Jepsen Refers SEBAC Investigation To Auditors
by Christine Stuart | Jun 20, 2011 4:55pm
Google
(8) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Labor, Legal, State Budget
(Updated 9:30 p.m.) Attorney General George Jepsen released a statement Monday afternoon referring the investigation of allegations made by the state employee unions regarding the Yankee Institute for Public Policy to the Auditors of Public Accounts.
Jepsen will investigate whether there were any violations of the state’s computer laws, but allegations the conservative think tank tried to sabotage the union ratification process through electronic messages will be handled mostly by the bipartisan auditors of public accounts.
“We have received a letter alleging improper use of the state email system,” Jepsen said. “Pursuant to the whistleblower statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 4-61dd, we are referring the matter to the Connecticut State Auditors of Public Accounts for their consideration. We will continue to review claims that state computer laws have been violated. At this time, there is insufficient information to comment further on the merits of these serious allegations.”
Matt O’Connor, spokesman for the State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition, said they were happy Jepsen decided to maintain jurisdiction over possible misuse of the state computer system and hopes both his investigation and that of the auditors is done in an expeditious manner. Since there are only five days left for state employees to vote on the $1.6 billion concession package, O’Connor stressed that time is of the essence.
Fergus Cullen, executive director of the Yankee Institute, called SEBAC’s allegations outrageous in an email Monday.
“We categorically deny all of the union’s accusations made in SEBAC’s desperate and paranoid June 17 letter to Attorney General Jepsen,” Cullen said. “If the unions can’t provide any evidence to support their charges, they should withdraw them and apologize to the Yankee Institute before their credibility is further damaged. Without such evidence, the Attorney General has no basis for an investigation and he should say so immediately.”
O’Connor maintains that the Yankee Institute has some explaining to do regarding its misrepresentation and “attempts to subvert a democratic election.” He said these are things not to be taken lightly.
“We understand the government unions are frustrated to have as effective a critic as the Yankee Institute,” Cullen said. “But that does not excuse the union’s delusional behavior or the union’s desperate attempt to use the power of the state to silence us.”
O’Connor said he understands the Yankee Institute doesn’t like the agreement or the middle and working class, but it doesn’t give it the right to meddle with an election.
Cullen suggested, “SEBAC cool off with a tall glass of lemonade and some time in the shade.”
O’Connor said as soon as the voting is done Friday he may take Cullen up on that offer, but in the meantime he called on Cullen to apologize for attacking the working people of the state of Connecticut.
Tags: jepsen, SEBAC, yankee institute
(8) Comments
posted by: sheepct | June 20, 2011 7:03pm
Hello SEBAC and Yankee Institute.. State employees in the room. Oh my, It appears that SEBAC is so far to the left and the Yankee Institute is so far to the right that they can’t see right in front of them. Thats right..Hellooooo. There is no conspiracy to undermine any election just normal folk expressing their freedom of speech. Maybe if you all focused a little on our needs we would all be better off. Just saying..
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | June 20, 2011 8:54pm
and to think ........ they both are of the opinion that the proposed agreement is a sweet deal. what do you suppose that means?
posted by: team | June 20, 2011 9:25pm
Dr.Hunter….possibly could mean collusion between two parties that each have their own special reasons to “level” State Employees
posted by: Truth, Justice and Karma | June 20, 2011 10:36pm
What does this accomplish? SEBAC needs to fire Livingston and whoever else at SEBAC thought it was a good idea to take this action. If the SEBAC deal was good, defensible, and supported by a majority of the members, there would not be a huge debate about its merits. The problem is it was made in secret with no rank and file members’ input. The deal’s changes are too radical and not needed. Most of those voting for it are only doing so because SEBAC has instilled fear in them that they will lose their jobs or get stuck with a worse deal down the road (these outcomes could happen if we continue to let the same ineffective people represent SEBAC). Let’s say for the sake of argument that someone did spread false information about the deal, this SEBAC compliant is insulting to SEBAC members because it implies we cannot properly access and analyze public information about the deal, i.e. we don’t know how to look into the facts, tell true from false, reach conclusions and make informed opinions. Time to go Livingston you little man.
posted by: team | June 21, 2011 6:03am
SeBAC is the organization that needs to be inverstigated!
http://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/sebac-2011-and-possible-conflicts-of-interest-of-union-negotiators/
posted by: CT Jim | June 21, 2011 6:05am
You would think that most could think for themselves but based on the President of one of the corrections locals thinking that there is singlepayer health care for everyone in this agreement. It kind of makes you wonder who voted for that guy.
posted by: team | June 21, 2011 6:10am
SEBAC only made these charges after the P4 Bargaing unit sent this complaint to the union
http://wisdomovertime.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/2011-sebac-agreeme-unit-p4-bargaining-unit-revolution/
What happened to this complaint? Seems it got buried” by the news that SEBAC filed this pseudo-complaint to the AG about the Yankee Institute by SEBAC.
posted by: eastrivertype | June 21, 2011 11:22am
Obviously SEBAC doesn’t care about the right to free speech. We already know that without their stooges in the legislature they would be in real trouble. Do you think that SEBAC would support legislation requiring the legislators to have to vote on agreements reached with the executive branch? Probably not since that would force the people we elect to stand up and be counted. Those that voted for the obscene package of wages and benefits that SEBAC gets would be bounced quickly by the voters. So lets not be surprised that SEBAC doesn’t want anyone to speak up on their sweetheart deals. Government in the sunshine is not in SEBAC’s interest.