Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case: 2:89-cv-00859-AI-IN Document 508-3 Filed O3/O3/2006 Page1 01*4
EXHIBIT 2

d Case 2:89-cv-00859-AI-IN Document 508-3 Filed O3/O3/2006 Page 2 of 4
-. ?ULLMAN&COMLEY, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Janes ·r. sumthin
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
’ p 293 330 2240
f 293 576 8888
[email protected]
February 27, 2006
Nancy Wyman
Comptroller, State of Connecticut
Office of the State Comptroller
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Re: Juan F. v. Jodi Rell, et al
Civil Action No.: 2:89cv8S9 (ARN)
Dear Comptroller Wyman:
Your letter to The Honorable Alan H. Nevas of February l5, 2006 was referred to me for
response. l was appointed by the Court to act as counsel to the Court Monitor in the luan F. v.
Rell, et al litigation.
l should note from the outset that while the Court appreciates the issues raised by your
letter, neither you nor your Office is a party to the proceeding. The Court does not comment or
address submissions made by persons or entities who are not litigants before it, especially about
a pending matter. However, given your interest in this matter as the funding arm for the Court
‘ l\/lonitor's Office, the Court has made an exception in this one instance, which should not be
taken as an indication of any future action. Henceforth, please communicate your concerns
through DCF. ‘
You state that the Courts Order of October 12, 2095 requires your office to receive
copies of the budgets for the Court Monitor’s Office. Actually, the Court’s Order provides that
the approved budget is to be submitted to your Office. As to the proposed budgets, however, the
Order specifically requires that they be provided to the Plaintiffs and Defendants, not the
Comptrollers Office. Although the parties have been discussing the budget for Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 2006 for the last several months, they have been unable to reach an agreement
on that proposal. Accordingly, on February i3, 2006, I submitted to the Court the budget
proposed by the Court Monitor. The Plaintiffs took no position with respect to the contents of
that budget. The Defendants agreed to reserve their rtht to object within ten days ofthe filing.
Once a budget has been reviewed and approved by the Court, I will forward a copy of it to you.
(I note in passing that your letter makes clear that you have already been given a copy of the
proposed budget, presumably by DCF).
nntoeunonr eaeauwscu unarrorae sramrono wesrponr wntra status

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AI-IN Document 508-3 Filed O3/O3/2006 - Page 3 of 4
PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW .
Page 2
With respect to your request that a statement be submitted of the actual expenditures,
please be advised that that process is underway. The delay was occasioned by the disruption
caused by the resignation of D. Ray Sirry, the need to resolve certain issues associated with his ·
employment, and the resulting impact those issues hadon the budget. The Court Monitor and
the Court Monitor’s accountant are in the process of preparing a year»to-date analysis, and I will
forward that to you upon receipt.
Your letter goes on to address certain pension retirement funds returned by one or more
employees of the Court Monitor's Office. Please be advised that a check in the amount of
$989,314.54 was delivered to Governor Rell, care of her counsel, Kevin Rasch, on February 13,
2006. At her instruction, the check was made out to Treasurer for the State of Connecticut. I
assume you will record it in whatever manner you see fit.
In that same paragraph, you indicate that $499,171.00 was paid in June of 2005 for the
current fiscal year. That payment is acknowledged. lt has been the source of funds by which the
Court Monitor’s Office has been operating for the current fiscal year. I note that the Court
Monitor, Mr. Ray Mancuso, made a request for additional funds on February 21, 2006 to
Magistrate Judge I-lolly Fitzsimrnons. That request will, in turn, be forwarded to you.
The bulk of the second page of your letter discusses issues involving Mr. Ray Mancuso.
Many of these issues have been raised by DCF and are the subject of a Detail Agreement signed
by multiple parties. The terms of that Detail are mernorialized, and I do not see the reason in this
letter to take issue with you on your reading. Suffice it to say, that if there are concerns that you
believe should be addressed in connection with Mr. Mancuso, l would ask that you do so through
DCF, the party to the current litigation. Mr. Mancuso is the current Court Monitor, and his
reporting obligations are to the Court and the Court alone.
I would note that Mr. Mancuso has made known on several occasions to DCF that he is
willing to have his State Pension be calculated as though he had remained in active employment
with the State, receiving the salary he received as of the year he was detailed to the Court
Monitors Office, although obviously adjusted for whatever increases he would have received in
the interim. In this regard, Mr. Mancuso has requested on several occasions that he be able to
meet with someone to calculate what his pension contribution will be going forward, based upon
such a revised analysis. Since he is paying this contribution personally, he obviously has an
interest in that outcome. If you can assist in assigning the right person to speak with him, I
would appreciate it. (Also, please note that the Court l\/Ionitor’s Office has not asked for the
return of any contributions based on so—called increased earnings.)
You have raised questions concerning the Court Monitors Offices 40l(k) Plan. As .
indicated to the parties through me, the Court has stated that it will not make a determination as
to whether there will be any employer contribution to the Plan until this calendar year is
concluded. I note in passing, that this 40l(l<.) Plan covers all the employees of the Court
Monitors Office, not just Ray Mancuso.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AI-IN Document 508-3 Filed O3/O3/2006 Page 4 of 4
. }?ULLl\/IAN &COMLEY, Ltc
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Page 3 ‘ ·
With respect to the payment of unemployment and worl need more information from you. Does the State currently cover these items for Ray Mancuso,
and does that coverage extend to his engagement as the Court Monitor? I doubt that such
coverage extends to the other employees ofthe Court Monitofs Office who are not detailed from
the State of Connecticut, but if you can advise me otherwise, I would be happy to ask Mr.
Mancuso to consider this issue.
Lastly, you raise issues concerning the bookkeeping practices of the Court Monitors _
Office. Again, these issues have been raised by DCF, and addressed by the Court; it is not
inclined to address them again with a non-party. As to your clairn that the audits required under
the current Order are inadequate, I am puzzled. The tinal financial statements are reviewed, not
audited.
Should you have any further questions or infomation to share with me, please feel free to
do so. ‘
Very trplgkyours,
//
a/’/"" -
___..— James T. Sheann
its/im
fl ”"
cc: i-ion. Alan H. Nevas rf
Mr. Raymond Mancuso
All Counsel of Record `