UNION / CITY / IPS / FOLLOW THE EMAILS
Why is the union involved?
An opinion piece. A separate press release. A documented path through City Hall and its PR contractor.
Why did City Hall bring its PR contractor into union advocacy? Emails show City officials involving Intersect Public Solutions (IPS) in Local 892's op-ed placement effort. A separate release then went to the union president for review before the City sent it.
Two related outputs: the union's opinion piece and a separate press release quoting it. These records do not show that IPS wrote the original opinion piece.
1. March 6: the union asks City officials for placement
Local 892 president Michael Podzaline asks John Salomone and Samuel Wilson to share the opinion piece with media contacts, particularly a named journalist, “regarding placement as an Op-Ed.”
Why it matters: The placement request came from the union to City officials. This is the starting point of the documented chain.
Read the email and its context
Source A, original page 1: March 6, 3:13 PM request quoted beneath the March 9 forwarding email. The source lists opinion-piece attachments; this packet does not reproduce those attachments.
Screened email packet, page 2 (PDF; opens in a new tab)2. March 9: City forwarding, an IPS offer, and “Yes please”
Wilson forwards the request to IPS's Brian Durand, copying Bella Langlois: “For your media contacts.” Durand recommends sending it to an editor or opinion editor, rather than broadly distributing it to the press. He offers to bring it to editors that morning. Wilson replies, “Yes please.”
Why it matters: The reply accepts assistance with placing the opinion piece. Durand also distinguishes that work from a separate release for wider press distribution.
Read the email and its context
Source B, original page 1: Wilson's March 9, 9:25:41 AM reply includes Durand's 9:25 AM offer. Source A, packet page 2, carries Wilson's 9:10:38 AM forwarding email. These are the times displayed in the supplied records.
Screened email packet, page 3 (PDF; opens in a new tab)3. March 11: IPS asks the union to review a separate draft
Durand thanks Podzaline for the opinion piece and asks what he thinks of an attached draft release “which quotes from your opinion piece.” He proposes issuing it from John's office the next day once Podzaline signs off.
Why it matters: Union review was sought for the separate release. The email describes a proposed City distribution route; it does not establish who wrote every line or approved every City claim.
Read the email and its context
Source C, original pages 3–4: the March 11, 9:10 AM quoted header is on packet page 4; the draft-review request continues on packet page 5. The attachment itself is not included in this screened packet.
Screened email packet, page 5 (PDF; opens in a new tab)4. March 11: the union president approves the release
“The press release looks good from my end.”
Michael Podzaline, Local 892 president — March 11, 9:31 AMPodzaline also says the Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters Association of Connecticut will distribute it to its media contacts the next day.
Why it matters: This is a recorded approval and a promise of further distribution. The promise alone does not prove that the state association subsequently sent it.
Read the email and its context
Source C, original page 3, quoted approval paragraph. The displayed time is retained without assuming a timezone.
Screened email packet, page 4 (PDF; opens in a new tab)5. March 12: the City sends a release; a journalist acknowledges it
Durand asks whether Salomone is ready for the release to go out from his office that morning and proposes IPS follow-up calls. A separate outgoing email from Salomone at 11:40:25 AM carries a press-release attachment. At 1:42 PM, journalist Brian Scott-Smith thanks John and asks questions about “that press release.”
Why it matters: The outgoing email and acknowledgment document City distribution to at least one journalist. They do not identify a complete recipient list or verify every proposed follow-up.
Read the email and its context
Source D, original page 1, outgoing City email and attachment name. Source E, original page 2 (packet page 8), supplies the journalist's acknowledgment; the cropped excerpt omits his subsequent questions. Source C, original page 1 (packet page 6), shows the earlier proposed office issuance.
Screened email packet, page 7 (PDF; opens in a new tab)
What this establishes—and what remains open
The emails establish coordination on the union's opinion-piece placement and union review of a separate City-issued release. They do not establish an unlawful motive, a shutdown conspiracy, the adequacy of the safety review or why removal of a company was necessary.
The February 25 IPS engagement letter describes communications and public-affairs support. Its contract rate does not establish the amount actually charged for these emails or this placement effort.
Our question: What public purpose was served by involving the City's PR contractor in promoting the union's op-ed? Who authorized that work, and what was actually charged?
The City and union advocate Unified Command on safety and coordination grounds. These communications show how that position was promoted; they do not resolve whether its underlying claims are supported. Four February written assessments exist and must be considered separately.
Read the assessment context · Read the command-policy context
Source and privacy notes
This guide uses selected supplied FOI email PDFs. The eight-page reading packet identifies the five original files, original pagination and SHA-256 fingerprints. Personal phone numbers, email addresses and signature images are removed. Newspaper clipping material, embedded attachments and unrelated later discussion are omitted. The original files remain unchanged.
The packet consists of screened page images, without hidden original text or embedded source files. It is a reading aid, not the complete correspondence or the full press-release text.
Read the full screened packet (PDF, 8 pages; opens in a new tab)Have a missing record or a correction? Read the corrections and right-of-reply policy. Return to the homepage record.