The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-05-24

nittee comprising two Republicans, one Democrat, and the report of the committee, favorable. then was &C., cepted. moved for adoption, and the resolution eventually passed by the same vote majority.
 Sciullo Objected
 Alderman Sciullo, in the course of the resolution" moves, objected that the charter provided "by-laws and ordinances" should not be voted upon at the same meeting at which they were presented If "one-fifth of the board objected. This, after AL derman Kelly had pointed out that Sec. 38 of the charter provided that there should be no vote on any reso- lution unless a unanimous member ship approved.
 Throughout the rest of the eve ming it was back and forth, with frequent recesses for the Republican, majority committees to submit "fa- vorable" reports on the resolutions, then passing the resolutions over the objection of the Democratic membership. The committees" that is. the two Republican aldermen. most often Kingston and William J. kolbeck, sometimes Fenton F. Niver, DuBois, or Burton H. Walker, held their sessions at the aldermanic desks, the crowd in the passageway halting comfortable egress for such frequent sorties.
 Did Some Business
 A smattering of business" was sandwiched into the mid-meetinp by which the board voted to reduce by $17,775 a budget item anticipated from the state as state road aid because the state is furnishing ma- terlals instead of cash; approved setting up appropriations in various departmental budgets for new items; purchase of 8 right of way from John B. Hull for $500, the same that controller Sherwood L. Rowland refused $50 cash to the Edgewood avenue property owner, and others.
 With Deep Regret
 With "deep regret" Alderman Kingston read the resolutions pre- pared at earlier meetings of the Re- publican aldermen and with, as ad- mltted by at least one member, help" of an advisor, the resolutions calling for suspension of Alderman Kelly. This, with the others, called for appointment of a committee of the whole board to consider the grand jury charges and to report back at future meeting. Then, pro- vlded the board found the charges Justified, to vote to suspend him"
 Alderman Kelly refrained from voting on the resolution concerning himself and that relating to the Zap pointive officers, inasmuch as he came under both categories of the proposals stipulations. But when the resolution concerning Mayor Hayes was read, Alderman Kelly took the floor to remark:
 Kelly Again Attacks
 T purposely withheld comment on the previous resolutions because they referred to me. But when the Re- publican members offer a resolution prepared by someone not member of this board and expect us to vote on 1t to suspend the chief executive Of the city, question the authority under which they act and ask on what charter provision they base their authority for such move. There is no charter provision which allows the board of aldermen to suspend anyone.
 There is section, however" he continued, which allows the board to remove an officer, after charges have been preferred and a hearing held, by a two-thirds vote. This, and the other resolutions are out of or der and the board is acting without preferring charges"
 There ensued argument between Aldermen Kingston and Kelly over interpretation of the resolutions and the term bylaw, with President Perriello eventually ruling out of order the Democratic motion for tabling of the resolutions, in toto, later, that they be ruled out as out of order.
 May Be Illegal
 Alderman Sciullo propounded the belief that the resolutions on Alder man Kelly was illegal and that in Democratic form of government there should be no question of such action until such time as a citizen has had his day in court" (The original form of the resolutions on the city officers included the phrase, until proved guilty" shall be sus- pended, etc., but was marked out for a mllder form of expression).
 Mayor Resolution
 The resolution concerning the mayor was as follows:
 Whereas, during the last three months the affairs of the city of Waterbury have been under inves- tigation by grand jury selected by the superior court of Water- bury; and
 Whereas, said grand jury filed a report in the superior court for New Haven county in Waterbury on May l9, 193S condemning certain practices of city officials of the city of Waterbury, and naming Frank Hayes, as mayor, and others; and
 Whereas, upon information of Hugh M. Alcorn, special prose- cutor, designated by said su- perior court, a bench warrant has been issued charging said Frank Hayes with offenses in violation of the statute law of the State of Connecticut and the charter of this city; and
 Whereas, said Frank Hayes is not to be judged guilty of the offenses thus charged until he has had an opportunity to have his day in court; and
 Whereas this board is of opinion that the capacity of said Frank Hayes as mayor, and the propriety of continuing to act as mayor has been affected and im-