The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-05-20

CHAKLES 5. OCONNOR
 ". has not only neglected his
 duties under the charter, but has
 surrendered his prerogatives
 hereunder also :"
 tirely to the Mayor who has, appar- ently with complete disregard of the city's requirements and of reason able economy, employed special counsel who have been paid enor- nous fees. In 1897 alone, between $75, ,O00. and $100,000. of the city's money was so expended.
 In spite of the expensive array of special counsel who were employed in violation of the terms of the charter, the Corporation Counsel himself received from the city at least $7,979.25 in excess of his sal- ary as fixed by the charter and in violation of the specific provisions of the charter and of Section 6285 of the Connecticut General Stat utes, 1930.
 Section 27 of the charter which fixes the salary of the Corporation Counsel and of many officials of the city, specifically provides that the salaries so fixed
 "shall be in lieu of all fees, costs,
 emOluments or other cOmpensa-
 tion for any services or duties re-
 quired of said officers, respec-
 tiveIy."
 Ignorance of this charter provision might, conceivably, explain though not justify, the acceptance of extra compensation by some of the city's salaried officials, but it is inexcusa- ble in the Corporation Counsel.
 Petty Cash Expended
 During these eight years Corpora tion Counsel O'Connor has had at his disposal so-called petty-cash account, through which medium it seems, thousands of dollars of the city's money have been expended. At no time has any accounting of the sums disbursed through this account been rendered to any one. No record whatever of the disbursements made from it, or to whom, has been kept by the Corporation Counsel, and he has destroyed all the can- celled checks and check stubs which might now be of value in disclosing how this large fund was used. It is fair to conclude that the destruction by Corporation Counsel O'Connor of the only existing evidence of his stewardship of this fund was mo- tivated by a desire to conceal poSsi- ble irregularities, if not actual cor ruption.
 Without question the most flag rant case involving the illegal em- ployment of special counsel and the disbursement to him of large sums of the city's money is the case of Edward G. Levy, New Haven At torney. Between June, 1881 and July 1897, available records show that he received $126,707, from the City of Waterbury. Of this sum, however, he actually retained only rela- lively small portion. The circum- stances of his employment briefly were as follows:
 fAttys ACVy
 Mr. Levy had been practising law for a few years, had made some what of study of utility rates and had experienced minor successes in securing reductions in light and power rates for various theaterS which he represented in a profess sional capacity. Sometime around 1880 he became associated with George Browning & Co.,, Inc. Through an intermediary he made an appointment with Mayor Hayes Secretary, Thomas P. Kelly, and Kelly introduced him to Comptroller Leary. The Comptroller, Kelly and Levy had conference in the base ment of the Municipal Building, having gone there from the Comp troller's office so that they might talk in greater privacy. The em- ployment of Levy by the city for the purpose of attempting to secure a reduction in electric light and power rates for the city of Water bury was discussed and ultimately it was decided that the matter would be undertaken by Levy under a two-year contract with the tacit understanding that fifty per cent of each check or each payment made under the terms of the con- tract was to be retained by Thomas P. Kelly, the Mayors secretary for division by him with others. Pursu-- ant to this conference, a contract was prepared which met the ap- proval of MT. Browning. who may have been ignorant of the arrange ment relative to the so-called split, The contract was examined, ap-