Here's the latest:  the affidavit establishing the ground for a Search and Seizure Warrant of a gun from the home of Finance Director Vincent Palmeri, along with the Warrant itself. It's missing the cover page.

In March 2001, Charles DeMartino wrote a letter to First Selectman Kevin Kopetz, with copies to the other two selectmen, about problems with the Ierardis. He provided some detailed information and asked for an investigation. Nothing was done. Mr. DeMartino was not a Democrat trying to cause trouble. He is a lifelong Republican who, in 1998, ran against Steve Fontana for State Representative.

Arrest Warrant Affidavit of Community Services and Recreation Director Joseph Ierardi (days
          before his arrest, he was also Chair of the North Haven Republican Town Committee)
Arrest Warrant Affidavit of Community Services and Recreation Asst. Director Patricia Ierardi 
Arrest Warrant Affidavit of Finance Director Vincent Palmeri

I have put these arrest warrant affidavits here not to satisfy the urge to rubberneck. I have put them here because North Haven residents should see what has allegedly been going on behind their backs. Much of what happens in our town government goes on behind our backs. Whether or not these three people are guilty of crimes, they and many of their colleagues are guilty of deceiving and intimidating people in this town. They are guilty of putting their personal interests and the interests of their colleagues ahead of the public interest in an honest, respectful government.

There is no reason for me to discuss the charges against the Ierardis; you can read them yourself. What is most important about the Ierardis' activities is how much other town officials apparently knew or suspected about them and how little they apparently did about what they knew or suspected. It is this refusal to fulfill their fiduciary duty with respect to taxpayers’ money that characterizes our town’s government. Some of this comes out in the arrest warrant affidavits, but only a small amount. Yet even that small amount is shocking.

In the affidavit concerning Joseph Ierardi, paragraph 6, David DeMartino says that he told his concerns to his union president in 2000. Nothing was done, even though DeMartino’s questions apparently led to Ierardi’s anger and DeMartino quitting his job.

In paragraph 9, Cheryl Munro, Ierardi’s secretary, says that, at the 2005 Christmas party, she told First Selectman Kevin Kopetz about her troubles at work, regarding false travel reimbursements and Ierardi’s threats to her, and he did nothing. Kopetz admits in paragraph 39 that she approached him then, but that she appeared intoxicated and never said anything specific about any criminal acts.

In paragraph 15, Ierardi, being tape recorded without his knowledge, says with respect to his false travel reimbursements, "They over there, have been told my whole history of travel. Palmeri, Kevin, Jeff." That is, Director of Finance Vincent Palmeri, Kevin Kopetz, and Town Attorney Jeffrey Donofrio. The three individuals with the greatest responsibility, respectively, for town finances, town administration, and town laws, knew about the embezzlement and did nothing. Of course, Ierardi may have been lying.

In paragraph 17, the investigator says that among the documents handed over to him by Palmeri there was no documentation of travel reimbursement for the period 9/1 to 12/31/06. In paragraph 15, Ierardi says that this document "is gone. ... It doesn’t exist." However, it had been filed with the finance department. In paragraph 19, the accounts payable bookkeeper, Josephine Landolfi, says that she received this document and refused to sign off on it. Palmeri took it from her, saying it was "probably bogus." In paragraph 15 of the affidavit relating to Palmeri, he told the state investigator that he did not know where this document was, that he had handed over all the documents requested. When told that the investigator knew he had rescinded the document, Palmeri denied it. When shown a copy of the document, he became very nervous, and he immediately found the document in a pile on the desk in front of him.

In paragraph 19, Landolfi says that over the years she questioned requisitions submitted by Ierardi, but that, each time, Palmeri told her that Ierardi’s paperwork was fine.

In paragraph 22, comptroller (and now acting finance director) Edward Swinkoski said that he had suspicions concerning the financial operations of Ierardi’s department. But he apparently did nothing. Swinkoski also says that, last year, leftover grant money from the state Department of Social Services was transferred to other accounts in Ierardi’s department at the request of Ierardi and "at the direction of Vincent Palmeri." I believe that spending grant money on something for which the grant was not intended is illegal.

In paragraph 38, when the investigator asked Palmeri if he ever questioned any of Mrs. Ierardi’s overtime requests, he said, "you don’t question another department head." The investigator pointed out to him that this was his job. And that is the basic question here: was it Palmeri's job to supervise finances or was it his job to allow department heads to do what they wanted, without any accountability, without protecting taxpayers' interests?

In paragraph 39, Kopetz says that he received an anonymous letter in 2005 containing accusations against Ierardi, including theft of cash and embezzlement of funds donated for the fuel fund. He said that he met with Ierardi, and that Ierardi denied any wrongdoing. That was apparently enough for Kopetz.

For years, important town officials seem to have known or suspected that something was amiss with finances in Ierardi’s department. And yet nothing was done. No one required accountability. No one protected the people whose money they were spending. That is the most important thing we discover in these warrant affidavits.

(Most of the facts included in the second two affidavits are, as far as I can tell, excerpted from the affidavit concerning Joseph Ierardi, with the exception of some at the end of the Palmeri affidavit. The principal difference is the charges.)