972, that I served on. I had been quite vocal in disclosing pre-
vious leases.
Senator Kennedy. At the time, your understanding of his concern
about leasing procedures in the State was after this May meeting?
Mr. Meskill. It was sometime after June 1 — either on, or immedi-
ately thereafter — when I read about it in the paper. You are talking
about the Downes lease, or leasing in general ?
Senator Kennedy. Just leasing as an issue, or either.
Mr. Meskill. "\Mien you say aware of his concern
Senator Kennedy. The point I am trying to get at is if you were
aware that he was on a committee, or was primarily concerned — he was
n leader in the party, and he had been primarily concerned about leas-
ing practices, leasing procedures. Some time or other, you may or may
not have had some conversation where he did indicnte to you his con-
cern about leasing, and then he comes in and says, it's real bad. I can't
tell you what it is about. One might assume that that was the area it
dealt with?
]Mr. Meskill. I had no such assumption. Senator. Because if it were,
I would have assumed he would have said it was leasing.
Senator Kennedy. But your testimony is he did not.
Senator Mathias. Mr. Chairman, mav I ask what the intentions of
the Chair are?
Senator Kennedy. I have just become the Chair, and have just
looked up to see that ther-e is n rollcall. I guess we will come back. Do
you have questions. Senator INIathias?
Senator Mathias. Do you have further?
Senator Kennedy. I have some, and Senator Tunney has not even
gotten started.
Senator Tinney. Senator Burdifk indicated to me that he wanted to
have Governor ^Meskill come back tomorrow morning.
Senator Hruska. He said he would be back at 5 o'clock. I would
suggest we go and vote and come back: recess for about 10 minutes.
Senator Burdick said he would be here at 5 o'clock.
Senator Tunney. It is all riglit with me.
Senator Kennedy. Let me — just before recessing — on this June 1
letter, you are familiar with it?
Mr. Meskill. Yes.
470
Senator Kenxedy. "When he bronoht up the various statistics, I guess
it is on page 2 — not that I am interested now, other than your general
reaction to it, you know, the outlay. He talks about the outlay of
$1,375,000:
I feel this is abusive and intolerable and because the precedent has been estab-
lished by the previous administration, doesn't make it right for the present ad-
ministration to continue it-
That is pretty strong language from a leader of one's own party, I
would think.
Do you remember, eitlier the letter or reacting to it, or anything
similar? That goes back a long time, and obviously I could not expect
you to remember the details of it. ])ut do you remember this letter
being a red flag?
Mr. INIeskill. I really don't. Senator. I am trying to recollect. I
didn't remember the letter at all until the question of — he said he came
in and warned me, and we searched back tliT-ough the files, and INIr.
Doyle found the letter and we tried to — the recollection was, why did
we not answer the letter. And I guess the only — and I don't think we
did answer the letter, for the record. I think the reason was that it was
the general feeling about letters that you read about in the newspapers
before you ever get the letter, and in view of the fact of the questions
he raised in the letter were answered prior to my seeing the letter.
Senator Kennedy. You are suggesting that he just wrote it; he
already had gone to the press with the issue, and then sort of wrote the
letter afterward? Ts that what you believe?
Mr. Meskill. The letter was dated on June 1. and was logged into
my office a few minutes after 9 o'clock on June 1. And it was in the. I
believe, morning edition of the newspaper — that is, the morning edi-
tion of the afternoon newspaper; it was in a late edition. It was in
the newspaper that day. T didn't see the letter on that day, but I did
see the newspaper.
Senator Kennp:dy. And your testimony is after your commissioner
responded in a way to your stajff that everything was all right, you
felt the matter was closed?
Mr. INIeskill. Yes. because I had confidence in my commissioner,
and I am still not satisfied it was not a good lease. In other words. I
still believe my commissioner. All of this business — the evaluation —
has come 2 years later, and within the last couple of weeks of my
administration. So it is hard to go back.
Senator Kennedy. We will recess, and return. Thank you.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Burdick. In view of the fact that there is another rollcall
in the Senate in 10 minutes, I have checked with other Senators who
wanted to question after I finish. I think the only reasonaWe thing
to do now is to recess until 10 o'clock tomon-ow moiiiing.
INIr. Meskill. Senator, may I ask a question? "We have bjought
people here with us, and I assume that I should have them stay over-
night as well ?
Senator Burdtck. As you know. Senator Kennedy uiade a request
for moi-e witnesses, and I suppose the subconnnittee will have to do
somethiiig a1)out that request. I haven't asked for any more.
^Iv. Mf.sktlt,. Thank you. Senator.
["Whereupon, at 5:1.5 ]).m.. the subconnnittee recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Thursday. IVfarch 6, 1075.]
NOMINATION OF THOMAS J. MESKILL
TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1975
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington^ D.C.
Tlie subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room
2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Quentin N. Burdick,
I)residing.
Present : Senators Burdick, Eastland, Hart, Kennedy, Tunney,
Abourezk. Hruska. and Scott of Pennsylvania.
Also present : Peter M. Stockett, Francis C. Rosenberger, and Hite
McLean of the committee staff.
Also present: Staff' members representing Senators: William P.
Westphal and William J. Weller (Senator Burdick) , Dennis C. Thelen
{Senator McClellan). Burton Wides (Senator Hart), Thomas Suss-
man (Senator Kennedy), J. William Heckman (Senator Bayh), Jane
L. Frank (Senator Tunney), Irene R. Margolis (Senator Abourezk),
J. C. Argetsinger (Senator Hruska), Dennis Unkovic (Senator Scott
of Pennsylvania), and C. W. (Quincy) Rodgers, Jr. (Senator
Mathias).
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. MESKILL— Resumed
Senator Burdick. Governor, when you first testified here, you ex-
plained to us the nature of the business arrangement where you and
Paul Manafort and Bernard Mussman, and some other individuals,
were co-owners of some commercial property in Wethersfield, Conn.
You also explained, when you entered into that venture in 19tl, that
you made sure that your associates in that venture understood that no
part of the building was to be leased or sold in the State of Connecti-
cut. Is that correct ?
Mr. JNIeskill. Yes, Senator.
Senator Burdick. At that time, early in 1971, you were about to
start, or had just started on, your 4-year term as Governor, as I re-
call; and at that time, was Mr. Manafort still a private citizen, or was
he in the employment of the State in some capacity ?
Mr. ISIeskill. I appointed him deputy commissioner of public works.
I believe he startecl in that position in late winter, early spring 1971.
Senator Burdick. "Wlien you first became Governor, one Edwai-if
Kozlowski was commissioner of public work for the State ?
Mr. Meskill. I appointed Commissioner Kozlowski.
(471)
472
Senator Burdick. When did he take office ?
^Ir. ^SIeskill. I believe it was March 1 of 1971. That was the statu-
toi"v date for all State terms, with a couple of exceptions.
Senator Burdick. AVlien you became Governor, the State of Con-
necticut, as it had done for many years, had a practice whereby it
leased buildings used by agencies of the State, as distinguished from
purchasing or constructing them for its own ownership; did it not?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know, Senator. Buildings were leased, also
bouldings were constructed, buildings were purchased. I do not believe
there was any set pattern of preference of one over the other.
Senator BmRDiCK. The leasing program, however, was under the
primary supervision of the commissioner of public works (
Mr. Meskill. At what time, Senator ?
Senator Burdick. Pardon ?
Mr. Meskill. At what time '(
Senator Burdick. At the time that you became Governor, thereafter,
and during your term.
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. As I say, Kozlowski was commissioner ?
Mr. ]Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. Am I correct in understanding, in 1971, 1972, and
the first half of 1973, the leasing procedure contemplated procedural
steps that I will summarize as follows. First, an agency would notify
the public works department of its needs for a building, including
square footage and general geographical area. Second, the public
works department would ask for proposals to be submitted. No. 3, the
agency would review proposals, and the agency had the power to ap-
prove or disapprove a site. Four, if the agency approved a site, the
proposal would be reviewed by the Department of Finance and by
the attorney general. Five, if a specific proposal were approved at
each of these stages, then a letter of commitment by the State, to enter
into a lease, would be issued to the potential lessor. Six. the potential
lessor would arrange for the preparation of architectural plans to con-
struct the building, or to remodel an existing building and arrange
financing. Seven, when the building was finished and ready for occu-
pancy, then the actual lease would finally and formally be executed.
Is this, in essence, the procedure that was followed in 1971 and 1972 ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know. Senator. To my own knowledge, T do
not know.
Senator Burdick. You do not know ?
Let me straighten out the record on some personal identification. Mr.
Kozlowski was your first commissioner of public works. Then you re-
assigned him by appointing him commissioner of the motor vehicle
department; then you replaced him by Paul Manafort as commissioner
of public works. '\'\nien did ]Manafort succeed Kozlowski?
IVIr. Meskill. I will have to ask Mr. Leuba, because he was the motor
vehicle commissioner.
Mr. Leuba informs me that he came to my office in March 1973,
and the vacancy in the motor vehicle department was filled by Com-
missioner Kozlowski. At that time, T ai^pointed Deputy Commissioner
Manafort as acting commissioner of pul)lic works, aiul he remained
in that position for a couple of months prior to my appointing him
as commissioner of public works.
473
Senator Bukdick. He was acting connnissioner ?
Mr. Meskill. Acting commissioner ; yes.
Senator Bt^rdick. Your particular arrangement in Connecticut is
where the Governor appoints the chairman of his party; is this right?
Mr. Meskill. No, sir, that is not correct. The chairman of the party
is elected by the members of the State central committee. There is a
man and a woman representing each senatorial district who sit on the
State central connnittee, and they elect the chairman.
Senator Burdick. You had nothing to do with the appointing or
designating J. Brian Gallney as chairman of that i
Mr. ]^Ieskill. Other than he was my friend and supporter, and I
was happy to ha%e him. I had no power to appoint him, and no vote.
Senator Burdick. Did you make any designation or suggestion to
party leaders about him?
Mr. Meskill. I really do not remember. If any of them asked me, I
certainly would have said that he would be my choice.
Senator Burdick. What was the nature of your acquaintanceship
with Mr. Gaffney before he became chairman?
Mr. ]Meskill. ^Mien I went into the practice of law with John
Downes, the attorney, it was with the understanding that when his
nephew Brian graduated from law school and was admitted to the
bar, that he would come into the law firm, and that I would leave. And
that was the way things worked out. It was a matter of a couple years
I was in practice with Mr. Downes. Then I left, and Mr. Gaft'iiey came
in, and began to practice with his uncle. That was the first time that
I met him. Then, he became active politically. He ran for the council
in New Britain when I ran for mayor, and we were close political
friends after that.
Senator Burdick. Staff tells me that the biography shows that
Gaffney joined the firm in 1960. Is that right ?
Mr. Meskill. That is when I left the firm.
Senator Burdick. When yon left, he joined at the same time?
Mr. Meskill. He took my spot.
Senator Burdick. I see.
Mr. Meskill. He took the office that I was in.
Senator Burdick. That would be 1960 ?
Mr. Meskill. 1960.
Senator Burdick. A^Hiat was the nature of your acquaintance with
Mr. Manafort before he became commissioner of public works I
Mr. Meskill. I first met him — he ran against me in a primary for
mayor. I won the primary, I was elected mayor. I subsequently ap-
pointed him public works commissioner of the city of New Britain.
He did an outstanding job. I was defeated when I ran for re-election
for mayor, and subsequently went to Congress. He subsequently ran
for mayor and was elected, I think three times. He Tvas mayor at the
time that I was elected Governor. During that term, I appointed him
deputy commissioner, and he resigned as mayor and became deputy
commissioner of public works.
Senator Burdick. Now. when you testified before us in September,
I asked and you acknowledged that the Connecticut legislature was
then currently engaged in the investigation of leasing practices. As
a matter of fact, the public hearings of the committee continued up
until about December 19 or 20, 1974. That committee has made a re-
474
port, dated January 7. 1975. describing leasing procedures, and filed
an appendix on February 15, 1975, gi^^ing the factual findings about
certain specific leases. Now I ask that the appendix of February 15,
1975, if not already a part of the record, be made a part of the record
without objection.
[The material referred to appears above at page 195.]
Senator Burdick. Governor, the leasing committee in the summary,
concluding its January 7, 1975 report, said :
The system of leasing authorized by the state of Connecticut since 1968, in
theory, gives the state the opportunity to obtain real estate by lease under com-
petitive circumstances, and with an opportunity to all citizens to take part in
offering their property to the state. The system has broken down because the
people working it seized upon these means of real estate acquisition as a vehicle
by which political patronage, cronyism, personal spoils system, and friendship
was substituted as the real system.
Do you have any comment about the finding of the legislative
committee ?
Mr. Meskill. I think that is essentially a fair statement.
Senator Burdick. The statement says i968. so it embraces a period
in which you were Governor, and the period before.
Mr. Meskill. That is true. Senator. The report covered a longer
period ; I think it went back to 1960.
Senator Burdick. It says 1968, so that preceded your term and also
included j^our term ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes.
Senator Burdick. I will ask you some questions relating to matters
that were brought to your attention, so that we can determine to what
extent these findings made bj^ the leasing committee apply to you
personally, and to give j^ou an opportunity to explain your action as
Governor to this committee. You took office as Governor in January.
1971. and according to the appendix report of the leasing committee, at
the end of January or early February 1971, your attention was called
to a matter involving the relocation of an office of the motor vehicle
department from Bassett Street in New Haven to 1985 State Street
in Hamden. Conn. The report further states that on February 4, 1971.
you asked the commmissioner of the motor veliicle department to give
you a full report on this proposal. Your request was referred by
Commissioner Tynan to a Mr. Zaniewski of the leasing division. Did
Mr. Zaniewski, make a report to you regarding tlie proposed shift
from New Haven to Hamden ?
!Mr. Meskill. I do not remember. Perhaps IMr. Leuba, Avhen he
testifies after me, can answer that; because he succeeded Commis-
sioner Tynan.
Senator Burdick. I assume the controversy was resolved to your
satisfaction, because the report indicates that the least for the Hamden
property was executed on March 1, l'97l ?
Mr. Meskill. That is not within my recollection.
Senator Burdick. Do you recall that the shift of the motor vehicle
facilities from Bassett^ Street to Hamden also involved the question,
as reported by the leasing committee, of whether the attorney general
of Connecticut could find a legal basis for terminating the lease on
the Bassett Street premises, because of some defect in the leased
premises ?
475
Mr. Meskill. I do not know, Senator. I really do not know the
details of that particular lease. I think that Mr. Leiiba can shed some
light on it.
Senator Burdick. Do you recall ever getting a report from the
attorney general indicating whether that lease could or could not be
terminated ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not remember one, Senator. I cannot say that one
was not sent.
Senator Burdick. You do not recall any advice your attorney gen-
eral gave you about the termination of that lease ?
Mr. Meskill. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Burdick. Governor, I would like to direct your attention to
the Downes lease at Waterford, Conn. The lessor of this lease was
Frank E. Downes Construction Co., of which Frank E. Downes was
president and treasurer, and John E. Downes was vice president and
secretary. The Frank E. Downes involved in this matter is the uncle
of J. Brian Gaffney, who is designated as chairman of the Republican
Party. Do you know that to be a fact ?
Mr. Meskill. That is a fact. He was elected chairman.
Senator Bttrdick. How long have you known that Downes and
Gaffney are related ?
Mr. Meskill. As long as I have known Brian Gaffney, because Frank
Downes is attorney John Downes' brother. When I was in that firm,
I met Frank Downes, and I met Brian Gaffney at the same time. I
have known of that relationship — if you want a date, I would say 1956.
Senator Btjrdick. Almost 20 years ?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. How is Frank E. Downes related to John F.
Downes, with whom you were associated in the law practice from 1956
to 1960?
INIr. Meskill. They are brothers.
Senator Burdick. Now, John F. Downes, your law associate, is not
to be confused with John E. Downes, who is Frank E. Downes' son,
and as such is shown as vice president of Frank E. Downes Construc-
tion Co. Is that not true ?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. With reference to the Downes Waterford garage
lease, when did you first learn or hear of any controversial question
being raised about the propriety of the terms or the circumstances of
that particular lease?
IVIr. Meskill. The date I would place as June 1 or 2 ; it was a news-
paper article I was asked about in a press conference, I believe, the
same day. I do not remember whether the question came before I read
the paper or afterward, but it was June 1 or June 2 when I was asked.
I remember being asked about the lease.
Senator Burdick. That was the date that the Senator here has testi-
fied that he sent you a letter, on June 1 ?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. You do not recall receiving the letter ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not recall receiving the letter, although we did
check back when all of this was in the newspaper in December. We
found the letter, as I testified yesterday — I believe I testified yester-
47-704—73-
476
day. The letter probably does not stand out in my mind because I read
about it in the papers before I got it, before I read it.
Senator Burdick. The letter would arrive at the same time as the
newspaper article, because the Senator turned it over to the newspa-
pers, I believe the testimony shows ?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct. It was typed, it was dated the first of
June, it was logged into my office at 12 or 16 minutes after 9 a.m. that
morning, and appeared in the newspaper that day.
Senator Burdick. You read the newspaper article?
Mr. ISIeskill. I read the newspaper article.
Senator Burdick. Could I hand you this article, and ask whether
that is the same article that you read ?
Mr. Mesejoll. I believe that is the article. Senator.
Senator Burdick. That is the article ?
Mr. ISIeskill. Yes.
Senator Burdick. Without objection, I ask that the article be made
a part of the record.
[The material referred to follows :]
[From the Hartford Times. June 1. 1972]
Proposed Lease Is Cbiticized
A Republican state senator today urged Gov. Thomas J. Meskill to halt a New-
Britain contractor, the uncle of Republican state chairman, J. Brian Gaffney,
from negotiating with the Public Works Department to build and lease to the
state a proposed highway garage in Waterford.
Sen. George L. Gunther of Stratford told the governor Frank Downes is ne-
gotiating with the Public "Works Department to build and lease to the state a
highway garage on Route 65 in Waterford.
Although Gunther did not mention the relationship, Downes is an uncle of
GOP State Chairman Gaffney also of New Britain.
Gaffney said today his uncle had told him about the negotiations and asked if
it would embarrass him.
"I can't prevent anybody in my family from going about their business just
because of my politics," Gaffney said.
However, Gunther said if the contract goes through the state could end up
paying $967,500 for this lease over a 15-year period and at that time elect to
purchase the building for $406,000 or continue to lease it at $62,000.
"This is a ijotential outlay of $1,375,500 of the taxpayers money," the Strat-
ford senator said. "I feel this is abusive and intolerable and because the precedent
has been established by the previous administration, doesn't make it right for
the present administration to continue it."
Gunther recalled that last week after a story broke that State Rep. Rubin
Cohen (D-Colchester), had an interest in two real estate firms that had been
given "no-bid" state leasing contracts, the Governor said he was going to look
into the matter of leasing.
Gunther said the Downes lease is in final stages of approval. He asked the
Governor "to take what steps are necessary to stop this contract."
Gunther said there should be a complete review "of any other pending
leases of this nature and a new sensible policy of opening these leases up to
public bid."
Senator Burdick. Did you or did you not have a conversation in yonr
office on May 23, about 11:30 a.m., or sometime that morning, with
State Senator Gunther that I refer to?
Mr. Meskill. Yes, I did.
Senator Burdick. In that conversation, did Senator Gunther make a
statement to you to the effect that there were improprieties and irreo-u-
larities concerning that particular lease?
Mr. Meskill. No.
477
Senator Bukdick. What did you talk about ?
Mr. Meskill. The Senator came in. He told me there was something
wrong, that I ought to do something about it, it was very bad. He in-
dicated it was not right, it was not fair, it could be embarrassing, et
cetera. I asked him what he was talking about. He said he did not want
to be too specific. I asked him who was involved. He said he did not
want to name any names. I pressed him for what department was in-
volved. He said, I would rather not say. I told him, unless he told me
specifically what he was talking about, he could not expect me to do
anything about it. I related to him complaints I had about other things,
and actions I have taken, and I said something to the effect that I can-
not send out a memorandum to all my commissioners saying. To whom
it may concern : Whoever is doing something wrong out there, cut it
out. And he indicated that was all he was going to tell me, and he left.
Senator Burdick. The testimony, I think, generally shows, I cannot
quote it accurately, the testimony of Senator Gunther is that he tried to
see you at a prior time, and advised your assistant in the outer office
that he wanted to see you, and finally saw you on the 23d. Do you
mean to say that, having tried to see you before and finally seeing you
on the 23d, he did not tell you what he was going to talk to you about ?
Mr. ;Meskill. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Bitrdick. It was just very vague, nothing specific?
Mr. Meskill. Very vague. Senator.
Senator Burdick. He did talk to you ?
Mr. Meskill. He did talk to me.
Senator Burdick. In a vague manner?
Mr. Mesk] Lh. Very vague.
Senator Burdick. He never mentioned the word lease?
Mr. Meskill. He never mentioned the word lease.
Senator Burdick. Did he mention Gaffney ?
Mr. ISIeskill. He did not mention any names.
Senator Burdick. Did he make any statement to you to the effect
that some individuals were being given preferential treatment?
Mr. JVIeskill. He did not.
Senator Burdick. Did he, on INIay 23, mention j\Ir. Gaffney s name?
I think you said he did not.
]Mr. Meskill. He did not.
Senator Burdick. But on December 9, 1974 — did you, on Decem-
ber 9, 1974, tell John Doyle, who is that aide that I referred to, that
in your meeting with Gunther on May 23, there was talk about Gaffney,
and some allegations -about Gaffney ?
Mr. Meskill. No.
Senator Burdick. In the last half of 1972, did you or one of your
aides on your behalf issue a public statement to the effect that you
were going to look into leasing matters ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not remember any such statement. Senator. I
do not know what some aide might have done on my behalf. I do not
remember any such statement.
Senator Burdick. Getting back to this June 1 letter, and the Jime 1
statement in the newspapers, j^ou claim you read about it in the
newspapers. You are not sure you saw the letter ?
Mr. Meskill. I did see the letter eventually.
Senator Burdick. You eventually did see the letter?
478
Mr. JVIeskill. I saw the newspaper first.
Senator Burdick. Yes. When did you see the letter, shortly there-
after?
Mr. IVIeskill. I have no way of knowing that, Senator. On the ori-
ginal letter, there was a notation that I had seen it, but it was not
dated. At that time, we had all these bills in the legislature, and some-
times I did not see my mail for a couple of days, because I was buy
with the bills. But I did see the letter eventually.
Senator Bupjjick. When you did receive the letter, and you got some
information about it, did you then reply to the Senator ?
Mr. Meskill. I did not.
Senator Burdick. Is it not rather odd that a member of your party
writes you a letter and you do not acknowledge it or reply to it?
Mr. Meskill. It is unusual, except when I read about a letter to me,
criticizing my administration, in the newspapers before I received
the letter, I have a little different attitude toward it. Senator Gimther
was a frequent critic, almost a weekly critic, and I admit I should have
answered the letter. But from our records, I cannot find in my records
that we ever answered the letter.
Senator Burdick. At or about the time of the Gunther letter, at or
about the time of June 1, is it a fact that a day or two after you
saw it, a small item appeared in the newspaper indicating that you
were going to look into the matter of leasing ?
Mr. Meskill. That may be. Senator. I do not remember. I may have
been asked to look into it, and I may have said yes. I do not remember.
Senator Burdick. Is it not a ,f act that in May 1972, the State leasing
procedures were a matter of general discussion and information by
tlie public, at least by the various news media in Connecticut at that
time ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not remember. I would have to go back and read
the papers.
Senator Burdick. In May 1972 did you cause ah investigation to
be made into the Downes Waterford leasing matter?
Mr. Meskill. An inquiry was made by my oflSce of Commissioner
Kozlowski, and the postion of Commissioner Kozlowski was that the
Waterford lease was a good lease for the State.
Senator Burdick. Did you personally talk to Kozlowski ?
Mr. Meskill. I did not.
Senator Burdick. Wlio did ? Do you know ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know. It would have been someone on my
staff.
Senator Burdick. Was it a gentleman bv the name of Paige?
Mr. Meskill. He was on my staff at the time. He may have contacted
Commissioner Kozlowski. I believe Commissioner Kozlowski's posi-
tion on the lease was reported in the newspapers. It seems to me I saw
something in the newspapers as well.
Senator Burdick. Was Paige a member of the so-called Kiddie
Corps that we heard about yesterday?
Mr. ]\Ieskill. He was one of the young members of my staff. Sena-
tor. He is now a State senator.
Senator Burdick. Was he assigned to the Kozlowski situation?
Mr. Meskill. At that time I believe public works was one of the
departments that he covered for my office.
479
Senator Burdick. It is quite natural that he would be the one to
make the contact ?
Mr. ISIeskill. That would appear to be natural.
Senator Buedick. You cannot be sure about that ?
Mr. Meskill. I cannot be. But he may very well have been the one.
Senator Burdick. Anyone, whether it was this gentleman or another
aide, or another Kiddie Corps guy that reported to Kozlowski ?
Ml'. IMeskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. Did he report the following, I am taking this
from the Leasing Cormnittee's report. Did he report to you the follow-
ing language, or the substance of it, that Kozlowski had said, and I
quote : "That he has suspected that the lessors had obtained inside in-
formation since detailed proposals came in so soon after the official
request for space received by the Department of Public Works." Did
he state that this was unfair and that it undermined the Department
of Public Works' authority and ability for the State to provide fair
rentals ?
Mr. Meskill. No.
Senator Burdick. He did not ?
Mr. Meskill. I never had any such report from that department.
Senator Burdick. Did you at that time ask Mr. Gaffney if he had
called ]\Ir. Kozlowski for his assistance for his uncle obtaining the
lease ?
Mr. Meskill. No.
Senator Burdick. In any event, on June 1, 1972, Senator Gunther
did write a letter to you that we discussed.
If it is not a part of the record, I olffer it at this time, without
objection.
[The letter referred to above appears at page 129.]
Senator Burdick. In this letter — ^nowhere does Gunther refer to a
May 23 conversation. In this letter he does specifically complain about
the'Downes Waterford lease. As a result of that letter, what, if any
action did you then take, outside of contacting Kozlowski?
Mr. Meskill. Actually, nothing as a result of the letter.
As the result of the newspaper, a staff member of mine made the in-
quiry and gave me an answer which I thought was satisfactory.
Senator Burdick. As I look at the newspaper story and as I look
at the letter, inuch the same facts appear in both the letter and the
newspaper story.
Mr. Meskill. I do not believe it was the same newspaper stoi-y. I
believe it is a subsequent one.
Senator Burdick. The one I just showed you indicates that it con-
tains mucli of the same material as is in the letter.
ISIr. Meskill. That is why I say I was aware of the contents of the
letter, by reading the newspaper story i-ather than the letter.
Senator Burdick. Outside, then, of having one of your staff people
seek Kozlowski, you did nothing else?
Mr. Mp;sktll. T did nothing else because I had faith in Commissioner
Kozlowski. They have expertise in that department. I incline to rely on
the people I appoint. If we had instant replay and I could relive
everything. I am sure I could liave done better.
Senator Burdick. I understand that Senator Gunther appeared be-
fore the Connecticut Leasing Committee and testified concerning his
480
May 28, 1972 conversation with you, and that Senator Gimther testi-
fied and the Leasing Committee invited you to testify. You sent a letter
to the Leasing Committee in which you exphiined that the May 23
meeting with Senator Gunther. "took phace 4 days after the contract
for the^Downes Waterford lease was finalized." Do you recall saying
that ?
Mr. ]Meskill. I said that, but they did not invite me to testify. AVliat
happened was I was told that I had an opportunity to testify if I
wished, or if I wished to send a communication to the committee.
Senator Burdick. Was that not an invitation. Governor?
Mr. Meskill. I would not want to create the impression that I re-
fused to testifs^
Senator Burdick. They said you could come and testify if you so
wished ?
]\Ir. Meskill. They said would you like to respond by either testify-
ing or sending a communication, so T sent a communication.
Senator Burdick. In your letter you said that the meeting on INIay 23
with Senator Gunther "took place 4 days after the contract for the
Downes lease was finalized ?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. Did you have any legal advice from the Attorney
General or anybody else to indicate to you that that lease could not
have been canceled or terminated at that time?
Mr. Meskill. Senator, I asked when this whole business was in-
quired into by the leasing committee, I asked for information from
my commissioners as to the date of any legal judgments that were
signed, and I was told — and I cannot remember the exact date — but
I was told that the letter of commitment that was signed by the State
of Connecticut, I imagine the public works commission, was sent out
some time early in May, the 7th or 8th, something like that; and it
was signed and accepted by the lessor on, I believe it was the 19th.
Now, a letter of commitment is a letter of commitment. I did not
seek legal advice because I am a lawyer and I assume that a commit-
ment is a commitment.
Senator Burdick. You attempted to find that out in December of
1974?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. I am asking whether or not at the time that you
saw
Mr. Meskill. In 1972.
Senator Burdick [continuing]. Saw the Senator in 1972, on oi
about June, when you learned about this, whether or not you made any
inquiry ?
Mr. Meskill. I did not, because the only thing in the letter — the
letter talked about something that was in the process that had not
been completed. This is a lease pending. I do not have the letter in
front of me. Nowhere in the letter does it talk about any relationship
or any improper activity, or any influence or any advance informa-
tion or anything else. All the letter complains about is the exorbitant
price.
Our inquiry to our commissioner was is it a fair price. The answer
we got back was yes, it is, and it is a good lease for the State. We did
not inquire into any improprieties because that question was never
481
raised at that time. It was not until almost 2 years later when the
leasing committee went into all of these things that they go into this
business of advance information and so on.
Senator Bukdick. Getting back, actually it was not a contract is-
sued in May; it was just a letter of commitment of some kind that
you refer to ?
j\f r. Meskill, Yes.
Senator Bukdick. Then the actual final lease was not executed
until some time in July or September of the following year, in 1973 ?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. Which was at least a year and 5 months later?
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Btjrdick. At no time until December 1974, did you ascer-
tain what the legal position of that lease was ?
Mr. Meskill. I knew what the legal postion was, I am sorry, in
1972, 1 mean 1974.
Senator Burdick. In 1974 you made your first inquiry ?
Mr. Meskill. Right. In 1974 I made the determination myself on
the basis of the date that I had been given.
Senator Burdick, Prior to that you made no inquiry ?
Mr. Meskill. No. Not as to whether or not the least was signed,
or anything like that ; only as to whether the price was fair.
Senator Burdick. The legislative committee on page 23 of its report
states the following, :
The highway garages located in Colchester, Waterford, Thomaston, Rocky
Hills and Winchester are all subject to the same abuses and should all be re-
examined by the State for reevaluation in light of the disclosures uncovered by
the subcommittee ; and in each of the above garages the State of Connecticut is
paying a rent that can only be described as excessive.
It also said :
In the instance of Waterford and Winstead the prospective landlord was aided
by the using agency in selecting the ultimate site before the agency had even
notified the department of public works of its need for such space.
My point is had you folloAved up in June of 1972 on this when you
were alerted by either the newspaper article or the letter about the
leasing practices, could that not have been avoided?
Mr. Meskill. First of all, Senator, you listed several parages, some
of which — I did not hear all of them — maybe most of which were con-
tracted for prior to my becoming Governor.
Number one, on the issue of the Waterford lease, I had no notice
of any impropriety or any information which would suggest im-
propriety on June 1 or any time right around that period of time.
The only allegation or complaint that was made was made by someone
who is a constant complainer and who complained about the price.
I looked into the thing that he complained about, which was the price.
The answer I got satisfied me at that time.
Senator Burdick. If the price was excessive, was it a legitimate
complaint ?
Mr. Meskill. If it was, I was told it was not. I can only tell you
what I knew and what I did not know, and what I did do and what
I did not do, and why I did not do it.
Senator Burdick. Is it your contention. Governor, that the letter of
commitment that had been issued 4 days before the conversation with
the Senator prevented you from taking any legal action?
482
Mr. IVIeskill. No.
Senator Burdick. You thought you still could do it ?
Mr. ISIeskill. If I felt that the lease was unconscionably long, illegal,
or anything of this nature, obviously an action could be brought to
void it. The only issue that was raised was price. My investigation in-
dicated it was a fair price, so I saw no reason to stop the lease.
Senator Burdick. In this chronology, let us step down further into
June. On June 27 of that same year. 1972, did you receive a letter from
a Mr. Toby Moffett also complained to you about this same situation ?
Mr. Meskill. I received a letter from Mr. Moffett in which he com-
plained about the fact that Commissioner Kozlowski would not turn
over certain files to him or would not make them available to him.
My recollection is the commissioner's reason for refusing to do that
was because the information dealt with negotiations which were taking
place at the time and might affect negotiations that the State was
involved in.
Senator Burdick. The commitment was signed several weeks before
that?
Mr. Meskill. I believe that the letter that Mr. Moffett sent was more
than one lease. I am not sure. I do not have the letter.
Senator Burdick. It dealt with the DoAvnes lease.
Mr. Meskill. Did it deal with that?
Senator Burdick. You may see it.
Mr. Meskill. May I read from the letter. Senator ?
Senator Burdick. Certainly. Read the whole letter.
Mr. ISIeskill. All right.
Dear GtOvernor : I am writing you about an issue that seems to be of increas-
ing concern to a large number of citizens in our State — the issiie of secrecy in
government — and I am urging you to recognize the depth of that concern and to
act in a matter that best serves the public interest.
On June 14, our organization, the Connecticut Citizens Action Group, requested,
in writing, to the Public Works Commissioner Edward J. Kozlowski, access to
the Department file on the leasing of the highway garage in Waterford. More
specifically, we petitioned for information regarding the selection of the Downes
Construction Company, Inc., of New Britain, as recipient of a "Letter of Com-
mitment" for that lease.
We are most concerned that such "Letters of Commitment" sufficiently bind
both the State and the contractor to fix leasing, purchasing prices, and all other
obligation in a way that damages competition and precludes further significant
financial negotiations.
It kind of agrees with my legal opinion, although I know he is not
a lawyer.
Senator Burdick. Bead on.
Mr. Meskill. Reading :
On June 16, Commissioner Kozlowski advised us that our request had been
denied, basing his action on the rationale that such disclosure "would adversely
affect the State's financial security."
Feeling that our reasonable request to provide citizens with acccess to informa-
tion on our State's contractual process had been unreasonably denied, we again
wrote the Commissioner requesting both reconsideration and elaboration on
the grounds of denial.
Today we received a second letter from Commissioner Kozlowski stating that :
"In view of the fact that the Public Works Department is currently engaged in
other negotiations for a highway garage facility, we find that the financial se-
curity and interests of the State of Connecticut would be adversely affected by
release of this file at this time."
483
We believe that the Commissioner's reliance on the financial security exemp-
tion constitutes a blatant abuse of the "Right to Know" statute and a tragic
denial of citizens rights.
And he goes on.
Senator Scott. Could I see that letter ?
Senator Burdick. Surely.
Mr. Meskill. Reading :
You are aware, of course, that the Downes lease has created what appears
to be a great deal of public concern and controversy. When compared with the
very deep issue of public credibility in government, the notion of damage to the
financial security of this State is of minimal importance.
There is no evidence that the disclosure of such information would harm
Connecticut financially. Nor is there any validity to the Commissioner's conten-
tion that negotiations for other highway garage facilities would be adversely
affected. One could, in fact, assert with good reason that the financial security
of the State will only be enhanced by the full disclosure of this and other files
of highway garage leases.
We urge that you utilize your power as Chief Executive to see that the Downes
file is made available to us and any other citizens immediately.
Senator Burdick. Governor, the point I am making is that this is
the second time that you were alerted in the month of June 1972 about
that lease. Did you do anything after that?
INIr. Meskill. I answered this letter.
Senator Btjrdick. Did you do anything?
Mr. ISIeskill. No.
Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman, could we get an identification here?
Is this signed by Mr. Moffett ?
Mr. Meskill. This is signed by Mr. Moffett, dated June 27, 1972,
complaining about his inability to get certain information from the
public works commissioner.
Senator Scott. Is that Mr. Moffett not the gentleman who became
the Democratic candidate for Congress and was elected in the last
election ?
Mr. Meskill. The same gentleman, Senator.
Senator Buedick. Would you also provide the answer to the letter
and we will put them both in the record at this time, without objection.
Mr. Meskill. I do not believe I have it with me.
Senator Burdick. Would you provide it ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes.
[The letters referred to follow :]
Public Works/Leases,
July 12, 1972.
Mr. Toby Moffett,
Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group,
Hartford, Conn.
Deab Mr. Moffett : Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1972.
Whether or not the information you requested from Public Works Commis-
sioner Edward J. Kozlowski is made available at this time is up to his
discretion. The Public Works Department is continually negotiating leases and
to make public this information might seriously affect the outcome of some future
proposal.
However, Commissioner Kozlowski has assured me that as soon as this lease
is approved by the Attorney General's oflSce he will supply you with a copy.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
GOVERWOB.
484
Connecticut Citizen Action Group,
Hartford, Conn., June 27, 1972.
Gov. Thomas Meskill,
State Capitol,
Hartford, Conn.
Deab Governor : I am writing to you about an issue which seems to be of in-
creasing concern to large numbers of citizens in our State ; the issue of secrecy
in government. And I am urging you to recognize the depth of that concern and
to act in a manner which best serves the public interest.
On June 14, our organization, the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, requested
in writing to Public Works Commissioner Edward J. Kozlow.ski, access to the
Department file on the leasing of a highway garage in Waterford. More specifi-
cally, we petitioned for information regarding the selection of the Downes Con-
struction Company, Inc., of New Britain, as recipient of a "Letter of Commit-
ment" for that lease.
We are most concerned that such "Letters of Commitment" sufficiently bind
both the State and the contractor to fixed leasing, purchasing prices, and all other
obligations in a way which damages competition and precludes further significant
financial negotiations.
On June 16, Commissioner Kozlowski advised us that our request had been
denied, basing his action on the rationale that such disclosure "would adversely
alfect the State's financial security."
Feeling that our reasonable request to provide citizens with access to in-
formation on their State's contractual processes had been unreasonably denied,
we again wrote the Commissioner requesting both reconsideration and elabora-
tion on the grounds for his dential.
Today we received a second letter from Commissioner Kozlowski stating that :
"In view of the fact that the Public Works Department is currently engaged
in other negotiations for highway garage facilities, we find that the financial
security and interest of the State of Connecticut would be adversely affected
by release of this file at this time."
We believe that the Commissioner's reliance on the financial security exemp-
tion constitutes a blatant abuse of the "Right to Know" statute and a tragic
denial of citizens' rights.
You are aware, of course, that the Downes lease has created what appears to
be a great deal of public concern and controversy. ^^Tien compared with the
very deep issue of public credibility in government, the notion of damage to the
financial security of the State is of minimal importance.
There is no evidence that the disclosure of such information would harm
Connecticut financially. Nor is there validity to the Commissioner's contention
that negotiations for other highway garage facilities would be adversely ef-
fected. One could, in fact, assert with good reason that the financial security of
the State will only be enhanced by full disclosure of this and other files on high-
way garage leases.
We urge that you utilize your power as Chief Executive to see that the
Downes file is made available to us and any other citizens immediately.
Sincerely,
Toby Mofpett, Director.
Senator Bukdick. Your testimony is that you did nothing further
in the lease, the Downes lease, after that letter ?
Mr. JMeskiix. This letter Avas checked with the public works depart-
ment, and my letter to Mr. Moffett backed up my commissioner. I
might volunteer that the attorney general's office provides counsel to
every one of the operating agencies. While I cannot say from personal
experience, I am sure that on this issue, the commissioner had the ad-
vice of counsel prior to sending this letter to Mr. MofFett.
Senator Bttrdtck. Did you talk to Commissioner Kozlowski again
before you answered this particular letter?
Mr. IMesktll. T did not discuss this with him personally. This was
done through staff.
Senator Burdick. On September 7, 1972. the State and Urban De-
velopment Committee of the Connecticut Legislature held a public
485
hearing which disclosed that the Downes AVaterf ord lease was based on
early information on leasing needs which was in violation of estab-
lished leasing procedure. Did you not know that the committee had
held such a meeting ?
Mr. Meskill. I know that there was a meeting. Senator, if that is
what the conclusion was, then I would like to correct my testimony of
earlier, when I said I did not learn about the early information until
1974. That may very well be the situation.
Senator Burdick. In other words, you were alerted on June 1, 1972,
on June 27, 1972, and then on September 7, 1972 ?
^h'. ]\Ieskill. We are talking about three different things Senator.
On June 1 the argument was made that the price was excessive and I
was told that it was not by people that I relied on. Later in that
month a Moffett letter addressed itself to a different issue, the issue of
the right to know.
Senator Btirdick. I read it that the Downes situation is spelled out
there three or four times.
^Ir. Meskill. The issue of the complaint is not that it was Mr.
Downes. The issue it, I think, that they wanted to see the facts and the
figures on this particular lease. The later situation, I do not recall
what they came up with, to be honest with you.
Senator Burdick. After the State and Urban Development Com-
mittee made its report, did you ask the attorney general of the State
of Connecticut to investigate the circumstances of the Downes Water-
ford lease to determine if there was a legal basis to avoid the May 19
letter of commitment ?
]Mr. ]Meskill. I do not remember making such a request.
Senator Burdick. Do you think that the facts which show that de-
partures from the proper leasing procedure, the use of personal influ-
ence and rental terms that are higher than normal, constitute a prob-
able basis for avoiding a contract?
Mr. IVIeskill. Would you repeat the question.
Senator Burdick. Do you think that facts — this is an assumption —
that show departures from proper leasing procedures, and the use of
personal influence, and rental terms which are higher than normal
would constitute a probable basis for voiding a contract?
^Ir. Meskill. Yes.
Senator BtT?DicK. You did not find those facts ?
Mr. Meskill. I did not find the high unusual rental terms.
Senator Burdick. You went no further than to ask Kozlowski ■
]\Ir. Meskill. Tie is the man I rely on. He has the expertise in his
department.
Senator Burdick. In its rej^ort of January 7, 1975. the Leasing Com-
mittee referring to tlie Downes Waterford lease and other leases
stated :
It is the recommendation of the subcommittee that these garage leases be
reexamined, renegotiated, and if necessary broken on the basis of the improper
netivity leading to the confirmation of such leases, which in several instances
could be supported legally, due to the improper collusion between the landlord and
the state officials and employees.
Do you think that is a correct, a proper statement of the situation
in your State ?
486
Mr. Meskill. That is the conchision they reach. Whether or not it is
justified by the evidence. I do not know.
Senator BuRDiCK. Back in February of 1971, when some question was
raised about the motor vehicle department moving from Bassett Street,
New Haven, to Hamden, Conn., the attorney general was asked to
determine whether there was a legal basis for breaking the Bassett
Street lease. Was that not asked for ?
Mr. IVIeskill. As I said earlier, I do not remember that transaction
at all. It was a lease entered into before I was Governor. The inquiry
may have been raised in the first few months. It was not something
that was negotiated by my administration.
Senator BurvDiCK. If it was appropriate in February 1971 for the
attorney general to consider whether there was a legal basis for break-
ing the* Bassett Street lease, why would it not have been appropriate
in 1972 for the attorney general" to consider whether there was a legal
basis for breaking the Mav 19 letter of commitment ?
Mr. INIeskill. As I say', I do not know anything about the earlier
one, so I cannot compare the two.
Senator Burdick. Let me direct your attention to the so-called
Phoenix Building in Hartford. You may refer to page 36 of our first
record of hearings.
Was the Travelers Insurance Co. a client of John F. Downes* firm
when you were associated with him in 1956 to 1960 ?
Mr. ]Meskii.l. I believe that ]Mr. Downes did some defense work for
Travelers during that period of time.
Senator Burdick. Was the Travelers Insurance Co. a client of the
firm Meskill, Dorsev, Sledzik, & Walsh when you were in that firm
from 1964 to 1970? ^
Mr. Meskill. Yes.
Senator Buedick. The Phoenix Building was owned by Travelers
Insurance Co. After Travelers concluded they had no further use for
the building, did they first try to arrange a tax-deductible gift of
the building to the State ? Is that not correct ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes, that is correct.
Senator Burdick. On June 19, 1973, it was determined that the IRS
would not approve it as a tax-free gift ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know that. The only thing I can tell you about
it is that I made the request of one of the top people in IRS as to
whether or not they would depart from the usual rule of not deter-
mining in advance the deduction that would be allowed in view of
the fact that the company wished to make this gift to the State, and it
was for educational purposes. It was a high density area and there
was great need. After that, I had no contact with either Travelers or
the IRS up until the time that I was advised by a member of my
staff that the gift was offered and we were not going to be given the
property.
Senator Burdick. Did you have conversations with IRS yourself?
Mr. Meskill. I had a conversation with a Deputy Commissioner
myself.
'Senator Burdick. On July 10, 1973, Dr. Banks of the Greater Hart-
ford Community College met with Mr. Manafort, who was then
commissioner of public works and discussed the fact that the Phoenix
487
Building would be a good structure to have for the college. Is this
right as far as you know ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know.
Senator Buedick. On July 16, 1973, did trustees of the regional
college board pass a resolution authorizing college officials to nego-
tiatewith Mr. Manafort for the purchase of the Phoenix Building?
Do you know that ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know that, but I did see the copy of the letter
that was included in the ABA report. ^
Senator Burdick. You do not deny it ?
ilr. Meskill. I do not deny that the letter was sent. I do not recol-
lect it.
Senator Burdick. On August 20, 1973, did the college board mem-
bers meet with you to discuss the needs of the college and the pur-
chase of the building?
Mr. Meskill. I do not remember. I do not remember the day. I
would have to go back.
Senator Burdick. On or about that time ?
Mr. Meskill. I really do not remember.
Senator Burdick. This was reported in the press.
ISIr. Meskill. It is possible. There were many meetings over finding
a home for the Hartford Community College. They were in danger
of losing their accreditation.
Senator Burdick. As far as you can recollect, was Mr. Manafort
present at the meeting ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not remember the meeting, so I do not know if
he was there. I would say this. Stewart Smith of my office is here,
and he handled higher education. Now if you wish to inquire of him,
I am sure he may be able to shed some light on that.
Senator Burdick. On September 3, 1973, Dr. Banks and the execu-
tive director of the college board, told Mr. Manafort of their interest
in buying the Phoenix Building to use as the college. Do you know if
that is the fact?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know that.
Senator Burdick. On September 7, 1973, Donald McGannon, com-
missioner of higher education of the State wrote you as Governor to
advise that the Phoenix Building could be purchased for $41^ million.
Mr. Meskill. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. The Connecticut Legislature, in effect, at that
time had appropriated $20 million to construct the community college
facilities.
Mr. Meskill. I think that budget includes more.
Senator Burdick. More than $20 million ?
Mr. Meskill. I think that is a bond appropriation. What is the
date?
Senator Burdick. I do not have the date.
Mr. Meskill. I am sure it is part of our capital budget, and I am
sure that it includes more than the Hartford Community College.
Senator Burdick. It did include appropriations for the acquisition
of college facilities?
IVIr. Meskill. Without looking at the budget, Senator. I will not
dispute it.
488
In Connecticut Me have a universit}' with several branches. We have
one, two, three, four State colleges, and we also have a half a dozen
community colleges.
Senator Btjrdick. After you received the letter of September 7,
1973, did you discuss the Phoenix Building with Manafort?
Mr. Meskill. Which letter is that, Senator ?
Senator Burdick. The one that Donald McGannan, the chairman,
wrote to you.
Mr. Meskill. I did not.
Senator Burdick. That told you that it could be bought for $4i/^
million.
Mr. Meskill. I did not.
Senator Burdick. You did not discuss that?
Mr. Meskill. I did not personally discuss it with him.
There is something that should be understood at this time.
Senator Burdick. After you got the letter from the commissioner
of higher education, what did you do with it ?
Mr. Meskill. I answered his letter. You have a copy of the answer.
Senator Burdick. Do you have a copy with you ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not have a copy.
Senator Burdick, Could you supply it?
Mr, Meskill. I think it is in the ABA report.
Senator Burdick. Did you indicate an interest in the proposition?
Mr. Meskill. I thanked him for his interest. I did not indicate an
interest in it because there were several other buildings being con-
sidered, I think this is something we had better get out on the table
right now because there is an allusion here that has to be corrected.
The first problem is there seems to be the feeling that once the gift
fell through that we could have bought the building for $414 million,
and we missed out on a bargain. Let us go back and remember what the
process is that we are talking about for acquiring property. The only
time that I was interested in the Phoenix building over and above any
other building was when I thought we could get it free. Once it became
a question of not being able to get it free, then my obligation is I have
to consider all other alternatives. I have to consider other sites, other
properties. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford was very
interested in us buying a property called the House of the Good
Shepherd, a facilit}^ that they no longer use. They wanted us to buy
that for a communitj^ college. The Hartford Seminary Foundation
wanted us to buy their property. The RPI had some property they
wanted to sell. It was later on. Later on a hotel in Hartford wanted us
to buy that and use that. It was not a question that we were going to buy
the Phoenix building, that we took too long, spent too ]nuch,''and let
the building go in between.
The question here is how can you be fair to all of tlie parties
involved ?
Maybe I can help with some of the later questions by saying the
question raised later on was, why did you Avant to lease" it when you
later bought it, and you had already expressed a preference for
purchase.
The city of Hartford was very concerned and very much opposed to
our purchasing the Phoenix building, because the Phoenix buildino-
489
when it was owned by the Travelers Insurance Co. produced $1 million
of revenue a year for the city of Hartford, already hard-pressed with
budget problems.
The city of Hartford's position was if you are going to buy a build-
ing, buy something already tax exempt; buy the House of the Good
Shepherd ; buy something else not presently on our tax rolls. This was
one of the factors that mitigated in favor of leasing as against purchase.
The fact remains that the people who were involved in this higher
education, the Community College Board, the Board of Public Works,
the Attorney General's office, and the Office of Finance Control, they
all had to be satisfied that they picked the right location that is going
to serve the students, and it is the best deal for the State of Connecticut.
I was not about to get involved in saying let us go buy this building,
or let us buy this building. If I had done that, I would have been
showing the kind of favoritism that we all deplore.
Senator Burdick. Did you discuss these things, that you have dis-
cussed with us now, with Manaf ort ?
INIr. Meskill. May I make one correction in my testimony? The tax
was $500,000, not $1 million.
Senator Burdick. Did you discuss these things with Manafort that
you discussed here with us ?
Mr. Meskill. Wliat I am giving you is a summary of the whole
thing. This was an ongoing thing. We had been trying for a couple of
years to find a facility for the Greater Hartford Community College.
As I say, one of the things while we were loking at sites — I say
we — all these various people who were involved in the search were
looking at sites. They kept getting the story. We may be given one.
We may be given a building. This was being explored. After several
months that fell through.
Then we got into the leasing, because I think for one reason the
city of Hartford's interest in not losing tax revenue. Then when the
Attorney General objected to the cost of the lease with the option,
and I might comment he was a candidate for Governor at the time,
and his concern was expressed in a political speech. Nevertheless,
he was the attorney general. Then we scrapped everything and started
all over again.
Senator Burdick. Did you discuss these matters with Manafort ?
Mr. Meskill. At different times, sir.
Senator Burdick. You told him that this was your policy ?
Mr. Meskill. What ?
Senator Burdick. What you just said now.
Mr. Meskill. He knew I preferred purchase over lease, yes.
Senator Burdick. Did he know it was your policy to explore all
other avenues that you just described ?
Mr. Meskill. That is the policy of the State. It is not a matter of
mine personally, it is the State's policy, or it should be if it is not.
Senator Burdick. On September 11, 1973, 4 days after you received
this letter from Don McGannan, Mr. Manafort did tour the building
with a group of legislators, did he not ?
Mr. Meskill. I would not know that. It could be.
Senator Burdick. A week later, on September 18, 1973, Attorney
Allan Schaefer and Harry Gampel, doing business as S. & G. Co.,
490
obtained an option to buy the Phoenix Building for $4.5 million. Did
you know that ?
Mr. Meskill. I have heard that ; I do not know that from personal
knowledge, I read it.
Senator Burdick. The newspapers report that the S. & G. Co.
began negotiations in 1973 after discussions with Bernard Mussman.
Is this the same Mussman who had an interest with you and Mana-
f ort and others in the property at Wethersfield ?
;Mr. Meskill. Yes. Let me just say this, yes ; it is the same Mussman.
The earlier part of your statement, t cannot vouch for.
Senator Burdick. The same Mussman that you were associated with
in other real estate transactions ?
]Mr. Meskill. He is the same Mussman who owns an interest in
the "Wethersfield property.
Senator Burdick. On September 20, 1973, 2 days after the option
was obtained by S. & G. Co., the Public Works Department, of which
Manafort was Commissioner, advertised publicly for the lease of a
building suitable for the use of the college in Hartford. Did Manafort
consult with you at any time prior to September 20, 1973, as to
whether the Phoenix building should be leased rather than purchased ?
Mv. jNIeskill. I do not remember any conversations with him on
that. Mr. Stewart Smith is here; he is much more conversant with
the details and the names and what happened at what time than I am.
Senator Burdick. Did you consult with him at any time around the
month of September ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not remember, Senator.
Senator Burdick. Up to September 20, 1973, only a gift of the
building, or a purchase for $4.5 million, had been brought to your
attention ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know what you mean by a purchase for $4.5
million. I got the letter from Donald McGannon. There was never an
offer delivered to me from any official of the Travelers Insurance Co.
If there had been, we still would have considered all other possibilities.
Senator Burdick. Again, up to September 20, 1973, only a gift of
the building were you interested in, or purchase for $4.5 million ?
Mr. Meskill. No. I was interested in the gift of the building, or
then we consider all other possibilities.
Senator Burdick. You never considered the purchase for $4.5
million ?
Mr. Meskill. No, sir.
Senator Burdick. You never talked to Manafort about it ?
Mr. IVIeskill. I never talked to Manafort about it. I never talked
to anybody about it.
Senator Burdick. On September 20, the advertising for bid was
the first time that a lease entered into the picture ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not have the dates ; I really do not know. I think
Stewart Smith can fill in those answers. I can just tell you what I know.
I was a great believer in having staff go out, and you look at all these
things and come back with a recommendation. I never got involved
in touring any of the facilities.
Senator Burdick. Was it your policy that you preferred purchase
rather than lease ?
491
]Mr. Mkskill. (Teiicially, I preferred not bTiyin2r anything we did
not need. If we needed something, I preferred to take it by gift. If
■we could not get it by gift, I preferred a purchase rather than lease.
Excuse me.
^ly counsel tells me that there was a property upstate that was
■eventually going to be used, and there was some interim leasing that
was being considered for this purpose. I really do not know these
details, and I would much prefer that he testify to them. I do not
know.
Senator Bukdick. How far from Hartford was that upstate
property ?
Mr. Meskill. ^fy recollection was. it was Windsor, but my counsel
says it is Enfield, which would have been 20 or 25 miles, depending on
which town we are talking about.
Senator Bukuick. We are talking about a community college in
Hartford.
;Mr. ]Meskill. (Greater Hartford; and Windsor is in Greater Hart-
ford. I thoujrht it was Windsor. It is Windsor, and maybe 10 miles
from downtown Hartford. The State owns some property there that
was considered as an eventual site for a campus.
Senator Boiukk. On December 27, 1973, INIanafort notified S. & G.
Co. that its lease proposal had been chosen. Do you know that?
]Mr. Meskill. I do not know that. Perhaps I should bring up Mr.
Smitli. I do not wish to dodge; I just do not know the answers.
Senator Buudkk. We will continue on. If you do not know them,
we will not ask any more questions in that area. Did Manafort talk
to you about a lease rather than a purchase at any time after Septem-
ber 7. 1973. when, by letter, McGannan told you the building would be
bought for $4..") million?
Mr. ]Meskill. I do not remember a conversation where we talked
about lease versus purchase, because any letter from McGannan, or
anything connected with that date, we talked about after the attorney
general raised the question of cost. And we decided to scrap the whole
project and start all over again and consider all the sites that were
originally considered, plus any new ones. I expressed a preference
for purchase at that time.
Senator BrRnicK. ^ly understanding of the terms of the proposed
lease of the Phoenix Building that INIanafort approved calls for a
rent of $27.6 million over a 25 year term with an option for the State
to purchase the building 1 year after the lease for $8.6 million?
^Ir. Meskill. I do not know the numbers.
Senator Burdick. You did not know that ?
^Ir. ]Meskill. I do not know the figures. I cannot give you the figures.
Senator Burdick. You say you would rather have some property
given to you than buy it. that $4.5 million was pretty high. It seems
to me S8.6 million is higher than $4.5 million.
Mr. Meskill It certainly was. But $4.5 million would have been the
higest price we would have paid for any community college in the
State.
Senator Burdick. This was an option negotiated by Manafort with
a price at $8.6 million.
47-704r— 7£
492
Mr. Meskill. Senator, I do know that there were extensive renova-
tions involved in this whole project. As I say, the numbers I cannot
give you.
Senator Burdick. Did you ever investigate what the cost of that
renovation was ?
Mr. INIeskill. This has all been investigated and reviewed and gone
over and over again. As I say, Mr. Leuba is here, he can answer these
questions on what was included and what was not, and INIr. Smith can
answer those questions. I rely on their judgment when I said, how does
it look. And the attorney general also approved of this eventual
purchase.
Senator Bitrdick. Under the lease procedure of the State, in addi-
tion to Mr. JNIanafort the Attorney general had to approve the lease
also?
jNIr. !Mesktll. That is correct.
Senator Burdick. On February 26, 1074. the attorney general re- i
fused to approve it because of the legal technicalities, and because it :
was exorbitant.
]Mr. Meskill. Ke raised objections — I cannot quote him — but he
raised objections to it.
Senator Burdick. One of the objections was that the terms were
exorbitant ?
Mr. ^Meskill. That is right. <
Senator Burdick. On IVfarch 4, 1974, you, as Governor, ordered '
INIanaf ort to cancel the lease ? ■
Mr. Meskill. I am not sure of the date, but that did follow shortly ;
thereafter. \
Senator Burdick. Why ?
]Mr. ]\[eskill. As I said at a press conference, this project had tre- |
mendous interest in it. Unless there was complete public confidence i
in the transaction, then I thought we should scrap it and start all over ;
again. We did not want to have anything go through where there Avas j
anv question about it. There were these great competing interests on i
whose property were we going to buy, and where was the school going '•
to be located.
Senator Burdick. By that time there was a lot of press coverage on 'i
thr' situntion; was there not?^ |
Mr. Meskill. There certainly was. There has been press coverage |
on this ever since I Avas inaugurated, because of the threat of losing
accreditation.
Senator Burdick. The press coverage dealt with the terms of the ,
arrangement, too ; did it not ? i
^ri-/]\[ESKTLL. I am sure they were covered.
Senator Burdick. EA^entuallv, on April 16, 1974, IVIanafort agreed J
to purchase the Phoenix Building from the, S. & G. Co. for $7,350,000 f
after S. & G. completed certain renovations? ',
]Mr. TNIeskill. That could be true ; I do not know to my own knowl-
ed<re. The figures sound right, and that sounds about the time. !
Senator Burdick. Under this purchase, the State acquired for $7,350,
000 a renovated building it could have purchased at one time for $4.5 ,
million?
493
Mi: Meskiij,. I do not think tliat is correct. I think we are talking
apples and oranges. The original pnrchase price did not inclnde
renovations.
Senator Burdick. That is right. I say the building could have been
purchased at $4.5 million. It is a question of how much renovation was
done since that time.
Mr. Meskill. I do not know.
Senator Burdick. Do j^ou have any evidence that there was almost
$3 million worth of renovations?
;Nrr. Meskiel. I will have to call on my expert again, Senator.
Senator, I cannot tell you what the'cost of renovations would have
been, althouirh perhaps another witness could. I only point out, no
matter what the price was at that time, I still had the obligation to
consider other alternatives. The pressures at that time were not to buy
the Phoenix Building, period, when we had the city of Hartford,
which alreadv had been impacted by many other factors, concerned
with this tremendous loss of tax revenue. In fairness to other people
who wanted to sell their property, if we were going to buy. the pres-
sures from the various interest groups were to consider other prop-
■erties owned bj^ charitable institutions — churches and the like — if we
wei-e going to buy at all.
If we were going to l)uy property presently on the grant list, then
we were going to so that the city of Plartford would collect the taxes.
In this case, it was one-half million dollars a year.
Senator Bitjoick. In any event, everything came to a head and the
Attorney GeneraPs refusal became public and you stepped in and
stopped the lease ?
Mr. Meskill. I think that is a fair statement.
Senator Burdick. By the way. did the purchase price — the $7.35
million — did that purchase price include as much land as was included
in the original $4.5 million ?
Mr. Meskill. It did not.
Senator Burdick. What was the difference in land ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know. 1 know there Avas a difl'erence.
Senator BurRDicK. In other words, less land, more money?
Mr. Meskill. I think that is correct.
Senator Burdick. How did this Phoenix situation which you
stepped in and stopped — apparently there was some commitment
there- — how did that differ from the Downes Waterford garage lease
that occurred in 1972?
Mr. Meskill. Thei-e was no commitment in the case of the Phoenix
Building. The letter of commitment pi'actice had been discontinued
hy the department of pul)lic works between the time of the Waterford
lease and the Phoenix Building.
Senator Burdick. Had Manafort notified S & G Co. that the pro-
posal had been accepted ?
^fr. ]\Ieskill. I do not recall any notification.
Counsel said he probably did ; T do not remember.
Senator Burdick. You were in the same legal position in both cases?
^Ir. Meskili,. I do not know. I do not know whether anything had
been signed. The point is, counsel advised me that the Attorney
General
494
Senator Scott. Mv. Chairman, would the same legal position per-
tain where you have an oral discussion, either sale or lease of real
estate, as with a commitment ?
Senator Burdick. I do not know, I am asking the witness.
Mr. Meskill. I asked the Attorney General for an opinion. l\Tien
he raised objections in answer to his letter, I asked him whether any
obligations would accrue — any liabilities would accrue — if we voided
it. I believe the answer he sent back was that it would not. Is that
correct ?
Senator Burdick. Is it not a fact on December 27, 1973, Manafort
notified S & G Co. that its lease proposal had been chosen?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know that.
Senator Burdick. How long have you known Angelo Tomasso, Jr.,
of New Britain?
Mr. Meskill. Thirty years.
Senator Burdick. Were you associated politically? Did he con-
tribute to your campaign ?
Mr. Meskill. He is a Republican and was a contributer to my
campaign.
Senator Burdick. The report of the leasing committee shows that
Riverview Realty Corp, of which Angelo Tomasso. Jr.. was president,
received three leases ; one in Newington. one in Winsted from June 1,
1973, to May 5, 1974. The leasing committee found that the Winsted
garage lease rental was excessive, and that the motor vehicle build-
ing in Winsted is an area exposed to floods and that the rent on the
Xewington property was based on overstated renovation cost.
The leasing committee recommended that the Winsted garage lease,
along with the Downes Waterford garage lease, be reexamined — rene-
gotiated, and if necessary, broken, Tlie leasing committee recommended
that the Newington letise be renegotiated or broken. Can you tell me
if you have done anytliing in regard to this recommendation?
^Ir. ]\Ieskill, The leasing report was filed the day before I left
office, I have clone nothing; T was packing my bags.
Senator Burdkk. Two of the Tomasso Riverview leases were en-
tered into when Mr. IVIanafort was public works commissioner. When
you appointed Mr, Manafort commissioner of public works, did you
ovarii or advise him that he should avoid favoritism or preferential
treatment in awarding leases?
Mr, Meskill. No.
Senator Burdick, Did you advise Mr, ]\ranafort that he should
avoid circumstances that would show— or appear to show — impro-
priety in awarding leases ?
!Mr, ISIeskill, No,
Senator Burdick, Governor, at the time that you transferred Mr.
Xozlowski from public works to the motor vehicle department and
replaced liim with ]\Ii'. Manafort. the State leasing department was
considering bids for a large construction job at the greater Waterbury
higher education complex, Mv. ISIanafort later approved the bid of
the company by the name of DeMatteo to supervise the construction.
Later DeMatteo gave a large contract to the Manafort Construction
Co,, the owners of which are reported to be related to Mr, Manafort.
495
Did yon ever cause an investigation of that matter to be made while
yon were Governor ?
ISIr. Meskill. No.
Senator Burdick. Did yon know that the Manafort Construction:
C(^, was — or liad l)oen — a partner — in a partnership arrangement with
Mr. Manafort and a relative of his ?
jMr. Meskill. I am not related
Senator Burdick. Manaf ort's brother.
]Mr. Meskill. Panl Manafort is one of the Manafort family.
Senator Burdick. A brother-partnership of some kind ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know the relation. It is the New Britain
House Wrecking Co., Inc. I think it was Manafort Brothers doing
business as — I am not sure it is a corporation or a partnership. It is
a family business.
Senator Burdick. I am advised that Mr. Manafort had sold the
stock in that company before he became public service commissioner.
Is this correct ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know.
Senator Burdick. The leasing committee, in its report, recommended
that the construction supervision contract also be reexamined. Are
you aware of that ?
Mr, Meskill. I read the leasing committee report.
Senator Burdick. Has anything been done on that ? ^
Mr. ]\Ieskill. I do not know. 1 repeat. Senator, the report was filed
on the last full day I was Governor. These recommendations were
not made to me early enough for me to even consider doing anything
about them.
Senator Burdick. At this time I request that there be included in
the record, without objection, a newspaper clipping from the Hartford
Times, dated October 23, 1974, entitled "Voters Against Meskill
Judgeship 5 to 3."
[The newspaper stoi-y referred to appears above at page 146.]
Senator Burdick. I also ask that the hearing record reflect the fact
that under date of February 27, 197.5, Mrs. Scott Warner, of Salis-
bury, Comi.. mailed to me nine petition forms bearing the signatures
of residents of Connecticut and the typewritten names of additional
residents of Connecticut and that in lieu of including these 9 petitions
in the printed hearing record that the petitions be kept in the com-
mittee file and that the hearing record merely reflect that the bodj^ of
the petition read as follows :
To members of the Senate Judiciary Committee : We. the undersigned residents
of Connecticut's Sixth Congressional District, having observed Thomas Meskill
both as our Representative and then as Governor, urge you to reject his nomina-
tion to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the .Judiciary Committee ignores the warnings of bar associations and law
professors in the Meskill case, it will convince many people that political deals
continue to prevail over public interest.
TVe can think of no better test of whether there is. indeed, a new improved
post-Watergate morality. The confirmation of a man who is qualified neither by
experience nor by temperament — -especially for such an elevated judicial posi-
tion— would serve only the cynics who say that nothing has really changed in.
Washington.
[The petitions referred to were filed with the committee.]
496
Senator Bttjdtck. I also ask that the hearing record inchide a letter
from Toby Moffett, dated December 25, lOT-t, to Chairman Eastland.
This is in addition to his more recent letter to Chairman Eastland and
his 1972 letter to Governor Meskill which have already been made a
part of the record.
[The letter referred to follows. The two letters referred to whicli
have already been made a part of the record appear on page 128 and
on page 484.]
Unioivville, Coxx., December 25, 191 Jf.
Hon. James O. Eastland.
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washinffton, D.C.
Dear Senator Eastland : I want to express my opposition to the nomination
of Governor Thomas Meskill of Connecticut for the U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-
peals, Second Circuit.
Not only does the Governor lack critical experience for the position, but he has
failed to halt state procurement policies that are improper and often corrupt.
More specifically, the Governor was aware that state leases were being used as
political plums and did nothing to stop the practice. He knowingly withheld in-
formation, requested by me in June of 1972. regarding a controversial state lease
awarded to the uncle of his party's state chairman.
This is the kind of appointment that would only further deteriorate public
trust and confidence in government. Approval of this nomination would strongly
signal that officials at the very highest positions in our government do not have
a sense of urgency about restoring public faith, but rather are content with a
"business as usual" approach.
I urge the committee to reject the nomination.
Sincerely,
Toby Moffett.
Member-Elect, U.S. House of Ifeprcsentatives,
6th District, Connecticut
Senator Bttrdick. I also ask that there be included in the record a
letter dated February 7, 1975, from Edward J. Kozlowski to Lawrence
E. Walsh.
[The letter referred to follows :]
State of Connecticut,
Department of Motor Vehicles.
Wethers/icld, Conn., February 7, 1915.
Lawrence E. Walsh.
Presidcnt-Elcct. American Bar Association,
Nctv York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Walsh : I would be more than happy to meet with your representa-
tive and have enclosed the card you sent.
However, any relevant records, writings, or correspondence and any testimony
that I could give .vou has already been presented under oath to the Leasing Com-
mittee of the Connecticut General Assembly and should be part of the transcript
of their inquiry.
Since I will be leaving this office on February 11. 1975. I am providing you
with my home telephone number (203) 874-3142. My residence is at 31 Gunn
Street. IMilford. Connecticut 06460.
While I served as Commissioner of Public Works, at no time did Govei'nor
Meskill or any of his aides discuss with me any state lease.
"Very truly yours,
Edward .J. Kozlowski, Commissioner.
Senator Burdtck. Senator TTniskn.
Senator Hrttska. Governor, you indicated that there had been a
letter of commitment on the Downes lease on May 19 which you say
was 4 days prior to the meeting j'Ou had with Senator Gunther?
jSIr. ]NrESKTLL. Yes, Senator.
497
Senator ITrfska. Tlint was somotiino after ^lay 19. befoie tlie lease
"U'as sio-]ied. Do vou recall the eliroiioloov of that — the fornial lease?
JNIr. INIeskill. The formal lease — if I Avere guessing, and it would
just be a guess — it may be 18 months later.
Senator Hruska. What occurred on the property in the interim ?
Mr. Meskill. I assume the building was built, Senator. I think the
usual practice at the time was that the letter of commitment — the offer
was made with the terms in it. The lessor would accept it.
Senator Hruska. Then a contract is consummated, wlien the letter
of commitment is signed by both parties
JSIr. INIeskill. Yes.
Senator Hkuska [continuing]. T'pon the basis of which the lessor
or the constructor, as the case may be, would go out and either modif}'
the property or build the property, arrange for its financing, and
when the remodeling is completed, or when the construction is com-
pleted, then they place before the parties for formal execution, the
formal lease, to which reference is made in the letter of commitment.
Is that the way it is ?
]Mr. ]Meskill. That is the way it's done.
Senator Hijuska. That is standard procedure, is it not, in matters
of that kind in conunercial and piivate enterprises as well as Govern-
ment properties? This certainly has been in my observation. Ifave you
any comment on that pi'ocedure ?
Mr. Meskill. 1 think it is ordinary. T l)e]ieve it is what was called
for in that manual that Senator (Tunther put into the record yester-
day. That was accepted in 1968 or whenever it was.
Senator Hruska. Was anv remodeling done on the Travelers
Building ?
Mr. Meskill. Eoth the proposal to lease and the proposal to pur-
chase called for modifications to the building.
Senator Hrl'ska. The purported offer of the building at $4.5 million
did not involve the same property that the ultimate purchase price
involved, did it ?
Mr. Meskill. It did not.
Senator Hruska. In the intei'im between the $1.5 millif)n figure and
the payment of thhe $7 million — or whatever it was. $7.5 million —
were ceitain things done to the property ?
Mr. Meskill. Senator, the proposal — and as I say, I ^^as not in-
volved in the negotiation; I can only tell you what my understanding
is now as I ask <iuestions and look back. Tlie Travelers Insurance Co.,
did not want to be a landlord. They wanted to sell. At that point, the
State was not interested — evidently interested — in buying for seA'eral
reasons.
One. it was a lot of money and at that time we had come away from
the total capital program. I think the feeling of the cit}^ of Hartford
about the tax revenues I think was a fact to be mitigated in favor of
leasing. I did not know it at the time — I later learned it when I asked.
Avhy are we leasin,<r, why are v,e not buying — one of the factors soomed
to be that the first disappointment we could not get it free when we
had been led to believe that we might. And then the idea that Ave did
not know what our future needs are, and the loss of tax rove?iue. the
impact on the community, if we acquire more i)rivate property and
make them exempt from taxes.
498
Your question is correct. In an}^ event, if the State had bought the
property from Travelers, it ^vou^d have had to spend a considerable
amount'of money renovatinj^ it. The lease proposal was that the leasor
Avouhl renovate it and tlien lease it. And I think the eventual purchase
included the renovation because there was some feeling" that the lea-
sor— or in this case, the seller, the eventual seller — could renovate
cheaper than the State could renovate, because the State takes lono-er.
You have to advertise, you have to have so many bids, it has all
these thinjrs that take time.
Senator Hruska. The point is sometimes we yield to the temptation
to over-simplify thinos. We say, here is a buildino- that could have been
bouofht for $4.5 million that' State officials fussed around, they did
this and that and the other thin^, that and IVo. 2 years later, they
buy the same building for $7.5 million, and that therefore some])ody
must have made a $3 million profit. I think the temptation to eng-ao-e
in that kind of simple arithmetic and that kind of simple logic is a
little misleading at times. That is why I refer to this procedure, and
I am glad for your explanation.
The legislative committee, the Joint Committee on Appropriations,
made a number of recommendations in its report which it issued on
January 7. Is the Legislature of Connecticut in session now ?
Mr. Meskill. They are.
Senator Hruska. Have they taken up this matter, and are they
engaged in making a redoing of all these procedures pursuant to the
recommendations of this committee, do jou know?
Mr. Meskill. I do not know, Senator.
Senator Hruska. The work of the committee which is reflected not
only in its report but also in the appendix embraced, as I understand
it, some 54 leases, and they were limited to those entered into after
1060, and these 54 leases were approximately one-quarter of the leases
in effect at the time that the study was made and about 4 to 6 percent
of the total dollar expenditures of the annual lease figures.
Now, as I understand it, these 54 leases embraced some leases that
were entered into during your administration and also some that were
entered into following that. Do you know what the approximate
division was?
INIr. INIesktll. I do not know. Senator.
Senator Hruska, You do know that many of the leases were of
course entered into in previous administrations?
Mr. Meskill. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hruska. Aside from the fact that the Citizens Advisory
Committee was discontinued in 1962 pursuant to the Ederton report,
was there any difference in procedures followed that were prescribed
during your administration and those that were prescribed during
predecessor administrations ?
Mr. Meskill. Senator, I think the date of the discontinuance of that
committee was 1972.
Senator Hruska. 1972, Yes.
:Mr. :^rESKTLL. 1972.
Senator Hruska. That is riffht.
INIr. Meskill. There were three changes I can recall. Two were loc:-
islated during my administration. One was the requirement that there
499
be an advertisement for bids and tliat tlie State publish a notice prior
to entering into any leases that they were interested in leasing prop-
erty for certain purposes in a certain general area. That was one.
Second, there was a bill or a law that required the disclosure, the
naming of undisclosed principals by any person choosing to lease prop-
erty to the State, This also became law during my administration.
I cannot remember which general assembly passed it.
The third item was the administrative change within the depart-
ment of public works in which they got away from this letter of com-
mitment, and I am not really sure of the way that it was handled
thereafter, but the procedure was changed sometime between the time
of the Downes lease and when the Phoenix situation came up.
Senator Hruska. What was the Ederton report, and what caused it ?
^Ir. ]Meskill. Shortly after being elected, I appointed by executive
ordei' — in fact, it was my first one — a commission on services and ex-
penditures to Avhich I appointed Edwin Ederton, who had been the
president of AVestern University, former president of the American
Stock Exchange, to head up a grou]) and to borrow from business and
industry and professional people within the State talent to examine
the entire operations of State government and to make recommenda-
tions as to how we could save money and how we could improve the
services to the people.
They made hundreds of recommendations, many of which were
adopted, and saved millions and millions of dollars. One was the aboli-
tion of this particular leasing advisory committee, the Citizens Ad-
visory Committee on Leasing. I think that they felt that it really did
not accomplish much. In fact, some of the leases that are under ques-
tion I think had been approved by that committee.
They just did not feel that this body really served any great purpose,
and it was one of the recommendations that was accepted. It came out
of that report.
Senator Hruska. Part of the breakdown was that they did not hold
formal meetings, as I understand it. Part of the breakdown was that
they used to circulate by mail or by telephone call the idea of making
decisions. There was no composite judgment, no joint debate, or dis-
cussion, or disclosure in a committee meeting of what the substance of
the matter was. Is that not part of the situation ?
]Mr. Meskill. It is obvious that you have read the report more re-
cently than I.
Senator Hruska. That is what the Joint Committee on Appropria-
tions indicated. They reversed that and said, let us have such a Citizens
Advisory Committee, but let it work properly, and let us work as a
committee and as a formal body instead of a group of individuals who
probably do not engage in collegial effort before entering into the
picture.
In the Phoenix lease over the 25-year period, the lessor would be as-
suming to pay taxes on the property Avould he not?
Mr. Meskill. He would.
Senator Hruska. In excess of $400,000 a year, and very likely an
increase in that, and that would be reflected in the terms of the lease,
would it not ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes, Senator.
500
Senator Hruska. Because somebody has to pay those taxes. Nor-
mally the lessor does not make payment in such situations. It is the
lessee who does it.
In this instance, it was the lessor who agreed to pay the taxes, as I
miderstand it.
Mr. Meskili.. I believe that is correct. Senator, although I could not
say from my own knowledge.
Senator Hruska, That is a pretty substantial bill, almost a half a
million dollars a year. Of course, that should be taken into considera-
tion in evaluating the reasonableness or the unreasonableness of a lease.
Would you say that that would be a fair conclusion?
Mr. Mesktll. Yes. Senator, I would.
Senator Hkuska. These are all the questions I have at this time.
Senator Scott. I wonder if I could ask a few questions, Mr. Chair-
man ?
Senator Tuxnet (presiding). Certainly.
Senator Scott. First of all. I know that the printed hearing record
in 1074 shoAvs on page 88 an editorial by the Waterbury Sunday Re-
publican and at page 42 another editorial by the Waterbury Republi-
can, and the point of both those editorials is that the leasing practices
of the State ought to be investigated, and they are critical of the prac-
tices, and they demand that they be thoroughly looked into.
I think it is therefore all the more important that after the Leasing
Committee com|)leted its report the Waterbury Sundav Republican,
which seems to be one of the leading papers in the State in following
this matter, comes to the conclusion that the leasing report lacks
facts — and I have already read it into the record — and having de-
manded the investigation, they dismiss the essential charges in a sub-
sequent editorial. So I wanted that noted in parallel with their earlier
criticism.
Tlie bai- association on page 58 of its report savs that it is apparently
undisputed that on June 1. 1972, you did know that the State was
entering into an allegedly excessive lease Avith the Downeses. They say
that it appears also to be undisputed that Governor Meskill neA^r took
any action to revicAv the Doaa-ucs lease or any other leases as a result of
this letter.
XoAv I understand you to say that the only question raised was the
allegedly excessive amount, and tiiat you did raise this with Mr. Koz-
lowski. and his reply was that he believed that the lease was acceptable
and therefore not excessive, is that not right ?
^Iv. ^Feskitj.. Tliat is con-ect. Senator. I did not discuss it with him
personally, but tliis is the staff ansAver that I got back.
Senator Scott. From the staff you did inquire and that was the only
point made?
jNIr. ^NTesktle. Tliat is correct. Senator.
Senator Scott. There Avere no allegations of fraud, error, or mis-
take?
Mv. IN Iesk TEL. Xo. Senator.
Senator Scott. The only public allegations from l\fr. INIoffett and
others Avas that it Avas so excessive as to be against the State's interest,
is that right?
Mr. ^Feskiel. Tliat is correct, Senator.
501
Senator Scott. I do not think I have anythinof more. T am j2:oing: to
desist in the hope that we will have time to call Mr. Dorsey, who has
been waitinir in the room, as a possible witness, and Mr. Doyle. I do
not know whether we need other witnesses or not, but I think that the
committee and at least I would like to hear them.
Senator Tunney. Thank you, Senator Hruska and Senator Scott.
Governor INIeskill. many of my questions have already been asked
by the chairman of the subcommittee, and so I am not ^oing to spend
a long- time interrogating you. I have- just a few questions. I think we
probably could get through them in 15 or 20 minutes.
It is my understanding — I was not in the room, so I cannot speak
from personal knowledge^ — -that in answering a question from Senator
Hruska, you said that the letter of commitment bound the State in the
Downes transaction. Is that correct ?
Mr. IMesktll. It bound the State to live up to the terms of the letter.
Senator TtjXney. Was not a similar letter of commitment presented
by the State in the Phoenix transaction?
!Mr. INIesktll. I do not believe so. Senator. The letter of commit-
ment procedure as existed at the time of the Waterford lease, which
is the Downes lease, was changed, was subsequently changed, and I am
not familiar with the administrative procedures used. I know it was
different.
Furthermore, the attorney general raised the question and com-
plained of the excessiveness, and in my response to him I asked him if
we do just scrap this, do we have any obligations? He indicated we did
not.
Senator Tuxxey. In the case of the Downes letter of commitment,
did you speak to the attorney general ? Did he give you any advice ?
]Mr. Meskill. No, I did not.
Senator Tuxney. It was just your impression that the letter of com-
mitment bound the State?
]Mr. INIeskill. Well, as a lawyer we were offering an acceptance. It
was my impression that the letter of commitment is a commitment.
Furthermore, there was nothing — I had no knowledge of anything
that would alter that. For example, undue influence, exorbitant rent,
or anything else, because I checked the exorbitant rent claim with a
man who should know and upon whom I relied, and he assured me
that that was not so. So lacking any knowledge of anything that
would uncommit the State or allow the State to avoid the contractual
obligations. I went no further with it.
Senator Tuxxey. Did you in your own mind at the time that this
matter came up, came to your attention from Senator Gunther, did
you compare the letter of commitment in the Phoenix case with the
letter of commitment in the Downes case ?
]\[r. Meskill. I am sorry, I was distracted.
Senator Tuxney. I was asking, did you compare the letter o,f com-
mitment in the Phoenix case with the letter of commitment in the
Downes case in a way that would give you some legal judgment that
whereas in the Phoenix case it was not binding, in the Downes case it
was ?
Mr. Meskill. T have never seen the letters of commitment.
Senator Tuxxey. You never saw the letters ?
502
]Mr. Mkskill. Either one. ■\Miatever the form of the letter that was
used, whether it was used in the Phoenix case or Phoenix lease I do not
know.
Senator Tuxxey. Then why did yon feel that the letter of commit-
ment was bindino- in the Downes case if yon had not seen it?
Mr. ^^Ieskill. Because I was told that the letter of commitment
was sioned by the State early in May and si<rned by the lessor later
in ^lay, and I have to assume they'know^ that they use the proper
forms and the signatures Avere accurate, things of this nature. I had
no reason to question the form that was used.
Senator Tuxney. In the case of the Phoenix transaction, had the
lessor and the lessee signed the letter of commitment also?
]S[r. ]Meskill. I do not know. The way the thino- came up was that
the attorney general raised the question, and my answer to him — I
asked in effect before I called this off, is there some exposure here, and
the answer evidently was that there was not.
Senator Tuxxey. There was not. and you did not pay any damages
in the Phoenix case ?
^Ir. ]\Ieskill, No.
Senator Tuxxey. I suppose that as far as the public is concerned
in looking at the transaction, not knowing you. say, as a friend, or
as someone who they would have faith in just because of the long
association, I suppose from the public's point of view, the problem
is that Downes was closely associated with you, as family, at various
points in your career, and I guess it is Frank Downes" nephew who
was the State chairman, is that right ?
]\Ir. INIeskill. That is correct.
Senator Tuxxey. At least in the public perception, it could be
interpreted that the reason that you did not pursue the Downes lease
further was that that friendship that you had witli the family moti-
vated you to just what to let the thing go through and not do anything,
and you did not feel that it was illegal, nothing illegal about the prac-
tice. Tt might not have been in the best of taste, but it had been done
by other governors, and j ust let the thing go through.
" The reason I say that, I think from the conversations that I have
had with Senators who have been on this panel and listened to your
testimonv, that is an impression that some have discussed as a pos-
sibility, and I just wanted to lay it out, so that yon can have an op-
portunity to respond to it._
^Tr. ^NEeskitx. I appreciate that because I would not want to leave
that impression.
First of all, we almost have to divide the question here. This business
of whether Senator Gunther said something on May 23, or whether
T learned about it on June 1, has no relevance, except as to the credi-
bil it V saying certain things.
Nothing happened during that period of time that would make
the lease valid or invalid.
The first time that a complaint came to me — the first time that I
was aware of it was a newspaper story about the letter, and the com-
plaint was as to the price. I did not just ignore it: I did not say that
is nood old Frank Downes. I have Ivuown him for a long time. T am
not jjoing to cause him any trouble. T inquired of a man who is not
rt>lat7>d to me or to ^Nlr. Downes. who is not from New Britain, who
503
took an oath of office and was fulfilling his responsibilities, and he
told me through his staff and my staff that it was a good lease.
Now
Senator Tunnet. What was that person's name?
Mr. ]\Ieskill. Edward Kozlowski. The only question that had been
raised was answered to my satisfaction.
It was not until later on that the allegation of influence, the dis-
cussion of who called whom on the phone and all this came up. I
want to make it perfectly clear that I do not condone advance in-
formation that gives one person an edge over another one. By the
same token, even if someone may suspect something because of a re-
lationship, if I check with the people that I trust, who obviously
had no conflict of interest, and they tell me that this is a perfectly
good business transaction for the State of Connecticut, then either I
have to believe them or disbelieve them, and I have no reason to dis-
believe them.
Xow, as I say, if I could play the whole thing back and if I could
have read the leasing committee's report and testimony, and then gone
l)ack and been (xovernor all over again, obviously I would ask ques-
tions that I did not ask at the time.
Senator Tfxxey. The ABA in their testimony yesterday said they
felt that the letter of commitment was not binding. As I understand
your testimony, even though you had not seen the letter of commit-
ment, you assumed the regularity of the letter of commitment, which
would be put out by the State and you just assumed as a lawyer that
it was binding?
Mr. ^Meskill. Senator, if T may correct something that you said, tlie
ABA did not say it was binding, I think they said that the State
would not be obligated to pay the full leasing price. They would only
haA^e the obligation to pay damages and tlie damages would not be
that great if we called off the lease at that time. Is that coi-rect?
Senator Tuxney. Yes. "The law seems clear that the signing" — now
I am quoting from the ABA submission, page 50 —
First, the law seems clear that the signing of a commitment to enter into
a lease would not make the State liable for the prospective lessor's profits, and
would subject the State, at the most, to liability for damages suffered by the
prospective lessor in reliance on tlie State's commitment. Since Governor Meskill
was aware of the allegations about the Downes lease only 11 days after the
commitment was signed at the latest, the State's liability, had it then determined
not to go forward with the lease would have been minimal at most.
Mr. ]Meskiel. That is coi-rect. If there was anything about that lease
that was not right, if I was aware of anything that would make that
least voidable or unconscionable, I would have done more than I
did.
The only question I raised was the question of the cost to the State
and I asked that question and it was answered to my satisfaction. I
had no reason to void the lease just because somebody was related
to somebody else.
Senator, to expand upon that and to show that I think I have been
consistent, if not all -knowing in evei-y case, when we received
Senator Tux'XEr. None of us are.
^Ir. IMeskill. '\"\nien we received the complaint in our office about
a Bridgepoit lease, a Avoman not having been paid, we checked into it,
and we found out the i-eason she was not paid was that there was no
47-704 — 75 33
504
ordtu- in the comptvoUer's office to pay. So Ave checked with the welfare
department and the financing and control and all of these depart-
ments. They all said they did not know anything about it. We found
cvontnnlly that a signature on the lease was forged.
AVe dici something. We turned it over to the State's attorney. He in-
vestigated it and made an arrest and the individual was fired and I
aslced tlie Attorney General to bring immediate action to void the
lease.
So if someone gives me information, that should make me suspicious
of something, I act upon it. But the information that was given t<^
me in the letter by George Gunther only complained about the price.
Senator Ti xxey. In the Hartford Times article, June 1, 1972,
it states that:
Seiia((ir George L. Gunther of Stratford told the Governor Frank Dowmes is
negdtintins with Pulilit- Works Department to have a lease with the State to build
a large garage. Although Gunther did not nienti(»n the relationship, he is uncle
of State Chairman GalTney. Gaffney said today his uncle told him about the ne-
gotiations and asked if it would be embarrassing. "I cannot prevent anybody in
my family from going ai)Out their business just because of my position.""
Did nny of that language in that article alert you to the fact that
you might have a political problem on your hands with regard to the
lease, that perhaps you ought to look into it just a bit further?
INIr. ]Meskill. I was asked at a press conference did I think it was
proi)er. I think I can almost remember the question. Did I think that
it was proper for the uncle of the Kepublicnn State chairman to be
leasing property to the State or l)uilding for the State, and so on.
I said at the time that I did not know anything about the lease
but T did know Frank Downes, that he had been a contractor for a
long period of time, and that I knew that he had built buildings for
the State of Connecticut piior to my being Governor and that he
was not an individual who bought a wheelbarrow^ and a bed of sand
Avhen I became Governor and Gaffney became State chairman. It was
subsequent to that that Frank Gaffney said to me, ''I hope this is not
embarrassing."" I said something as far as embarrassment goes, what
is done is done. Obviously, it is embarrassing because, as you say,
]K'ople are liable to draw conclusions.
But at that particular time the only complaint that was alleged
was as to prices. I say I was satisfied Avith the ansAver. ]Maybe T should
have gone further. If I kncAv then Avhat I knoAv noAv, I AA'ould haA'e
asked more questions.
Senator Tunney. The fact that you read that news article in Avhich
Gunther Avas making some pretty heavy charges, and the fact that
ill that ncAA'spaper article they tied Downes into your administration
in a ])ersonal Avay. did that ]iot give you a feeling perhaps the em-
btirrassment could be greater than just a fi-iend Avho hapi^ens to be
operating in the State and iin'oh^ed in a business deal that somehow
iuA'olves the State goA^ernment?
]Mr. Mesktee. Senator. I did not expect that this Avas ovov going to
be a ]ilus for nie. By the same token I could not. in good conscienco.
order i)eo))le to bring an action to avoid a lease because it might be
embarrassing to me.
T Avould haA^e to haA'e some A-alid reason concerning the ]n'otection
of the taxpayers throughout the State before I Avould do that.
505
Senator Tixxky. As T unclorstand. voii stated this morning- to Sen-
ator Burdick that you k]iew the IMioenix property was for sale in
1072. Is that correct?
Mr. Meskmj.. 1 do not belieye T said that. I belieye I said the
Phoenix bniklino- -was neyer offered to nie. T had no knowledge of an
otier from the Ti'avelers Insurance Company. I had receiyed letters
from other people wlio said, I understand you can buy it. et cetera.
As I explained this mornin<r, once the Trayelers notified the State
people that they were not goino^ to c:iye it to us, then it was a question
of consiclerino- do Aye buy or do we lease? Regardless of which we
decide on, Avhicli property do we select because there were competing
people.
Senator Tunxta'. Eyen though you had the letters from otlier per-
sons indicating that the building was for sale, you did not know that
it was for sale because it was j^our understanding from other sources it
was not?
Mr. Meskill. No; I did not say that.
Senator Tuxx'et. I am sorry.
Mr. Meskile. The fact that it was ayailaljle for sale and Ayhether it
was eyer offered to the State are entirely two different things, and I
thuik this is where some of the confusion was.
I was asked many times. Did the Trayelers offer to sell tlw property
to the State of Connecticut? I said, I have never seen any offer. People
said. Thei'e was an offer. I said, show it to me. The Travelers Insui-auce
Co. is a multi-million-dollar organization. They have a legal staff,
more lawyers there than they have in the Congress, and there is just
no way I can conceive of the Travelers Insurance Co. offering to sell
the property to the State of Connecticut and ]iot putting it into
writing. I said it had never been offered to me. I thought, if it would
have been, it would have been in writing and I would know about it.
"Whether or ]iot there were any cliscnssions as the APA leport says
with State officials, I do not know. You will have to ask those officials.
Even if they did offer it to us, I would have to say. Look, Ave caiuiot
accept any proposal Avithout considering other proposals. And then
AA'e have to decicle are Ave going to buy or lease.
In the case of the TraA'elers, as has lieen indicated, they did not Avant
to lease. They did not Avant to be a landlord. They Avere interested in
selling. Other peojile Avere obviously interested in leasing or selling.
We had — I do not knoAv if you were here at the time. Senator, Ave had
tremendous local interest in what Ave did because of the revenue^ situ-
ation at the city of Hartford, and did not Avant to have this building-
come off the taxrolls becanse they received almost a half million dollars
a year in taxes. They said. If you are going to buy, we prefer you buv
]n-operty Avhich is already not on the taxrolls so that there is no loss to
the city. If you warit to buy })ro))erty that is presently on the tax
rolls, we woidd prefer that yon Avould lease it.
I think, although I learned this later. I think this Avas a factor in
the original decision to lease.
Senator Tuxxet. In that letter that Heniv Fasfan wiotc to vou on
July 17, 1973:
The Board of Trustees voted at its July 16 meeting to have a representative
STonji of the total membership of the hoard meet Avith you as soon as possil)le.
The purpose of tliis proposed meeting would I)e threefold : First, to explore the
506
pos!>ibility of pnrchasiug the Phoenix Building for Greuler Hartford Community
College, with the understanding that for a time part of the space could be used
by other State agencies.
Did you have that meeting' ?
]\Ir. Meskill. I do not remember the meeting. I did not remember
the k'tter mitil I saw it in the appendix.
I AYonhl point out tliat tliat Ijody ]ia< no authority or jurisdiction
to clioose the site for the schooh There are otlier agencies tliat are in-
volved. While that may have been their desire, you cannot act on that
Avitliout all these other factors being considered.
Senator Tuxnev. You just do not recall whether you had a meeting?
Mr. ^[rsKiLL. I do not recall the meeting. SteAvart Smith of my staff,
who is here may.
Senator Tixxev. Well
Mr. IMeskill. I just got a note that I did have a meeting, T do uot
remember it. but v,e did have a meeting.
Senator Tuxxey. You do iK)t have any recollection?
Mr. Meskill. I do not recall tlie meeting.
Senator TrxxEV. On September T. 1073. the Westinghouse Electric
Corp. apparently — it is not clear from the copy that I have, the letter
from Donald McGannon — ^[cGannon wrote you. and in that letter
he said :
It is also my understanding that there has developed in the last several weeks
the opportunity to purchase this property at the cost of somewhere around $4^2
million or at a cost of less than $20 per square foot.
Does that letter refresh your memory as to the impact that it had
U))on you at the time that you received it?
]\Ir. Mesktlf,. I remember getting tlie letter.
Senator Ti'xxky. You do not ■
^Ir. ]\rESK[LL. T do not consider that an offer as an offer from the
Tiaveler's Insurance Co. As T sav. if there had been an offer, we still
Avould have had to go thiY)ugh tlie jiroposition of considering othei*
oppoi-tunities.
Senator Tixxev. A])pareiitly. on Sei)temlier IS. 107?). you wrote to
]McGannon a letter in whicli you said, among other things:
My personal goal is that all of our community colleges be fully accredited,
nnd T have placed a higher priority on finding new facilities for Greater Hartford
Community College within the city limits of Hartford.
You did not pursue the po.-silulity of iretting that Plioenix Building ?
Ml'. Mesktle. It Viould have been im])roper for me to try to influence
the site decision. Tliat Avouhl liave Ix^en the same kind of favoritism
and interventiori that we are all concerned about.
Senatoi- TrxxEv. In general tei-ms you Avere aAvare?
^Ir. INFesktel. I was aware that it Avas avaihible: yes.
Seuator Ti'xxev. Tlie I'ravelers Insurance Co. Avas iutei'ested in
getting rid of it ?
AT)-. ^SfESKir,],. They had Ixhmi dying to peddle that Imilding since
the early sixties.
Seuatoi' I'rxxEV. Thai (hey wvrv Iryiiig (o get the Slate to i)iir-
chase it ?
Ml'. Meskiee. I cannot say I was aware of that. I think they were
trying to sell it. period. I do not think the\- cai'cd who thev sold it to.
507
Once they dccidediiot to ;_nve it to us, they were then interested in
wliat they coidd <>e( for it.
Senator Tinnky. I know that it is very easy to go back over things
with 20-20 hindsight vision. But it does seem on the face of it that
there are a lot of peopk^ who were trying to make yon. Governor, aware
of the fact that Travelers was trying to sell that building and that they
were hopeful that they could sell it to the State. Wh;it were
Mc(Taniion*s reasons for writing? Does the "Westinghouse Electric
Cor]), have any connection with Travelers Insurance Co. ?
Mr. MesivIll. Xo. ]Mr. INIcGannon was an appointee of the other
partv and he was A'ery interested in our buying a particular building.
.Vnd' I believe he probably felt tliat we should just accept his
jiidgme]it.
Senator Tixxin'. The Phoenix Building?
Mv. Mkskjll. The Phoenix Buildiug. He has expressed opinions on
other counnunity colleges as to which one we should buy, but you have
to consider everybody who is selling before you decide on what to buy
for the interest of the college and the taxpayers.
Senatoi- Tuxxey. I suppose that, as we look in executive session, at
(his transcript, I just do not want there to be any shadow of a doubt as
to what your testimony is as it relates to this point, so that nobody
can say at this point that the letter from the attorney general on Feb-
] uary 21, 1974- — excuse me, I apologize — the letter from INIcGannon, the
"Westinghouse vice president and chairman of the commission on
higher education, and your response to him. and the letter f i;om Henry
Fagan on July 17. did not. in your eyes or mind, constitute an oppor-
tunity or knowledge of an opportunity to purchase the Phoenix Build-
ing for a price in and around $I1/^ million.
^Ir. ]\Ieskill. The letter may be available. I am aware of what was in
the letter, that ^Ir. INIcGannon felt that it was available. The ])oint is
that at that particular time that peo])le who Avere in the process of try-
ing to select a site preferied to lease rather than rent, and evidently
Travelers was not interested in leasing. They did not want to be
a landlord.
As I say. even if they had been interested in leasing to the State,
there still was the problem of other people who had properties that
rhey wanted to lease to the State.
I think as I said before, the preference for leasing over i)ui'chasing
at that time was a problem that it would create for the city of Hartford.
Senator Tuxx'ey. The importance, I suppose, of those letters as they
relate to your knowledge of the oppoi'tunity to purchase the building is
the fact that at a subsequent time you denied Iniowledge that the State
could have bought the Phoenix Building, is that not correct?
^Ir. ^NIeskiel. What I denied was that the building had ever been
offered to us by Travelers, and it has never been offered to us by the
Travelers, to my knowledge. I still have not seen tlie offer. I have been
asked by newsmen. They say Doiiald ^IcGannon sent you a letter that
you understood that you could buy it. I did not consider that to be an
offer by Travelers. Even if they had offered it to us, we still would have
an oblio-ation to look at the TTouse of Good Shepherd property, which
the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford wanted us to buy. the
Hartfoid Seminary property and two or three others. There was a
508
liotel downtown that was strngoUng- and Avanted to unload its prop-
erty. Even thongli we ended up witli this particnlar building, we had
no way of knowing we would end up there once we knew we were not
going to get it free.
For US to immediately say we cannot get it free but we can buy
it for this amount, let us buy it, I think would have been a mistake.
Senator Tunnet. The State ended u}) buying it for $71/2 million.
Mr. Meskill. Not the same deal. There were renovations included.
There was less land but there were extensive renovations.
Senator Tunxey. Was there $3 million worth of renovations ?
Mr. Mesktll. I cannot tell you what they amounted to. I can tell
you that this whole transaction was the most reviewed and reviewed
and analyzed and scrutinized transaction during the whole 4 years that
I was (rovernor. and one member of my administration made the com-
ment, if there was only one transaction in the history of this adminis-
tration where all the i's were dotted, the t"s were crossed, no mis-
spelled words, it would have been the Phoenix one because there was
so much interest in it, and because there were so many factors that had
to be weighed, the Hartford situation, the various rather powerful
interests who were trying to persuade the State to take certain action.
Senator Tuxxp:y. Did anyone in your administration or close to
your administration make a profit out of the Phoenix transaction?
Mr. Meskill. I certainly hope not. I know of none. I do not believe
there were any. As I say, I can only tell you, I can only speak for
myself. I have no reason to suspect that anyone in my administration
did anything improper.
Senator Tunney. Was anyone in your administration involved in
the purchase of the Phoenix building from Travelers and then in-
volved in the resale of that ?
Mr. INIeskill. I do not believe so. I really know nothing about the
transaction between the Travelers and the people who eventually sold
the propertv to the State, hut I have no knowledge of any connection.
Senator Tt^xxey. Did anyone from your staff indicate to you that
there might be a connection, considering the fact that this was a tran-
saction where every i was dotted and ever}^ t was crossed as the most
scrutinized transaction ?
Mr. Meskill. Everyone was satisfied that this transaction Avas all
open and above-board and out on the table, and the attorney general
approved of it in the end saying that he thought that it Avas a good
deal. He Avas also a candidate for GoA'ernor at the time that he said
that.
Senator Tuxxey. The statement that Avas made by Edward Shaw,
special counsel to the joint subcommittee of the committees on the
judiciary of the two bar associations, said :
Althoiisrli llip state did not publicly advertise its intention tn lease space for
the colleire until 2 days after this option was proposed, the option ])rovided that
Ganipel and Schaefer's oliliiiation to l)uy tlie itrojiei-ty was contiiiiient on their
ability to lease the i)roperty to Ihe State. Oampel and SdiaefiM- were lirouiilit into
the IMioenix transaction by Tiernard Miissnian. a New I!ritain bi-ol.;er who co-
owns a buildins"; in AVt'thersfield. Conn., witli Governor Meskill. Department of
Public AVorks ronmu.ssioner I'aul jManafort, and ofhers.
Oampel and Schaefer ne,!iotialed a lease of the projicrty to the State that was
so exce.ssive that the State attorney ijeneral ol).iected, resultin.a; in the eancella-
509
tiou of tbe le:ise. (iaiuiu'l mikI Srluiefcr then sold Uio renovated bnilduiK to the
State for $7.3 million.
Although many contemporaneous State documents conlirm the Travelers' offer
to sell to the State, a numl)er of State oflHcials. including Governor Meskill and
DPW Commissioner Maiiafort, have denied that the State has ever had the
opportunity to buy the I'hoeuix property from the Travelers for ^-iVi million or
any other amount.
Mr. INIeskill. I just have to say the statement is not true. It is pretty
lengihy and convohited. There is no such documentation.
Senator Tuxxey. You feel there is no
My. ]Meskill. I do not feel that that letter, a vote of a committee
that has nothinji to do with Travelers, can be constituted as a letter
from Travelers.
Senator Tuxxey. What about the other facts, that Gampel and
Schaefer were brou<>ht into the Phoenix transaction by Bernard INIuss-
man, a broker? Is that true?
Mr. ]\Ieskiel. I know nothing- about how that transaction came
about. As I explained before, my interest in the building which Mr.
]\Iussman had. had nothing to do with my getting involved in.
Senator Tuxxey. Is it true that although the State did not publicly
advertise its intention to lease space until 2 days after this option was
proposed, that their ability to liuy the property was contingent on the
ability to lease from the State? Is that true?
Mr. Mesktll. I do not know that that is true.
Senator Tuxxey. When you say that this was the most .scrutinized
transaction in the State history, you are not referring to your own scru-
tiny ? You are referring to some other kinds of scrutiny, I suppose ?
]\Ir. IMesktle. I am referring to the scrutiny by the -s^arious State
agencies. There was so much input here because Xo. 1. there w^as a long-
felt need, the fact that the accreditation was being thi-eatened, the fact
that it was in the capital city and a large number of people were in-
volved, the fact tliat there were so many different groups, not just own-
ei'S of property, but ])eo]>k^ for religions reasons and others that wanted
a certain building to be used for that pur])ose because they wanted to
sell it. because they could not use it or could not afford to maintain it.
The interplay between should we buy or should we lease, and the feel-
ing of the city of Hartford that they would be hurt if we purchased a
building, put it in the State's name, took it off the tax rolls at a time
when they were already having troulile meeting their budget without
raising taxes, the fact that if we were going to buy. they would prefer
that we buy sometliing not already on the tax rolls; the recommenda-
tion that we lease.
There is no question about it. As far as the State is concerned, in
the long run the State is better off if they purchase, it is cheaper.
When the attoi'uey general raised the question, the whole situation was
changed and Ave ended up buying instead of leasing. The reason — one
of the factors that has been mentioned before was because we did have
some problems with the loss of accreditation if we did not find them
a new home within a certain period of time. This is something that
draoged on for a long ]:)eriod of time.
There were neighborhood pressures: do not sell them this building.
We do not want all those young people in this area with all the traffic
and congestion. It was probably an issue that had interest from just
510
about everybody in the city, regardless of whether they had youngsters
of college age. ^ ^ . ^ . „ , ,
Senator Tuxxey. I think that I can conclude with just a lew last
questions.
Do YOU know Mussnian ?
^Ir." Meskill. I know him, yes.
Senator Tuxxey. Do vou own pro])erty with him ?
:Mr. ]Meskill. I own. along with five other people, a one-sixth interest
in a small. 1 should say unproductive connnercial building in Wethers-
field, Conn.
Senator Tuxxey. Do you know Gampel and Schaeler i
:Mr. :Meskiee. I met Schaefcr once a couple of years ago. I met Mr.
Gampel 3 weeks ago at a reception for the radio station in Hartford
when thev had their 50th anniversary.
Senator Tuxxey. Did you ever discuss the Phoenix Ijuildmg with
Mussman ?
Mr. ;Meskill. No. I never discussed any building with Mussman.
Senator Tuxxey. Did vou ever discuss the Phoenix building with
Schaefer?
jNIr. Meskill. Xo.
Senator Tuxxey. Did you ever discuss the Phoenix building with
Gampel ^
Mr. Meskill. Xo.
Senator Tuxxey. You never had any knowledge — did you have any
knowledge that Mussman had brought Gampel and Schaefer into
this transaction ?
]Nrr. Meskill. I was told that he was the agent or broker by a
newspaperman.
Senator Tuxxey. After the transaction or before the transaction ?
Mr. Meskill. After which transaction ?
Senator Tuxxey. After the transaction in Vv'hich Gampel and
Schaefer sold the renovated building to the city for $7.3 million.
Mr. Meskill. I do not remember. It was after they acciuired the
property from the Travelers.
Senator Tuxxey. After they had gotten the option to purchase, or
after they had purchased it?
Mr. Mi:sKiLL. That I do not know because I do not know when they
got the option and when they purchased it. I could tie it down by date.
It was a couple of days before the article which has alieady been
referred to. I can almost give you the date. It would have been about
April 18 when the newspaperman said to me, did you know Bernard
Mussman.
In fact, he chiimed that Mussman was the agent on the sale or the
lease to the State. And I said, this is the first time I ever heard of it. I
went back and talked to Commissioner Manafort. He said that the
State had not dealt with ]\Iussman. and subsequently it developed that
Mussman was the broker between (Jampel and Schaefer and Travelers.
Senator Tuxxey. The property that was sold to the State then was
not involved?
Mr. Meskill. Xo, not to niv knowledge. I know of no imohement
with the State.
Senator Tuxxey. "Wouhl that have
311
Mr. Mi:tsKiLL. If I maybe could complete this. 1 was tokl by ^Ir.
Maiiafort that neither he nor aiiyboth- in his department liad any
dealings with Mussman on the Phoenix Building.
.Senator Tuxxey. If you had knowledge prior to the time that the
building was renovated and sold to the State for $7.5 million that
Mussman had been invohed in the transaction with Travelers and
Gampel and Schaefer, would that have in any w-ay influenced any
decisions that you might have made ?
^Ir. ;Mi:skill. That in and of itself would not have been determina-
tive of anything.
Senator Tuxxey. As just a fact, it may not have any bearing what-
soever upon anything, but taken in context the fact that you recall get-
ting a letter from ^Ir. McCiannon that the building could perhaps be
bought for $4.0 million
]\lr. Meskill. Perhaps I could answer the question before you have
asked it.
Senator Tuxxey [continuing]. That now was going to be sold to the
State for $7.^ ]nillion, maybe somehow you were going to be embar-
rassed by having someone who was connected with you in a private
real estate deal, having been the broker between Travelers and
Schaefer and Gampel, and as a result of all these various transactions
the State was going to accjuire the same building for $8 million more?
]slr. Meskill. Of course, we have talked before about the renova-
tions and the time delay and everything else, l)ut to be specific I never
expressed a preference to the Phoenix Building aside from when I
kricv>- we could ;,et it free or felt that v> e could gel it free. Then it was
mv first choice. Once it Avas going to have to be purchased or leased
or" anything else, I never expressed a preference for the Phoenix Build-
ino; to any State agency, and I did not try in any way to influence the
decision and which properties to acquire.
I did express a ])reference for purchase over lease once there was the
furor over what the lease would cost us over the long run. I had no-
thino- to do with the decision that we are going to end up buying the
Plioenix. except when all of the input was in and the recommendation
was that the Phoenix is still, after all is said and done, the best situa-
tion dollar-wise facility-wise transportation and in every way possible,
tliis is the best proposal. I said, fine, OK, let us support it.
So that your question about Mussman is really kind of irrelevant
because I had no input into that decision.
Senator Tuxxey. Why was it that the Travelers Company could not
2:ive this building free to the State ?
y.lr. ;Meskill. I can only speculate. The inquiry by Mr. Smith to me
was that at the time we were looking for a site, we may be given a
buildiirg. I said, what building. He said, it's very confidential. The
Travelers is considering giving the building to the State, but they are
trving to determine before they recommend to their board of direc-
tors— they are trying to determine what kind of value would be al-
loAved bv the Internal Revenue, and could I be helpful. And I made a
call and I said — they said, we did not do anything like that sort of
th-insf. I said, we have — this is a very strange problem. We havo a
l)roblem of accreditation. We have an area where we need a facility.
47-704 — 75 34
512
We have a chaiife to get a buildino- Avliich is relatively new. I am not
QYiYQ — it Avas less than 20 yeai-s old. beautiful condition.
I said, this is a tremendous situation. If the IRS can see any reason
to bend so that the company can recommend it as a business exclusion,
it could bring about this gift. I never heard back from anybody. In
fact I think what I said was, get in touch with them. I did not want
to get involved in numbers.
The next thing I knew was that the gift was off. I assumed that if
the Travelers could have gotten a figure of $10 million in their tax
bracket, why.it would have made a lot of sense perhaps. Xot knowing
what value was to be put on the building, they did not feel that they
could recommend it. I am just speculating.
Senator Tunney. Thank you very nmch.
Senator Kennedy. If you had clearly understood that the letter of
May 23rd was dealing with leasing irregularities, what would you
have done ?
Mr. Meskill. I would have checked on what he was referring to.
Senator Kennedy. In wdiat respect ?
Mr. Meskill. If he said to me. for example, the Waterford garage
lease is excessive, I would have checked with Commissioner Kozlow-
ski to check Avhat his opinion was. If he had said, I found advance
information
Senator Kennedy. But if Kozlowski had said OK
]\Ir. ]Meskill. I would have relied on that.
Senator Kennedy. You would not have had any other responsi-
bility to pursue it?
^ir. Meskill. I want to be fair to Senator Gunther, but in all the
dealings I have had with him, there has been a constant stream of com-
plaints^ and in all honesty I cannot remember a single complaint that
turned out to be valid.
Senator Kennedy. What sort of complaints ?
Mr. Meskill. I can think of two or three offhand — he wanted me
not to reappoint a juvenile court judge, a lady, who happened to be
the wdfe of a prominent Democrat in the State who was the presi-
dent or chairman of the State Labor Council, and he said, you should
not appoint her because her husband is a big Democrat. You ought to
o-et rid of her. The input I had w\as that she was a fine judge, and I
said I am not going to knock somebody off the bench just because her
husband happens to be from the other party.
Senator Kennedy. Did he allege impropriety ?
Mr. Meskill. No, it was just a general get rid of her.
lie wanted me to fire the health commissioner. George Gunther is a
naturopath. The health director is a physician and had been a physi-
cian a long time. I chose to replace
Senator Kennedy. On what basis ?
Mr. Meskill. Just derogatory remarks he made, get rid of him. He
is not' doing his job. He was never very specific. Every time I saw him,
he was complaining about one thing or another, and he frequently
complained about Chairman Gaffney, about the way he treated him.
Senator Kennedy. "\Anien were these complaints, prior to the meet-
m*^ you had in May ?
Air. Mesktij.. Yes: prior to that time. T used to see him on a couj^lo
of tin'ies a week basis when he was a liaison man for the senate, and
perhaps I should say because it was mentioned in his testimony, the
reason that lie was replaced — and not by me — but he was replaced by
the senate leadership was not because the senate would not dance to
my song or do what I wanted, but was because the information that
Avas transmitted to him. about how T felt about certain pieces of legisla-
tion never got Ixick to the senate. He would come to the meetings ; we
would discuss the legislation. lie would sound out my views. The
house representative would go back and discuss possible amendments
and my views on things with the Republicans. He evidently went back
and never told anyone anything. This was leai'ued later on, and we
could not understand why it was that the message never got through.
For thit reason, he was replaced. He was not a person whose com-
jdaints were considered that reliable, to be charitable.
Senator Kexxedv. Did you consider him to be just a professional
couiplainer or a crank ?
]Mr. Meskill. I would say a chronic complainer. I think he is well-
motivated. I think he works very hard. He is not a bad person. As
I say, yesterday I do not think he came and intentionally tried to mis-
lead the committee. I think he has convinced himself that he warned
me ; under cross-examination, if you read the cross-examination before
the leasing committee when he was asked, Did you specifically mention
the Downes lease, he said something like, well, I must have, that was
the only lease that was pending. I do not know whether it was the
only lease that was pending at that time. I have no way of knowing,
and I do not think he would.
Senator Kkxxf.dv. Do you now knov/ whether it was?
]Mr. Meskii.l. I do not know. I would suspect that it probably was
not because there had been many, many leases for all kinds of proper-
ties in the State. They go on all the time. I find it hard to believe that
we could capsulate one period of time and say this was the only lease
that was pending.
Senator Kexxedy. He indicated that he had a conversation with you
in 1970 about the leasing problems in the State. Do you rememlxu' that
conversation?
]Mr. Meskill. I do not recall that.
Senator Kexxedy. In New Britain?
INIr. Meskiel. He did mention that. He said in my office in New
Britain before I was inaugurated.
Senator Kexxedy. Do you ever remember talking to him ?
Mr. Meskill. I saw him a lot during the campaign and after the
campaign we were meeting to try to put an administration together
and staffing and all. We may have met, and we may have discussed it.
I do not recall it. If we did, it was very general.
Senator Kexxedy. I suppose that you would remember if you talked
about leasing ?
]Mr. Meskill. I certainly should unless he was just covering tlie
waterfront and talking about a lot of things. I do not specificalh' re-
member that. I would not specifically say that he did not mention
leasing at that time. I do not remember having any conversatio:i.
The one I do remember was the strange one on the 23d.
Senator Kexxedy. Now, during the time when you were Governoi-
did you have allegations or charges about various workino-s n-f v-n,'.
514
departments that alleged any kind of iiTegularitles or improprieties
in which you as Go\-ernor pui-sued ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes.
Senator Kknxedv. Could you tell us about it? Outside of the toll-
takers.
Mr. Meskiix. There was an allegation made that \vithin the city
of Jlartford some Republicans were illegally registering voters dur-
ing a voter registration drive.
Senator Kexxedy. 1 would not think that they would do anvthing
like that.
>ir. Meskill. I felt that same way. Senator. I decided to investigate
anyway. The allegation v.as that they were reported. It Avas sort of
the man who brought in the most votes got either a State job or he got
a State promotion. This obviously would be a violation of the merit
system, and I in<|uired of my departments. The best information that
I had v;as that this had not taken place.
I turned it over to the State's attorney, and I said, look, come in
and irivestigate. and I ordered my commissions to tuni over all the
records, and I said, if anything is wrong, heads will roll. The investiga-
tion was carried on by the State's attorney with the county detectives
and the State police who were made available to him, and they came
up with several irregularities, and the State's attorney general testi-
fied on the '24th of January when we were here last that we had com-
plete cooperation, that he had found some irregularities, most of them
technical, and that he filed this report.
Xo one was prosecuted. There were some an-ests made. T am not ?ni'e
w^iether it was after he had completed his investigation or prior to it.
These were people who were not under the merit system. There was
one individual who evidently was in charge of hiring janitors or some-
thing, and there was some questions of whether or not in fact he had
made promises.
1 think the charge that stuck was as far as criminal prosecution
was some of the people registering voters had filed false affidavits that
people had not signed the form, had not signed these cards that they
affirmed they had.
Senator Kennedy. Hoav did the investigation come alxjut (• V^as this-
somelliing tliat was brought to your attention, or did you read about
it in the newspapers ?
Mr, ]Meskill. It was brought to my attention. Somebody made a
claim.
Senator Kennedy. To you ?
Mr. Meskill. A public claim.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ever, dui'ing the time that you wei-e
Govei-nor, investigate any irregidarities that were not in response to
a newspaper initially?
Ml-. Meskill. I had a letter very early in my administration — I
think it was anoiiymous, it may have been signed — spelling out a pat-
tern of to^;ltnkers at a cei'tain toll both pocketing money and takinij
it to the bank and so on. This we turned over to the State police. They
impounded the records, and there were some arrests made, one or two
convictions.
Senator Kennedy. Outside of tolltakers and the registration alleira-
tions. was there anything else ?
olo
Mv. Mf.sktll. The leasing' one I mentioned, the leasing in Bridge-
])Oit where we found out about the forgeries. We I^ind of happened
( n it because the lessor complained about not having been paid her
rent. "When we tried to find out why she had not been paid, we found
there was no order to pay her. We tried to find w4iy there was no order,
and we found out that nobody knew anything about it. In fact she
finally brought in a copy of her lease, and we learned that at least one
signature was forged on the lease, and turned that over to the State's
attorney, and they investigated.
Senator Kennedy. Had you developed while you were Governor any
kind of rules or procedures as Governor which would try and provide
perliaps a greater degree of competition for bidding for State con-
tracts to develop any kind of program to assure greater integrity in
terms of State purchases or anything like that ?
Mr. Meskill. Yes. Do you want it limited to purchasing, or leasing?
Senator Kennedy. "\Miichever.
Mr. ^.Ieskill. In the case of leasing, there were two, actually tliree,
changes that took place. I think the most important two were the legis-
lative, and I signed the legislation — one requiring the advertisement
of intention to enter into — the fact that the State was looking for a
lease. In the past there was no requirement that it be made public. And
I think
Senator Kennedy. When was that done ?
]Mr. Meskiel. 1973, the 1973 session of the general assembly. I think
there was a bill passed the same year which required that any persons
desiring to lease to the State had to disclose any undisclosed principals,
anybody who had financial interest in the property to be leased.
Senator Kennedy. Were those your bills, or were they just intro-
duced ?
]Mr. jMeskill, Legislative bills which I signed.
Senator Kennedy. They were not at your initiative? They were
introduced by legislators?
Mr. Meskill. Legislators during the time when my party controlled
the general assembly.
Senator Kennedy. Could you point to anything at the time you were
Governor to any action you took as administrator in an attempt to pro-
vide a greater change ?
Mr. Meskill. There was a change in the public works department.
A letter of commitment procedure was either abandoned or changed
between the time of the Downes lease and the time of the Phoenix
transaction. I would point out there has been testimony that I had
really little to do with the legislation. All I did was sign it.
I have been criticized for having vetoed 177 bills the first 2 or 3
years I Avas Governor. It set a record, but only a handful I think —
less than 10 and probably less than 6 — of those vetoes were overridden,
so I point out that my signature on the bill was not a meaningless
gesture. Had I chosen to veto it, the chances of it being sustained
would be pretty good.
But I believed they were good changes. I am hopeful out of all of
this investigation further changes will take place. The system does
need improvement.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ever take any action to look into or
clean up alleged irregularities in the leasing?
516
yiv. ]\Ieskill. I recomniended a commission to look at leasing prac-
tices and make reeonmiendations which was not — which recommenda-
tion was not acted on by the joenefal assembly. I think that was in 1972.
I am not sure of the exact date. It was mentioned at the first hearing.
I may have submitted a news clipping which would give us a date.
Senator Kennedy. "VVliy did you do that ? Why did you make that
recommendation ?
Mr. Meskill. I did because the American Bar Association at that
time made a statement that all these terrible things were going on, and
I did not do a thing about it, therefore by my silence I condoned it,
and I attempted to prove that the things that I was aware of I did
something about, and that I had taken other steps to improve the
general way of handling leases.
Senator Kennedy. You seem to have pretty good luck with the legis-
lation supporting your vetoes. What happened here ?
iNIr. Meskill. It was never passed. The Democrats were in control
at the time. It was easier to veto something and get support for an
override than it was to move the majority who were not of my party.
I cannot say what their motivation was. I am just saying no action
was taken. I do not remember what was said at the hearing or why
they took no action.
Senator Kennedy. At least you were sensitive enough to the al-
legations or charges about the leasing program in the State to recom-
mend that a commission be developed, is that right ?
]Mr. jSIeskill, Yes.
Senator Kennedy. When that was either defeated, or whatever
happened to it, sidetracked, you did not feel any additional responsi-
bility to do anything further?
Mr. Meskill. I am sorry. Senator. I missed the beginning of your
question.
Senator Kennedy. Having been sensitive enough to these allega-
tions and charges made by the American Bar Association that you
developed a recommendation to the Connecticut Legislature to ap-
point a commissioner to develop legislation — to appoint a commis-
sion, and after you knew that that was sidetracked, you did not feel
any further obligation to initiate any administrative remedies to deal
with these allegations that had been made by the bar association to
do anything further?
Mr. Meskill. The bar association complaints were made at hearings
liere, not earlier. These allegations were not made while I was
Governor,
Senator Kennedy. What was the basis for the leasons that you tried
to appoint or recommend a commission on leasing ?
INIr. Meskill. I just felt that the whole area needed looking into.
Senator Kennedy. Once you found that it was sidetracked and you
felt that it was an area that it was necessary to look into, what else
did you do?
iNlr, ]\Ieskill. I addressed myself to the problems as they came up
really.
Excuse me. Senator,
I am advised, Senator, tha.t the legislature took an alternate course
instead of accepting my recommendation. They appointed a legisla-
tive committee to analyze leasing. Tliis was the committee that has
517
been referred to earlier. The puzzle is cominj; together. The committee
on which Senator Gunther served — so I did an injustice to tlie legis-
lature, for wliich I apologize. They did not accept my recommenda-
tions, but they did take ultimate action.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you.
Senator Hri ska. The f-ommittee to vrhich you refer convened in
September 1972. did it not, and proceeded with this work?
Mr. Meskill. I believe that is correct. I believe the recommendations
of that committee resulted in the legislation to which I have referred,
the bill provided for publication of notice of intention to enter into
leases an.d a requirement for making known undisclosed principals.
I think those were the recommendations of this committee.
Senator Hruska. Very well.
The subcommittee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 12 :40 p.m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 2 p.m. the same day.]
afternoon session
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. MESKILL— Eesumed
Senator Burdick [presiding] . The subcommittee will come to order.
Senator Hruska ?
Senator Hruska. Thank you. Mr. Chaii'man.
Governor, we have here a situation where there has been a lot of
talk, and many conclusions formed, with i-eference to the great profit-
ability of the Downes lease, and it has been referred to variously as
being a very excessive lease, an unreasonable lease. Some people even
designated it as a ripoff, and I was wondering if we could not get
into that subject a little bit. so that we will not feel, as we did in the
case of the Travelers Building, of having a building at $4i/^ million
and then having it purchased at $71/2 million, and by great mathe-
matical effort we come to $3 million, that someone profited by, when
it is not actually there for division.
I lead first from Senator Gunther's letter of June 1. 1972. He
describes the Frank Downes negotiation, which by that time had
ripened into a legal obligation, according to your conclusion, and he
says, in the third paragraph of the letter :
The State requirements are for a 12,000 sq. ft. garage, with 1,000 sq. ft. salt
storage bin, to be built on an 8-acre parcel of land. The ultimate lease will pay
this lessor $64,500 per year, for 15 years, at which time the State will have the
option to buy the building for $408,000, or continue to lease at $42,000 per year.
If my mathematics are correct, the State of Connecticut could end up paying
$957,50io for this lease over the next 15 years and at that time elect to purchase
the building for $408,000 or continue to lease at $42,000 a year. This is a potential
outlay of $1,375,000 of taxpayers' money. I feel this is abusive and intolerable
and because the precedent has been established by the previous administration,
doesn't make it right for the present administration to continue it.
Xow. turning to the hearings, the transcript of the Connecticut
hearings held in September 1973 — was it 1973 ?
Mr. Mesktll. I think it is 1972. Senator.
Senator Hruska. The first four typewritten pages say 1972, the fifth
and sixth pages say 1973. But it was September 1972. Apparently in
Connecticut there are typographical errors, and this is one of them.
518
Now turning to those hearings, and I am reading at this time from
page 6, Senator Lieberinan is talking to Commissioner Kozlowski.
and this was after they had laid the foundation of how the original
offer came along for the rental that had been referred to Kozlowski's
department. Kozlowski said it was too high initially and that the
offer was sent back for renegotiation. The offer came back as renego-
tiated and eventually was the basis for the letter of commitment of
]May 19, which was signed by the lessor and lessee, and the following
year written into a formal lease after the construction of the building.
Here is what Senator Lieberman says :
My, I guess I've got a piece of paper here, that previous investigation showed
that the estimated cost of the building by the Downes Construction was about
$240,000 and adding in the fees brought the cost up to $276,000. I guess there
was about another $214,000 associated with the land costs. So that there was a
total, on this piece of paper that I've got anyway, there is a total of $407,000
some odd dollars and a potential return of — I'm speaking as a layman, a potential
return, over a 15 year period, of $1.4 million. Is that — in other words, what I'm
saying is, that it sounds generous to the Downes Construction Company. Am I
wrong?
[The material referred to is printed above at page 406.]
Would you like to take it from there and tell us what you think or
know about this?
jMr, Meskill. Senator, I had access to the transcripts as well, and
this was testimony of Commissioner Kozlowski, I assume under oath.
Senator Hruska. I read from page 6 of the transcripts. Is that what
vou are reading from ?
Mr. INIeskill. Yes. I point out that this was the same man that
my staff contacted to determine — this is on June 1. or thereabouts —
whether or not this was a reasonable lease, or whether or not the com-
plaint of Senator Gunther was accurate about excessive charges. He
informed us then that it was a good lease, a fair lease; and then in
September. September 7, at the hearing. I assume under oath, he an-
swered Senator Lieberman as follows. He says,
I think you are wrong.
The next is inaudible, then it says :
When this proposal was presented, when in the first place we asked why not
build on state property, why doesn't the state build it by capital projects, fortu-
nately at the time, we had a capital pro.iect going in Farmington on the state
highway garage and what we attempted to do was figure out the cost of both
and figure out the time element and figure out which would be more advantageous
at this time.
The next was inaudible. Then it says :
Generally speaking, we felt it wotild be more advantageous to lease. We had
already been requested to lease the facility but we just double checked it because
we wanted to make sure that this jiroposal was in the best interest of the state.
Now, this is a man that T have relied on, and hopefully the com-
mittee can understand why I relied on him ; because I think he exer-
cises good judgment. He goes on and says :
We also compared this proposal to other highway garages which had been
leased over the years and the price is very reasonable. P^or example. Thomaston,
now the annual rental there, I believe, is something like $74,000 a year. Here it
is $64,000 a year so in 15 years there is a savings.
519
It should be $150,000; the decimal point is in the wrong place
* * * approximately. So we did examine it carefully from that standpoint,
wherlier we should build on state property or would it be to leaseor to purchase.
And so, his testimony here is consistent with the position that he
took when w^e checked after receiving the complaint from Senator
Gunther on or about June 1.
Senator Hruska. There was a further question in those same hear-
ings. Senator Lieberman went on to say, and this is at page 5, he
said, up above, about the middle of the page,
What is the final purcliase price ? And Mr. Roscoe says :
The lessee has further option, upon termination of the initial lease terms, may
purchase the premises for a lump sum of $407,770.
Senator Lieberman then asked this question :
So. we are talking about a total state outlay for this project of about $1.4
million over the 15 years, until the point when we can purchase it * * * or about
$970,000 if we do not exercise the option. And, I guess I am trying to relate that
to what the cost construction would have been to the state or in fact, was for
the construction company. Are those figures available?
Comment if you wish.
Mr. JVIeskill. Commissioner Kozlowski apparently had those figures,
according to the transcript, and this is his testimony, and nothing I
had personal knowledge of. He said :
Yes, I believe you have a copy of thi.s — of a comparison of the lease versus the
capital project. At least it was xeroxed by one of your staff or personnel. And
our calculations came this way. In comparison of a lease versus capital projects.
Total lease purchase at the end of 15 years, which would include the rental
plus the option to buy, of $1,375,277, less the land cost of $91,000, making it
$1.L'S4.277. If we wf-rt- ro enter into a capital project, we would — it would cost
about $1,274,511. That takes into consideration the cost of building, plus the
bond interest of 5 percent plus the maintenance, plus the depreciation and it
would have been about $10,000 less expensive. But would have been a building
that we would have owned, we would have had at the end of that period of time.
Then there is inaudible.
But it would have been two years and four months. It was the time frame
that was the final determining factor.
Senator Hruska. In other words, he testified under tlio one plan,
comparing the lease basis to the capital project basis, in the one plan
the cost would have been over that period of time $1,375,000 and under
the other plan $1,284,000. Is that what it is ?
Mr. Meskill. That is the way I read it, Senator.
Senator Hruska. If we were to enter into a capital project, it would
cost about $1,274,000, and that takes into consideration, so there is a
difference of about $10 million there.
:Mr. Meskill. $10,000.
Senator Hruska. $10,000 over that period of time. What is this ref-
erence to 2 years and 4 months? What is that about?
'^^v. ]Mi:sKiLi. I think he explains it in some other testimony on page
5. This would be testimony prior to the testimony that we have just
been talking about. Commissioner Kozlowski said, "Well, Commis-
sioner Wood" — Commissioner Wood was the transportation commis-
sioner and the head of the agency that ultimately uses the facility —
Well, Commissioner Wood indicated the urgency that it should be done right
away and I have made a chart — if we went through the legislature, it would re-
520
quire a total of 2 years and 4 months for the completion of the building through
state procedures and it would require only eight months on a letter of commit-
ment through private capital.
I think this refers to the whole lejrishitive process of gettiii": au-
thorization for bonding and then getting noncommission approval,
and this whole business is quite time-consuming.
Senator Hruska. In Washington, we call it redtape. What do you
call it in Connecticut ?
]Mr. ]\Ieskill. The same thing, sir.
Senator Hruska. In other words, there seemed to be a time re-
quirement here. That time requirement is not even a part of the cal-
cidation in dollars that I read a little bit ago. The difference in that
time element is the difference between 2 years and 4 months as opposed
to 8 months. Is that the size of it ?
]Mr. Meskill. That is right. Senator.
Senator Hruska. Considering that calculation there because we liave
to consider the cost of bonds, we have to consider interest, we have to
consider if it is not interest return on capital. Considering the factors
there would be a period, a shorter pej-iod of usage in that period of
time by 2 years and 1 months, is that not true ?
Mr. Meskill. I would say there Avould have been a savings of 16
months — I am sorry, 20 moriths.
Senator Hruska!^ Twenty months. Avould it not be? Twenty months?
Mr. Meskill. I left off' the 4 months — -20 months.
Senator Hruska. I come back to the language that I started off'
with, where is the ripoff in this whole thing?
Mr. Meskill. Senator, I do not believe that there was a ripoff'. That
is the reason I did not do anything to terminate the lease.
Senator Hruska. These were calculations that were obvious, and
thev were made of record in September 1973. That is not too long aao.
Mr. ]Meskill. 1972.
Senator Hruska. 1972. That is not too long ago, and that is right
in the year that the letter of commitment was signied. All of the per-
tinent information is here, and we find the assertion that the rent is
excessive is done so without any calculation, just a bald assertion. If
some want to dispute these figures, let them come forwaid and do so.
The figures are here, and they were calculated, and they were part of
the finding of the committee of the legislature itself.
Mr. Chairman, we have gone over these items again and again. I
hope that the testimony just given by tlie Governor, and a review of
this record will help to clarify some of these assertions, so that we can
be talking about precise items, and not in terms of generalities.
I have no further questions of the Governor.
Senator Burdtck. I have just two, and the Governor can go back to
what he wants to do.
Mr. Shaw testified yesterday as follows:
Finally on the Tomasso leases we have been told by former Connecticut At-
torney General Killian that he wrote to Governor Meskill complaining about
these leases in early 1974, before they were signed. The present Attorney General
has declined to provide us with copies because he believes they may be the sub-
ject of privilege. We urge that this Committee ask Governor Meskill to waive any
relevant privileges so that the Committee may have that correspondence to
consider in evaluating Governor MeskiU's inaction on the Tomasso leases.
521
Do 3'Oii waive that privilciro now ?
Mr. Meskill. I am soriy, Senator, I was distracted. Waiving the
privilege on what ^
Senator Bx^rdick. I will read it again :
Tlie present Attorney General has declined to provide ns with copies hicause
he believes they may be subject to privilege. We urge that the cominittte ask
Governor Meskill to waive any relevant privileges so that the committee may
have that correspondence to consider in evaluating Governor MeskiU's inaction
on the Tomasso leases.
I am asking if vou Avill waive that privilege now?
JSIr. IMeskill. Senator, my counsel has advised me about what else
I would say anyway. I am happy to waive that privilege as far as this
committee is concerned, but not as far as the ABA is concerned.
Senator Burdick. That is fine.
Mr. Meskill. I am more tlian happy to provide it to this committee.
Senator Burdick. It is this co)ninittee that wants it.
Senator IIruska. I am sure the ABA will hear about it, do you not
think so ?
Senator Burdick. When you read the September 7, 1972. hearing
record. I think it was referred to in the examination by Senator
Ilruska, did you also read on page 26 the following testimony given
by John Downes — young John Downes, there are two John Downes —
3'oung John Downes that his father had in fact spoken to Gaft'ney
about helping to set the lease?
^Ir. INIeskill. I did not read it there, but I have heard it before.
Senator BrROTCK. Do you know anything about it?
Mr. ^[eskill. Xo, I cannot confirm or deny it.
Senator Burdick. You know this information appeared in the
hearing?
Mr. Meskill. I do not dispute it. I cannot from my own knowledge
confirm or deny it./
Senator Burdick. One more question, then we can conclude this.
This is the report of the legislature. "Regardless of the text of the
May 23 meeting" — and I wull read it all :
Regardless of the text of the May 23rd meeting, it is clear that upon receipt of
Senator Gimther's June 1, 1972 letter. Governor Meskill was made aware of the
terms and the lessor involved in the Waterford Highway Garage lease. However,
Governor Meskill indicated that since a letter of commitment was signed and
countersigned by May 19, 1972, he felt that he was not in a legal position to stop
this lease after this date since he considered such a document to be binding on
the jiarties involved. It is also clear that after the September 7, 1972 Public
Hearing conducted by the State and Urban Development Committee, which re-
ceived substantial media coverage, the Governor knew or should have known,
that the Downes Construction Company had obtained a lease based on early
information which in violation of the established leasing procedures.
Do you have any comment about that? This has nothing to do wath
exorbitant lease rates.
Mr. Meskill. Senator. I guess I am charged of knol wedge of any-
thing that was in the public record after that time, I would reiterate
also in the pulilic rer'ord was the documentation concerning the dollar
impact on the State of Connecticut, and while I certainly do not con-
done and would not support advance information or knowledge M-hich
prefers one lessor over another, for me to recommend that an action
be brought to void or avoid a document which is legal and which ac-
522
cording to the people I rely on is a good business deal for the State.
I think I would need more than that knowledge to justify that action.
Senator Burdick. This has no reference to exorbitant rents or any-
thing of the kind. This has to do with a violation of the leasing proce-
dures. Do you have anything to say about that ?
'Sir. Meskill. Just that I do not condone it.
Senator Burdick. Of course, you do not admit that it happened ?
Mr. Meskill. I do not deny.
Senator Burdick. I want to give you a chance to respond to this, that
is all.
ISIr. ]Meskill. If the departure from usual procedures resulted in ex-
orbitant rents being charged, I think the State had a perfectly good
case to go in to have that lease or contract voided or have it — or to
have it renegotiated by the court or something else, but I think that
the practices — which Tdo not condone, and I hope that will never hap-
pen again; I hope the legislature can pass laws Avhich will prevent
it — but if the practices in this particular case did not result in exorb-
itant rents as appeais to be the case from the documentation — or at
least that appeared to be until the 7th of January of lf>T5. when the
latest Leasing Committee filed a contrary report with a contrary
conclusion.
Senator Burdick. It is your answer that you know of no illegal leas-
ing procedures that were followed ?
Mr. Meskill. You say illegal ?
Senator Burdick. Yes.
Mr. Meskill. I would have to say T Icnow of none illegal.
Senator Burdick. Following established procedures, you are not
aware of anything that happened in violation of established proce-
dures that these leases were granted or approved ?
Mr. Meskill. I am not personally aware. I am aware of the report.
Senator Burdick. There were established procedures, established
back in Governor Dempsey's time?
]Mr, IMeskill. Right.
Senator Burdick. The question is as far as you know, to your knowl-
edge, were those procedures followed in every respect ?
Mr. Meskill. That I do not know. Senator. When you asked me that
question earlier about what were these procedures, I do not know the
details of all the procedures that were to be followed.
Senator Burdick. The Connecticut Committee here says they were
not followed. I want to give you a chance to reply.
Mr. Meskill. Not knowing what they were, I cannot dispute that.
Senator Burdick. That is all.
Senator Hruska. That is all. Thank you.
Senator Burdick. Is the District Attorney here ?
Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman, before the committee questions
the T^.S. attorney for the State of Connecticut, I want to state two
facts for the record.
Xo. 1, Mr. Dorsey was recommended by me for the position of U.S.
attorney for the State of Connecticut. I want that to be stated by me,
and that is a matter of the record.
Point No. 2. that since the Sunday — I cannot pinpoint it. several
weeks ago — when news reports in Connecticut carried that fact that
the leasing report might be forwarded to the U.S. attorney, since that
523
Sunday I have had no communication whatsoever with the U.S. at-
torney, with the idea in mind that there would be those v.ho v.ould
like to say that some impropriety had occurred, and therefore with the
exception of seeing him out in the hall today at the time we were in
recess, saying hello and goodby, and those are the exact words, there
has been no communication between myself and the U.S. attorney.
I want those two facts to appear in the record.
Senator Burdick. I have no question of you.
Senator Hruska. Would you swear him ?
Senator Burdick. Would you stand and be sworn ?
Do you swear the testimony that you are about to give in this matter
is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
l\lv. Dorset. I do.
TESTIMONY OF PETEH DORSEY, U.S. ATTOENEY FOE THE
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Hru-ska. ]Mr. Chairman, yesterday it was suggested by one
of the witnesses that some of the material concerning the subject mat-
ter of which this subcommittee has been working yesterday and today
had been turned over to the U.S. attorney for the District of
Connecticut. There did not seem to be any formality or any proceedings
of anything of that kind. Having been informed by Senator Weicker
that you were in town, Mr. Witness, it was thought well to call you in
here and ask you wliat knowledge you do liave about any investigation
by your office or tiie results thereof and whether and what information
you were supplied, and what you worked from. Could you give us an
account thereof i I assume you laiow what we are talking about.
^Ir. DuRSEY. Yes, sir.
Senator PIruska. It is the leasing and construction practices of the
administration of the governorship, more particularly by Governor
Meskill — when Governor ]Meskill was in office.
^Ir. Dorset. Actually, Senator, it went back a considerable period of
time before Governor Meskill's first term or only term began. Our in-
formation— I say that advisedly — largely prior to very recent days,
was very informal. Mj office, both through my own endeavors and
those of the assistants does keep aware of things that take place in the
State of Connecticut that might in some way involve Federal jurisdic-
tion. While it might be a concurrent jurisdiction, there is the potential
jurisdiction insofar as matters that might relate to the performanc-e
of duties in a faithful fashion without criminal involvement by Go\'-
ermnent officials on a local and State basis.
We were aware of the investigation that was being done by the leas-
ing committee of the legislature. We were never consulted. We were
ne\er tlie recipient of a complaint or a request for assistance. Indeed
contrary to the report of the subcommittee, the basic report which I
believe is dated in January of 197.5, the precise date I am not aware of,
I do not renrember at the moment — makes reference to a copy of that
report having been forwarded or going to be forwarded to my of: e. it
was not.
The first information that we had of any event, it might be called of a
quasi-official nature, as far as any communication is concerned to my
524
office was an apparent statement made in a press release or a press in-
terview by the cliief counsel of that committee in which he sort of in-
vited or sug<;ested that the matter might be reviewed or in some way
come to involve my office.
I could not reach the chief counsel at the time that that was publi-
cized. I therefore have retjuested a copy of the complete report of the
subcommittee. I did not receive that report until actually Monday of
this week, notwithstanding an apparent press release on Tuesday of a
week ago that a copy of this had provided or was going to be provided
to me.
I have read the report in its entirety. I have sent letters to the chair-
men, the cochairmen of that subcommittee, inquiring of them if they
have any knowledge of any facts that might in aii}' way involve the vio-
lation of P'ederal criminal statutes. I have also by reason gf his publi-
cized personal interest in the matter inquired specifically by corres-
pondence of Senator Gunther in the same regard. I have not had a
reply to m,v knowledge, at least as of the time that I was last in my
office, to either one of those letters to either the committee or Senator
Gunther. Howe^'er. they probably only got those letters the middle or
latter part of last week.
Except for those endeavors, there has been no formal or informal
investigation of tliis matter bv mv office.
Senator Hrusk.\. That consisted of a consideration of tlie Joint
Committee on Appropriations committee report?
Mr. Dorset. Yes. sir.
Senator IIruska. Who in youi- o.Hice ])erus('d that rci^oii an<l con-
sidered it?
Mr. Dorset. I did.
Senator Hruska. Your conclusion is you say that there is no basis
for involving a Federal jurisdiction of a criminal nature ?
Mr. Dorset. Insofar as it pertains to Governor Meskill — insofar as
I am concerned at this moment — insofar as it pertains to Governor
Meskill. there is no indication in the report to my knowledge of any
involvement on his part that would come within the jurisdiction of
my office.
Senator Hruska. How long have you been district attorney?
Mr. Dorset, I have been U.S. attorney since August 1974.
Senator Hruska. Senator Weicker spoke of his interest in having
appointed you. I guess we are going to have to bear joint responsibility
because we recommended your confirmation by the Senate and you
were confirmed.
>[r. Dorset. I guess that is true. sir.
Senator Hruska. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Buroick. Tf there wei-e alleirations of wronrrdoins: bv the
Govei-nor involvintr State leasing practices, that would be State juris-
diction anyway, would it not ?
yiv, Dorset. It could be State jurisdiction, it could be Federal
jurisdiction.
'^f'uator BuRDTCK. In what way could it be Federal ? T cannot fi'ruve
thot one out.
"^''r DoT-sET. T do not want to speculate on what misrht be involved.
Sc'vitor. tho way we, I say we. the TLS. attorneys get into these mat-
tei'S is usually when there are i1 licit payoffs.
525
Senator Burdick. On the leasing violation and so forth, that is
purely a State matter?
Mr. DoRSF.Y. As far as it involves judgment, insofar as it involves
following State procedures, yes, sir.
Senator Burdkk. Would you state your full name for the record?
Mr. DoRSEY. Peter Dorsey.
Senator Burdick. Are vou any relation to a Dorsey that was a
member of the firm of Meskill. Dorsey, Sledzik & Walsh?
Mr. Dorset. Xo. sir.
Senator r)rRDicK. That is all.
Senator Hruska. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have in the room Mr.
Stewart Smith. Am I correct ?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Senator Hruska. You were formerly administrative assistant to
the Governor. Governor Meskill ?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Senator Hruska. ]Mr, Chairman, I suggest we call Mr. Smith next.
Senator Burdick. Mr. Smith.
Do you swear that the matter you are about to testify to is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Smith. I do.
TESTIMONY OF STEWART A SMITH, FOEMEE ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT TO GOVERNOR MESKILL
Senator Hruska. Would you state your name and address in full,
please ?
Mr. Smith. My name is Stewart A. Smith. I live at 118 Mallard
Drive. Farmington, Conn, I was formerly administrative assistant to
Governor Meskill when he was Governor of Connecticut.
Senator Hruska. When were you in the office of Governor ^leskill as
his administrative assistant ?
Mr. Smith. From January 1971 through June 1 of 1974.
Senator Hruska. AAHiat were your duties? What was the scope of
your activities with the GoA^ernor ?
Mr. Smith. ISIy main responsibility was to serve as a liaison between
his office and the educational agencies of the State of Connecticut,
higher education. State department of education.
Senator Hruska. Have you been in the hearing room yesterday and
todav, this hearing room, and have you heard the testimony given by
the several witnesses?
Mr. Smith. Yes, I have, Senator.
Senator Hruska. Do you have any statement that you would like to
make with reference to the general substance?
Mr. Smith. I just have a couple of statements regarding in partic-
ular the Phoenix problem that has been brought out as being one of
the areas of concern by the committee.
The Phoenix Building and the general community college problem
back in 1973 and 1974 was one area that I devoted much time to. Dur-
ing the time — well, when Governor Meskill was first inaugurated, the
community college problem, a location for Greater Hartford Commu-
nity College began almost immediately. They had been in poor facili-
526
ties for some time. Their accreditation v\'as under scrutiny and they
were about to lose it. And during 1973 and 1974, particularly, the
effort to find a new home for the community college was stepped up.
In January of 1973, 1 was contacted by the then-president of Greater
Hartford Community College, Dr. Banks, with tlie infoi-mation con-
cerning the Travelers being interested^ in making a gift to the State of
Connecticut of the Plioeiiix Building. It was at lliat time tliat I re-
ported to Governor Meskill this information, that the Travelers was
interested in doing this. And between January of 1973 and early June
of 1973 their decisionmaking process went on between the State of
Connecticut and the Travelers people themselves.
When the Travelers, in June of 1973, decided not to give the building
to the State of Connecticut, I was in the position of working with the
other State agencies involved in trying to find another alternative to
house the Greater Hartford Community College.
It was at that time that most of the information regarding the other
sites, the other possibilities. Mas gathered. It was at that time that
Governor Meskill met with tlie board of the regional community col-
leges and was receiving letters from people, such as Mr. Fagan, Donald
McGannon, the chairman of the commission for higher education, and
literally tens and perha^^s even hundreds of other people concerning
various site possibilities, leases, purchases, and so forth, my point being
that Travelers was, the Phoenix Building was, just one possibility of
many. I myself had walked through, perhaps, six or seven facilities
that were under scrutiny at the time as a possible home for Greater
Hartford Community College.
The one clarification that I do want to make also is that in the bar
association report there seems to be some information concerning what
the topic of the meeting was between the Governor and the board of
trustees of the regional community colleges on August 20, 1973. While
the board of trustees did have the Phoenix Building at the top of their
list, it was by all standards a wonderful facility and they could realize
that, their message to me, and I happened to be in that meeting, and to
Governor Meskill, was not, you know, please get us the Phoenix
Building, or please get us building x, y, or z, but rather, we are about
to lose our accreditation ; please, please help us and please have your
other State agencies cut through some of the redtape, that you "were
talking about before. Senator.
That is normal in situations like this.
It was at that time that the Governor pledged to them that he would
do that. It was at that time that the real final search for a home for
Greater Hartford Community College began.
The second point that I do want to clarify is about the idea of leasino-
rather than purchasing. I know that this was mentioned before in why
leasing was looked at as being particularly desirable in this instance.
Going back to early 1971, when Governor Meskill took office, it was
learned immediately that during 1970 the State of Connecticut liad
acquired quite a bit of land in Windsor for Greater Hartford Com-
numity College and other educational institutions in the Greater Hart-
ford area, public institutions. This land in Windsor is right on the
Hartford border. The Windsor line and the city of Hartford line
touch.
527
The report, by the way, the bar association report says that that
acquisition of hind did not start until 1971 and went on through 197'5.
That is not accurate. It began with the resomtion of the board of
trustees of the regional community colleges in 1969 and the largest
acquisition took place in April of 197U during the previous adminis-
tration, the point being this: We knew that some day in the future,
10 years away, 15 years away, the permanent home of Greater Hartford
Coinmunity College would be on this very expensive land in Windsor
and that what we were really looking for now was an interim facility,
not a warehouse like they were presently in. not a 2-year or 4-year
facility, but rather sojnething that would bridge the gap between the
present crisis over accreditation and the long-term problem of what
to do with this Windsor land and what institutions to put up, and I
think by now we are talking about at least 100 acres of land.
So that was another reason particularly to be interested in the con-
cept of leasing.
Senator Hruska. Are you familiar in general with the procedures
that were followed during that time and with the results that were
obtained?
Mr. Smith. I am familiar in general with the procedures that were
followed, not with the specihcs of them. I know that there was an ad-
vertisement for bids and that many people responded to the advertise-
ment, and then through the selection which would ultimately be the
best possibility.
Senator Hruska. Of course the agency that would be the regents
of tlie commuiiity colleges would then ti'ansiuit tlieir requirements
to the Commissioner of Leasing and Construction? Is that the waj'
it works?
]Mr. Smith. The Commissioner of Public Works, correct.
Senator Hruska. The department of public works ?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Senator Hruska. The department of public works had its duty, the
leasing division, for example, that was referred to already. For
example, in the Dow^nes lease, did they take charge of certain of their
activities ? It goes through that process, does it not ?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. You say that you did not have specific knowledge
of those details?
]Mr. Smith. For example, I knew the dates when the ads appeared
in the paper and I made certain that I kept after the people, you know,
to keep the program moving because Governor Meskill had asked, or
had told the board, that the State would act with haste and keep things
moving because of the accreditation problem. But no ; I did not readily
go over to public works and go through each step of the process with
him.
Senator Hruska. What is your opinion as to the final result of all
those negotiations in the final lease ?
]Mr. Smith. Well
Senator Hruska. As to its value, as to its place in the educational
system, not only for today but for the future ?
Mr. Smith. I can talk about the educational point of view. I did
not analyze it from a financial point of view. From an educational
ro4-
52S
point of view and from the point of view that I had to look at as
liaison with the board and the Commission of Hirdiei- lilducation and
with the other educational agencies, it was a good solution to a very
bad problem.
Senator Hruska. You mentioned a little bit ago that 10 years from
now the situation will be different, or very likely will be different. In
what way will it be different ?
Mr. Smith. You see this land that is owned in Windsor is for a
higher education center concept. In other words, you would put the
Greater Hartford Community College out on this land. You would
put the branch of the University of Connecticut, which is in Hartford,
out on this property, plus the Greater Hartford Area Technical Col-
lege out there, the idea being that you would use common facilities,
common libraries, common cafeteria facilities. But we knew that we
could not get to that point fast enough to solve the immediate accredi-
tation prol3lem of Greater Hartford Community College. Hence, we
were looking for an interim solution.
Senator Hruska. These are all the questions I have. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burdick. Mr. Smith, you say that you were confronted
with an immediate problem, a short-term problem; that is why this
site was chosen, this building was chosen, this lease was considered?
Mr. Smith. That is not the only reason Avhy, but it is one of the
reasons.
Senator Burdick. You have l)een testifying that there was an im-
mediate problem about this building. You had to do something about
it soon. The lease was five to ten years ?
Mr. Smith. Correct.
Senator Burdick. You eventually wanted to build on the Windsor
site ? Is that right ?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Senator Burdick. The fact is that somebody in the administration,
the Governor, public works, whoever it was, entered into a 25-year
lease on the Phoenix building. Would that be consistent with even-
tually building on the Windsor site and a short-term need?
]\Ir. Smith. I believe that there was also the realization that the
State was in need of other space, other State agencies, that is, the
attorney general's office, tlie dei)artment of children and youth serv-
ices, aiid that the work of the Phoenix building will give the State
this extra space for the future also.
Senator Burdick. You could have bought the building for $^1/0
million ?
]Mr. Smith. That offer never came to my attention.
Senator Burdick. At least the 2r)-year lease was entered into on
the Phoenix building when there was a dire need -for something in
the sliort-term?
^fr. Smith. The dire need was short-term, yes, sir.
Senator Burdick. That is all.
Senator Hruska. That is all. Thank you.
Senator Burdick. John Doyle.
Do 3^ou swear the testimony you are about to give is the trutli. the
wholoVruth, and nothing but the trutli. so help you. God ?
Mr. Doyle. I do.
529
TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. DOYLE, FORMER LEGISLATIVE LIAISON
TO GOVERNOR MESKILL
Senator Hruska. "Would you state your name, please, and address?
Mr. DoYLK. My name is John A. Doyle. T live at 2 Tvoek Spring* Koad
in Samford. Conn.
Senator Hruska. The record indicates that you wore administrative
assistant to Governor Meskill durino' his term of office. Is that correct?
]N[r. DoTr,r.. Almost. Senator. I was administrative assistant leais-
lative liaison from January 1971. through September 1973. At that
time I assumed a job with another State agency.
Senator Hruska. What was the nature of your duties ?
VlV. Doyle. During that period I had responsibility for maintaining
liaison with the Governor's Office and the general assembly. I had the
overall responsibility of assisting the Governor in the development of
legislative programing and getting legislative or maintaining contact
with the Legislature on the progression of bills, both of administration
bills and other bills; aiid when legislation passed, getting that legisla-
tion to the Governor, seeing it was disposed of in a relatively short
time period. 5 days, 15 days, depending on Avhen the general assembly
was in or out of session, assisting legislators if I could if they wanted
to see the Governor or they wanted to be present at a bill-signing.
Those were the general nature of my duties.
Senator Hruska. Have you been in the committee room yesterday
durinjT these hearings and again today when evidence has been intro-
duced and testimony given ?
Mr. DoYLK. Yes ; I have.
Senator Hruska, Would you describe ,for us the weekly meetings
that were held betweiMi the Governor and the representative from your
assembly and the senator from the senate concerning the legislative
program ? Reference was made to that, I presume you were present at
those meetings?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir.
Senator Hrl'Ska. Could you tell us how they were conducted and
their general method of operation ?
Mr. DoYLE. Yes, sir. The meetings concerned principally the legis-
lative calendar, namely, those bills that had been reported out of
committee and were due up for action that week or that day. The
meetings increased in frequency as the calendar grew lengthier which
was toward the end of the session. At the beginning of a session the
committees and subcommittees of the Connecticut General Assembly
spent their time on hearings and developing proposals and it is only
in the middle of a session and the end of a session when the majority of
bills get reported out and get on the floor for significant debate.
The meetings between the Governor and the representative of the
Republican senators and the representative of the Republican house
members took place, I would guess, on an average of two to three times
a week. They Avere generally early in the morning.
Senator Hruska. Who selected the representative of the senators
an d of the house members ?
Mr. DoYUE. I believe they were selected by the Republican leadership.
Senator Hruska. As a part of their committee system ?
530
Mr. Doyle. I'm not sure how it was foi'malized as a ranking member
or a chairman's role would be formalized. Everyone knew that, for
instance, Mr. Stevens was the house representative.
Senator Hruska. They met two to three times a week, not regularly
but when an occasion required ?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. It was fairly regular but we decided generally
a day or two before the meeting how far — I would, or I would try to
recommend to tl>e Governor how far behind we were on the calendar.
On the calendar there were bills of three types, as I recall, one was
starred, one was double-starred, and one was not starred at all. A
bill had to remain according to Connecticut General Assembly rules
on the calendar for 3 days before it was acted on. Consequently, if it
were a light calendar, say, at a Tuesday morning meeting, you could go
through the whole thing and take next three legislative session da^'S.
So the legnth of the calendar determined the frequency of those
meetings.
Senator Hruska. The Governor was in office for 4 years ?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. Who were the members of that committee during
that time, the senator and the representative ?
Mr. Doyle. In 1971 the representative ,from the Republican side
was Senator Gunther. A gentleman that was here yesterday afternoon.
Representative Gerald Stevens, was from the House. In 1972 it was
Senator Rome, again Representative Stevens. In 1973 it was Repre-
sentative Stevens and it was Senator Truax. I believe; yes.
Senator Hruska. Where did Senator Gunther come in?
Mr. Doyle. Gunther was the representative senator in 1971, during
the 1971 session.
Senator Hruska. Stevens succeeded him ?
Mr. Doyle. No. sir. Stevens is a house man. He was the house man
all the way through. There was a succession in this order: of Gunther,
Rome, and Truax in the 1971, 1972, 1973 sessions.
Senator Hruska. Tell us about the change from Gunther to Rome,
What happened ?
Mr. Doyle. Sir, I must tell you I am speculating because I did not
have a hand in that change. It was made by the Republican leadership,
as I pointed out to you. They selected their representative, but I was
present.
The way this process worked, as Governor Meskill has mentioned,
the liaison is there to offer his counsel and advice on a piece of legis-
lation that we may not be aware of. and similarly to take the Gover-
nor's feeling on a piece of legislation back to the caucus.
In 1971 I had to spend, I can tell you personally, a great deal of
time in the Republican caucus because Senator Gunther eitlior did not
make copious enough notes or foi- whatever reason did not bring the
Governor's message on pieces of legislation back. The Governor's point
of view, the administration point of view, was not made clear.
It is my belief that the leadership was aware of this situation and
assigned Senator Rome to take it over in 1972. As I say, however, I
am speculating. I think that is the reason.
Senator Hruska. Was Senator Gunther in the first instance, and
then Rome, desiirnated bv the Governor or was he the selection of
the Senate itself?
531
Mr. Doyle. I believe lie was the designation of the Kepublican
Senators. , ^ i . i i i
Senator IIruska. Do you know what effect that change had on
the relationship between Senator Gunther and the Governor?
Mr. Doyle. I would think the effect was that Senator Gunther
beo-an to drift apart from the administration. In 1971, as I recall,
Senator Gunther considered himself a strong ally of Governor Meskill.
After that point I believe Senator Gunther did not consider him-
self such a strong ally. Why do I say that? The intensity of his gen-
eralized complaints which always existed got greater.
As I recall in 1972. Senator Gunther and Mr. Gaffney, as I recall
there avrs a newspaper article that detailed Senator Gunther and
]Mr. Gaffney having quite a disagreement outside the Senate chambers
one evening. Again. I really tried to recall yesterday just what it was,
but T think it was in 1972.
Wluit I am sayino- is that the relations between Senator Gunther
and the administration worsened after the time that he was a legisla-
tive liaison. Whether there was a cause and effect relationship is
siieculative. I think there was.
' Senator Hrfska. There was a description here of Senator Gunther's
efforts to get to see the Governor about some matter or another, that
turned out to be the Downes lease according to one story, and turned
out to be a very indefinite sort of explanation on the other side of the
story. Can you tell us what happened as you remember it?
>fr. Doyle. Yes, sir ; I can.
If T can i^reface my remarks — yesterday, listening to Senator
Gunther's testimony. I not the impression sitting here that one miffht
think listening to him that his cause in life was the correction of what
he believed to be improper leasing procedures, this was something he
chamDioned in the 19P)0's and carried through the 1970's. It mi^lit
well be the case. But it is worthwhile pointing out, in my experience
with Senator Gunther that he was a chronic complainer. He had a
good number of issues. On any iriven day he would appear to be the
Avhite knight on the horse in relation to any one of these issues.
Just this morni]i2' T tiied to jot do^vn a fcM- as I could remember
them. As Governor INIe^kill mentioned, he was very opposed to 'the
former State health commissioner. Frank LaFoote. He woidd also
make plays o7i Dr. LaFoote's name to me. in what I viewed as ridicule,
and a verv stronjr opinion that the man should not be appointed. He
complained regularlv. and T think this is verv w^ll known to the .fren-
eral assembly, about the fact that there were too many lawyers in
the ofeneral nssembly. Vo. he rlid no^ li^-e that at all.
He complained rearlilv about the PUC He was an avid booster of
a return of the shell fishing industry in Connecticut. In fact, he had
a bumper sti'^^-'^^- on his car. and the last time I saw him. on his desk,
or right nearin' his desk, urging people to eat ovsters and live lon<]fer.
and eat clams and loxe longer. He had no o-i'oof reo-nrd. in my mind,
for the House Ipadprship. and often complained about that. A certain
part of that, of conrse. is the natural differences, shall we say, be-
twopu the House and the Senate.
The point is then, on environmental issues Senator Gimther con-
sidered himself a champion. ^Yh?^t I am savins is it was not unusual
532
to lind Senator Guiither, if I may use a metaphor, on a soapbox com-
plainnig about any or all of tiiese issues, none ol them ni any great
detail. Certainly after 1971, in my mind, anything that concerned
Mr. Gatiney or his tenure or abilities as Kepublican IState Chairman
generally led the list.
loii asked ine to recount for you my recollection of May VJ72. In
May 1972 — that was the ending part of the 1972 legislative session—
that was the time of year when 1 was the busiest, it was the time of
year when the majority of bills were passed and consequently the
majority of bills were starting to come into the office, i had to get
them together, review them and get them to the Governor. That was
my first primary concern. In that regard 1 often a\ ould go up and visit
the leadership offices, Republican leadership offices in the House and
Senate, seek their counsel on various pieces of legislation. As a result
I would run into Senator Gmither, as he mentioned yesterday, prob-
ably close to daily, since he was in the Capitol very often and i was
around the leadership offices veiy often.
Senator, as I told this cominittee last time, I have no recollection
of Senator Gunther giving me the details of a lease or requesting a
meeting with Governor ]Sleskill, nor do I recall setting such a meet-
ing up. 1 want to make it very plain that I think it highly unlikely,
highly unlikely that Senator Gunther ever gave me the details of any
lease situation. It was that the man's modus operandum was not that
of a detail man. He was a man that would flip from issue to issue to
issue da}' by day.
Again, given the fact that he had a plethora of issues and I was
very busy. I think it highly unlikely that I would have received any
details from him on this matter. I do not dispute that I set up a meet-
ing for the Senator. If he says I did, I probably did. I certainh- do
not recall any details of it. I was not a party to the meeting.
Senator Hriska. When did this occur? "Was it in ^lay that he
started hist asking you in a series of requests to have an audience
with the Governor ?
]Mr. i)oYLE. If I said he did ask me. I do not recall his asking me
at all. The time frame we are talking about, from what I undoi-stood
from his testimony yesterday, is May 1972. I do not recall him
coming to me and saying, John, I want to meet with the Governor
to discuss the Downes lease. I do not remember him requesting a
meeting.
I point out to you. I liandle requests foi- meetinos with the Gov-
erno]' from legislators two or three times a da,j in addition to the other
duties that I have.
Senator Hruska. Do you recall the occasion when he did meet with
the Governor on May 23 ?
^Ir. poYLE. Xo, sir, T do not. When that point was raised in our
discussion of t]iis yesterday, tlie Scnatoi- .seemed to indicate, as I re-
call, please correct me if I am characterizinof liim unfaiily. that I
Avould have briefed the (ioverno)- before a meeting such as the one that
he had. That is absolutely unti-iie. What T would have done, assiunino-
T di'l. set up this iHeetiii.ir. I would have gone up to the Governor's
appointments secretary and say George Gunther wants to ^e^ the
Goveinor. can yon squeeze him in for 10 minutes. If I made that
request, the Governor's apjjointments secretary would generally
533
respond by. oh, uvc v»liiz. liis sclietlulo is tiglit, l)ut maybe \ve can
get him in at 11:10, 11:15, 2:'M). ov w]iate\ei'. That would have been
tlie sum and substance of it, I woidd have aone back and told Senator
Gunther. George, you have a meetinc: with Tom at 11 :10, 11 :1.''».
Senatoi- ITruska. What can you tell us about any recollection you
have, if any. about "senator Gunther's discussino- Avitli yon or reporting
to yon the result of his visit ^vith the Governor on any occasion some-
where dui'ina- ]Mav durino; this time that we are talking about?
]Mr. Doyle. Senatoi", I have no i-ecollection of any discussion with
Senator Gunther on the results of this meeting. I just haA-e no recol-
lection about it.
Senator Hrfska. I believe it A^as he who said that he saw you either
in the hallway or in the proximity of one of the legislative chambers
or elsewh.ere, and h(> reminded you from time to time of his desire to
see the (xovernor, and that he had indifferent success until he said
something about going public. What can you tell us about that?
Mr. Doyle. I have no recollection. T am sure Senator Gunthei- saw
me from time to time, indeed quite frequently since 1972, especially
May 197:2. But T have no recollection whatsoever of Senator Gunther
coming to me. either initially, repeatedly, or any other time to see
Governor ]Meskill about the matter of leases. I have no recollection
of it.
Sonfitor Hruska. So the idea that you may have discussed witli him
the Downes lease does not I'ing a bell with you?
I think that is all I have right now.
SenatOT- Burdick. We have a conflict in evidence.
Appai'ently you Avere here yesterday; you heard Senator Gunther
state that he spoke to you about the middle of .Slay, and Avanted to see
the GoA'ernor. and he told you in general Avhat he Avanted to talk about,
the lease. DoAvnes and Gaffney. You say he did not tell you about these
things at all ?
Mr. Doyle. No, sir, I did not say that. I said I did not recall his
ever having talked to me about it.
Senator Burdick. Do you recall him sa3dng to you that — when he
did not see the Governor at that time — he Avould go to the press if he
did not get a chance to see the Governor?
Air. Doyle. No, sir, I certainly do not.
Senator Burdick. You knoAv he did come back on the 23d and saw
the GoA^ernor?
Mr. Doyle. I only knoAv it because in the last couple of months or
so it was confirmed that the GoA^ernor did have a meetiuG: Avith Senator
Gunther on the 2od. T cannot honestly sit here and tell yon. Senator,
that T set that meeting up.
Senator Burdick. Yon are positiA'e that in the middle of May or
at that time when Senator Gunther saw you he did not tell you anything
about a lease or any of these individuafs?
Mr. Doyle. I did not say I was positiA'e he did not. I simply haA-e no
recollection of it.
Senator Burdick. Let us see what you said to the legislative com-
mittee. Here is the question and here is yoni- answer :
Altschuler. All right. Again, when Gunther . . . and I don't think that we're
disputing the fact tliat Gunther probably talked to you about this. It's a qup.stion
of what he said.
Doyle. Yes.
534
Senator Bufdick. Did you say you probably talked to ]\Ir. Gunther?
Mr. DoYi.E. If I did. I certainly was mistaken.
Senator Burdick. This is your answer.
Mr. Doyle. Senator. I have not read that report.
Sena^tor Burdick. I know.
Mr. Doyle. There are two parts to it. The first part concerns 1972,
as I recall tlie discussion. May 1972. and whether I remember Sena-
tor Gunther settino; up such a meeting- or any other such thine:.
Senator Burdick. You will see that the questions refer to the period
that we are talking about as we go along.
[The interview referred to is printed above at page 78.]
The next question and your answer :
Altschuler. Did he make it clear that it was at least in general terms about a
lease? Or could he have made a?
Doyle. Yes, sir. He could have very well. And I'm not disputing the fact at all
that he might well have. But what I am disputing is the detail of it. He probably
said that . . . and this is bad because I'm hypothesizing and I really don't
know . . . but he might have said something like "John, that Gaffney is at it
again. He's doing something here with a lease and boy it stinks." And that would
have been the sum and soul . . . the substance of what he told me.
Senator Burdick. And did you say that? Did you testify to tliat?
]Mr. Doyle. If it says it there, I testified to it.
Senator Burdick. A few minutes ago you said you did not talk about
a lease or anything.
Mr. Doyle. I said I had no recollection of it.
Senator Burdick. Do you recollect it now ?
]S[r. Doyle. The discussion? Any discussion with Senator Gunther
about a lease ?
Senator Burdick. Tins was on December 16, 1974, last year, that
you said this.
;Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, unless I can go over that, I can not
resj^ond.
Senator Burdic k. I am asking you, because you testified.
Senator Hruska. Would you yield?
Senator Burdick. I am trying to find the truth in this matter.
Senator Hruska. I am just as interested in it as you, but the question
may not be put in the same way in the transcript as it is of the witness.
I tiiink we ought to note that, for example, Mr. Chairman, in the
question : "Did he make it clear that it was at least in general terms
about a lease? Or could he have made a?'' there is a blank there.
Senator Burdick. The following answer does talk about a lease. A
few minutes ago
Senator Hruska. "Wait a minute.
Senator Burdick. Listen
Senator IIriska. There is an alternative there about could it have
been something else. And he said, yes sir.
Senator Burdick. You have a perfect right to follow me in my ex-
amination. I am trying to be orderly in this hearing. You have a per-
fect right to follow uie and say anything you want to say.
Try it again.
Question :
Did he make it clear that it was at least in general terms about a lease? Or
could he have made a ?
Doyle. Yes sir. lie could have very well. And I'm not disputing the fact at all
that he might well have. But what I am disputing is the detail of it. He probably
535
said that * * * and this is bad because I'm hypothesizing and I really don't know
* * * but he uiiiilit have said something like "John that Gaffney is at it again.
He's doing something here with a lease and boy it stinks." And that would have
been the sum and soul * * * the substance of what he told me.
Do you deny you said that ?
Mr. Doyle. I do not deny I said it, Senator. Looking- at it, Senator
Gunther might Avell have said it. I have no recollection of it.
I think I said that in this testimony.
Senator Bfrdick. A few minutes ago, you said you talked about
nothing like this lease or anything.
Mr. Doyle. I did not say that. I said I had no recollection. I think
I said that in my testimony.
Senator Burdick. Next question :
Alright. Could he have also indicated that the lease had something to do with
a relation of Gaffney '.•'
Doyle. He might very well have said that Mr. Downes was related * * * was
Brian's uncle or whatever it is.
Altschulee. ok.
Doyle. He might very well have.
Mr. DoTLE. He might have. I have no recollection of it.
If you said might he have said it, I would like to answer he might
have. I cannot tell you under oath.
Senator Burdick. Is your recollection better in December than it is
in March ?
]\Ir. DoYLE. I did not say he said it in December. Senator. He asked
me might lie have said it. He might have talked about the Aveather. Sen-
ator. I could not say he did not.
Senator Burdick. You said "What I am disputing is the detail of
it." That is what you said; not that it was not said but the detail of it.
Mr. DoYLE. I do not think Senator Gunther ever gave me the de-
tails. I have no recollection of Senator Gunther giving me the details
of the leasing arrangement. I did not think it then, I do not think it
now.
Senator Burdick. I am going to ask that the entire interview of De-
cember 16, 1974, at which you testified be made a part of the record
and I end the cross-examination.
[The material referred to is printed above at page 78.]
Senator Hruska. In all fairness. ]Mr. Doyle, when w^e read that en-
tire answer, it comports with what you have said. Let me say it again,
Mr. Altschuler asked this : "Did he make it clear that it was at least in
general terms about a lease? Or could he have made a ?" and then a
question mark appears in the transcript. Do you know what was in that
question ? It reads : "Or could he have made a ?"
That is the point. The transcript is incomplete. That question mark
denotes the absence of a word that was said but which the reporter did
not get.
Your answer is : "Yes sir. He could have very well." We do not know
what it is that he could have very well, if we related it to the first part
of that question.
When I read the entire answer that you gave, it comports com-
pletely with what you have been testifying to here. You said :
Yes sir. He could have very well. And I'm not disputing the fact at all that he
might well have. But what I am disputing is the detail of it. He probablv said
that * * * and this is bad because I'm hypothesizing and I really don't know ♦ • *
536
bnl" he might have said something like "John that Gaffney is at it again. He's
doing something here with a lease and boy it stinks." And that would have been
the sum and soul * * * the substance of what he told me.
Yon say it mi^ht have been. Did you not testify a little bit ago that
you did not have any recollection of it ?
]Mr. Doyle. That is correct.
Senator Hruska. Are you saying anj'thing different in that answer
as you read it ?
Mr. Doyle. No sir, I am not.
On page 4, Mr. Altschuler, the man's full name, asked me in the
middle of the page : "And are you saying it's not possible or it's not
probable that he gave you a detailed listing?" He in that case is Sen-
ator Gunther.
I am quoted as saying :
I'm saying it's not probably that he did. And I would say that it would be a
relatively low degree of probability if he gave me any details * * • because as I
say that just wasn't the way he ever described things to me.
My point was, as I told the committee then, as I told this committee
very briefly in January, and as I am telling you now, I have no recol-
lection of discussing it with him, whether he might have, whether he
did, whether he did not.
Senator, I am speculating. My speculation is he probably did not.
Senator Hruska. Page 4 of the transcript, is that what you have been
reading ?
]Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir.
Senator Hruska. It says :
But what I'm specifically asking you is * * * Do you remember talking to him
about the Downes lease and do you remember from that setting * * *
TJien there are a few periods.
Youi' answer is :
Setting up a meeting such as I've read he described in the paper? I don't
remember it but as I say . . .
Altschuler. It's possible?
Doyle. Sure . . . Yes, it is possible."
Altschuler. Okay.
Doyle. And the scenario , . .
Altschuler. And are you saying it's not possible or it's not probable that he
gave you a detailed listing?
Doyle. I'm saying its not probable that he did. And I would say that it would
be a relatively low degree of probability if he gave me any details . . . Because
as I say that just wasn't the way he ever described things to me.
Then he goes on once more:
Let me ask you this. Is it possible or probable that he mentioned specifically
the Downes lease? And that when you set the appointment up with the Gov-
ernor you knew that it was about this particular lease?
The answer is: "That's . . . that's . . . possible."
Is that inconsistent with voui' answer that yon do not recall?
]\rr. Doyle. Xo, sir. It ceitainly is not. I probably said that is pos-
sible in a very (inestioninir way and putting my hands up. it's possible.
Since I do not i-ecall, I simply cannot say it is impossible.
Senator Hruska. Of course not.
I have no fnrtlier questions.
^Tr. Doyle. May I make one further comment. Senator.
537
As I s:iv. I have not rpall}- read tliis over, and recalling ni.y talk
with Mr. Altschuler, there was not reall}- testimony. There were only-
three of lis in tiie room. It was not the committee. The leasing com-
mittee neA-er interviewed me. I talked to Mr, Altschuler, who is an
assistant statf attorney or some such thing Avith the committee.
The beginning part of the discussion was about May 1972. Then
;Mr. Altschuler asked me. liave you talked to the Governor about this?
Have you seen the Governor, or some such thing, in the last few weeks.
In that time frame — and I ask you to pay particular attention to this
being 1974 — ^December 1974. I said yes. that the Governor had called
me in the very questioning way that John, do you remember any such
meetiniT with Senator Gunther as has been detailed in the press? Were
you a party to it? I said no sir. I was not. There was some discussion
of that. I just point it out for whatever it is worth.
Senator Burdick. I want to go over that answer just once more,
in a more quiet vein. Your answer was to the question :
Did he make it clear that it was at least in general terms about a lease? Or
could he have made a?
Doyle. Yes. sir. He could have very well. And I'm not disputing the fact at
all that he miglit well have. But what I am disputing is the detail of it. He
probably .said that . . . and this is bad because I'm hypothesizing and I really
don't know . . . but he might have said something like "John that Gaffney is
at it again."
Andher sentence starts:
"He's doing something here with a lease and boy it stinks."
You are still answering:
And that would have been the sum and soul . . . the substance of what he
told me.
Mr. Doyle. I see the quote, and I was hypothesizing, if he even men-
tioned it. how such a conversation might have run. You must consider
that agamst the pattern of the fact that I had no recollection of any
such discussion. It was sure hypothesis on my part. I was being asked
questions like is it probable or is it possible. I was not going to lie to
Mr. Altschuler and say it was absolutely impossible that George Gun-
ther ever discussed it with me. I cannot remember, Senator.
Senator J^ttrdtck. The last two sentences were not qualified.
Mr. Doyle. That would have been the sum and substance of it. I
do not know how you would view the verb "would.'' It was certainly
meant to be (|ualified. if it is not plain enough that they were.
Senator Birdtck. Thank you.
I have been asked to make a part of the record a letter to Chairman
Eastland, dated F(bi'iuiiy 2."5. 1975. from Mrs. Evelyn F. Prince; and
a letter to Senator xVbraham Bibicoff. dated September 26, 1974. from
Karen DeCrow. president. National Organization for "Women.
[The lettei's referred to follow :]
Shaw. Mississippi, Fehruary 25, 1975.
Dear Senator Eastlaxd : Currently a resident of Blonmfield, Connecticut for
eight years, I wn^ born and bred in Shaw. Mississippi, where my family still
resides. Since I spent most of my life in Mis.sissippi, visit there often, and still
feel close to the Magnolia State, it seems most appropriate to addre.ss you with
reference to the nomination of Connecticut's Thomas Meskill.
I feel there is much opposition to Meskill's nomination in Connecticut. Toward
the end of his term he became increasingly unpopular and today, he is probably
538
even more unpopular, with Connecticut voters, Iiis actions being often compared
with Nixon's.
The state of Connecticut is in a financial mess. Every day newspapers he;ul-
line the terrible financial deficits and Governor Grasso's messages for austerity.
We blame many of our money problems (in former Governor Meskill. He boasted
surpluses, but where are they? When the books were turned over, it was found
that he did not pay many of Connecticut's bills — for example, I understand that
he was three or more months behind payment of Connecticut's.-. welfare l)ills.
It seems logical that a man who did not recognize the state's legal obligations
while governor would not be capable of sitting as judge of the .second highest
court of the land !
Furthermore, since so many of Connecticut's voters who know him l>est and
who would be proud to have their state repre.sented, instead are opposed to
his nomination, is there any justification for its approval? I don't think so.
Thank you very much for reading this letter. I would appreciate it if yi>u
would have copies sent to the other members of your committee and also if you
could have this letter included in the record.
Respectfully,
Mrs. EvELYx F. Prince.
September 26. 1974.
Senator Abraham Ribicoff,
U.S. Senate, Russell Building, Washington, B.C.
Dear Senator Ribicoff: On behalf of the National Organization for Women
we wish to urge your active opposition to the nomination of Governor Meskill of
Connecticut for a federal judgeship on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a
civil rights organization of more than 40.000 members dedicated to equality for
women and men under the law, we find Thomas J. Meskill to be totally
unacceptable.
He has clearly demonstrated his disdain for the civil rights of women. He has
also shown that he would not uphold the right to privacy as a constitutional
right, which should not be abridged by a .state. As governor of Connecticut, after
a U.S. District Court declared the Connecticut statute, which he backed, to
be an unconstitutional violation of a woman's privacy, he in.sisted that the Con-
necticut state legislature pass another bill nearly identical to the unconstitutional
state except that it increased the maximum penalties to five years each for the
woman, her physician, and for any person encouraging abortion. His obvious
disregard for the constitutionality of laws makes him a poor candidate, indeed,
for federal judge.
He has consistently elevated the rights of all others above the rights of women.
There is reason to believe that as a judge he would build an unsurpas.sed record
of judicial sexism.
Therefore, we would like to go on record in opposition to Meskill's nomination.
We would like to testify at any hearing concerning his nomination ; we urge the
withdrawal of his nomination.
Sincerely,
Karen DeCrow. President.
Spnntor Hruska. Mr. Cliairman, I understand that there is a ISrr.
(xerard R. Osgood from Hartford. Conn., here.
I do not know who he is or what ho is ofoing to say, but he made a
request to appear here and testify. PTe did talk to a member of the staff.
If it meets with the approval of the chairman, he may be called. I trust
it will not be too long. T have some commitments.
Senator Burdtck. The staff tells me that the witness will not take
more than 5 minutes. I hope he will not. I also have some commitments.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to ijive in thi^ matter
is tho truth, tlie wliole truth, and nothino; but the truth, so help you
God ?
]\rr. Osoono. T do.
539
TESTIMONY OF GERARD R. OSGOOD
Senator Bukdick. State you name and address and proceed in the
way you wish.
Mr. Osgood. JNIy name is Gerard R. Osgood. I was born and raised
in New Enghmd, to be more precise, within bloclvs of the Governor's
Mansion, i now lise in a Jeep roaming around the cou^icry, registration
Xew Hampshire B-E-I-X-G.
I guess 1 will begin with the purchase of a $240,000 aircraft 6 weeks
before the ending of the Meskill administration. "We are now trying
to sell it or have tried to sell it to our new Governor, and we are hav-
ing troublesome ditiiculty, that this did not even come up to $140,000,
from what 1 undertsaiid. This I gained from a local Hartford Courant
newspaper article. Also the purchase of a fence to contain the
Governor's xMansion. Tiiere was much dithculty over the question of
it. It was acquired for $1. It cost to put up, from what I understand,
between $o(J,0()U and s^fiU.OOO. tiius removing the concept, in my
opinion, of the Governor being open to the people. Maybe there are
reasons for security that this had to be done. I do not have knowledge
of that. It is just a question of it.
I also come here to state that I have displayed, within the laws of
this country, a display signal in front of the Capitol at Hartford,
openly, by inverting the American Hag, without doing it any disgrace,
to emit distress. M}' ditferences in philosophy and my beliefs in who I
am have compelled me to do so.
I have at ditferent times tried to gain appointment to this man for
conversation concerning issues being a lifetime resident of Hartford.
I was denied this.
I guess in closing I would like to say just for the credibility of what
I've said the reason win' I've come here is the indifference to the things
that are begimiing to occur here.
1 have a statement which I offered and gave to his administration.
I asked if I could work within the realm of his control on programs
in the interest and for the sole concept of survival. I was denied this.
I will leave a copy with you, and this merely is a reflection of how
I felt a year ago philosophically. And I hope the indifference to this
occurrence does not hinder the concept that we are pursuing as beings
in justice and I trust that you gentlemen will have the ability to take
all things into consideration.
I thank you for allowing me to be a part of this concept of freedom
in this forum.
Do you have any questions?
Senator Buedick. I have no questions.
We will adjourn subject to the call of the Chair.
There may be some furtlier questions submitted in writing. We do
not anticipate any further hearings this week at least. Senator East-
land will make the decision.
[V/hereupon, at 3 :35 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to
the call of the Chair.]
O
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11