Connecticut Council On Occupational Safety: Despite His Claims, We're Not Affiliated With Ricci
The Senate may wish to place a moratorium on criticism of New Haven fire fighter cum expert legal witness Frank Ricci. But we sure don't.
On its official witness list, the Senate Judiciary Committee lists Ricci as Director of Fire Services, ConnectiCOSH (Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health). And that's understandable--he boasts as much on his website.
The problem, unfortunately, is that there is no such position.
Seeking to distance themselves from Ricci, ConnectiCOSH has sent a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asking him to correct the record. "Mr. Ricci has posted on his website that he is the "Director of Fire Services for ConnectiCOSH" but there is no such position with ConnectiCOSH," writes ConnectiCOSH Co-Chair Steve Schrag.
We have in no way authorized him to testify in relation to this nomination. In fact he does not hold any elected or appointed position with ConnectiCOSH.Please remove ConnectiCOSH from any association with Mr. Frank Ricci in relation to his testimony before your committee regarding Judge Sonia Sodamayor as his views are his own and do not reflect our organization's position regarding his lawsuit against the city of New Haven and subsequent legal decisions.
You can read the entire letter below the fold. At a glance, I'd say the non-existence of a "Director of Fire Services" position is probably evidence of anti-Ricci discrimination of some sort on the part of ConnectiCOSH, and they should either invent one or expect to be sued.
ConnectiCOSHCt Council on Occupational Safety & Health
683 North Mountain Road · Newington, CT 06111 · (860) 953-COSH (2674) · Fax (860) 953-1038
July 14, 2009
Senator Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Leahy,
On behalf of the Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health we wish to make clear that Mr. Frank Ricci is not speaking on behalf of our organization before your committee regarding the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Please remove ConnectiCOSH as an affiliation for him from your records and correct this error on the committee's website.
Mr. Ricci in the past has participated in ConnectiCOSH activities to strengthen workers' rights to refuse dangerous work and some fire safety issues. Mr. Ricci has posted on his website that he is the "Director of Fire Services for ConnectiCOSH" but there is no such position with ConnectiCOSH. We have in no way authorized him to testify in relation to this nomination. In fact he does not hold any elected or appointed position with ConnectiCOSH.
Please remove ConnectiCOSH from any association with Mr. Frank Ricci in relation to his testimony before your committee regarding Judge Sonia Sodamayor as his views are his own and do not reflect our organization's position regarding his lawsuit against the city of New Haven and subsequent legal decisions.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steve Schrag Judy Sparer
Steve Schrag Judy SparerCo-Chair ConnectiCOSH Board Member
CC: Frank Ricci
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Okay, fine, I have no problem with passing this along. But even though I never agree with people who say "just ignore them", in the case of Ricci I really do think that would be for the best. Considering that sneering senators have only succeeded in making Sotomayor look like a saint, and Ricci (if he speaks) will be representing the core conservative values "I don't care about law or the larger principles, just about getting mine!", I'm not too worried about him looking good to anyone but not-Joe the not-Plumber fans.
Yes, he's acting as a right-wing shill, but this is one case where I don't think it hurts us to uphold the principle that regular people ought to be able to testify in government matters without having every bit of dirt in their backgrounds dug up. Being hired by one party or being employed by a political or lobbying organization while representing yourself as a private citizen would be major. Inflating credentials is mildly interesting, and worth reporting only because the organization doesn't want to be associated with him. Anything below the level of public life, I don't care what he's done, I don't want to hear about it.
July 15, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first sentence of this entry:
I agree completely.
This IS his public life. There's nothing in this post that deals with his "private" life.
He's testifying because he's an alleged "expert" in discrimination law as practiced by Sonia Sotomayor. It is well within the bounds to question an expert's credentials and motivation.
July 15, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, what in the world do the senate republicans think they're accomplishing with their "persecuted white man" nonsense? I'd be happy to hear an explanation of how Jeff Session's (and Grahams' and Kyl's and...) naked contempt for judge Sotomayor is going to blossom into electoral ponies, but if there's one out there I haven't seen it yet. Evidently none of these guys have ever heard of Pete Wilson.
July 15, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Jefferson Beauregard Session III has, shall we say, a different group of constituents than Pete Wilson did.
July 15, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The aggrieved white male appeal works with the GOP base, and as their continuing repetition of "socialism, "Bill Ayers", "ACORN" illustrate, they refuse to make the leap to considering what works outside the base.
Also remember that racism in the form of the "Southern Strategy" worked for Republicans for a long time, and it still provides a solid base. They may be turning into a regional party, but they are the stronger party in those regions, and they haven't given up winning back suburbs and rural areas nationwide.
July 15, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that position is part of the Department of Law. Also.
July 15, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am shocked! Shocked! I tell you to find a REPUBLICAN witness on . . . Well . . . Anything lying!!!"
July 15, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink