The annual statement of residency validation by city officials is dearth of participation, according to John Marshall Lee who informed the City Council Monday night during the public speaking portion of the regular meeting.
Here’s what he said:
Providing OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE, TRANSPARENT and HONEST information about the City operation in regular fashion is critical to sustain trust by voters, taxpayers, and others who believe in democratic activity and practices. Locally you considered an ordinance that required an annual official registering of residence by those who are elected and/or appointed as municipal officials. Bridgeport created such a requirement in 2017. The forms are stamped with the date when received and signed by an office holder attesting to their voter residence with proof of address. Since residence is a critical factor for candidacy or appointment, how is that working, by itself? Not well in my opinion. Why are fewer than 10% of more than 150 such officials required to provide this information signed in at the Town Clerk’s office where the notebook was kept last week?
When you add the elected City officeholders to the current appointments to Boards and Commissions, more than 150 folks should have signed the form, complete, accurate, and with evidence. In the ninth month of 2024, a look at the Town Clerk records indicate that the Mayor, City Council Chair, and City Clerk, among others, have failed to comply with the annual duty. When a question arises about residence and voting registration, such a form can quiet initial concerns, though we can see that the financial details about one person’s residence may take longer to square away.
Is it because there is no enforcer and no penalty other than a referral to the Mayor’s office, where this responsibility is currently not observed? What would ‘better order’ look like, in your opinion? When you pass an Ordinance, you understand its purpose likely, and state it, but do you appoint an observer to oversee the process or act systematically? Is there an incentive to encourage compliance or a disincentive when compliance is neglected? What do you set in motion to encourage learning, democratic practice, and public service above a basic knowledge of how our neighbors, as human beings, deserve attention in a variety of ways as community members? Time will tell.
Yesterday was the Anniversary of the US Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 after four months of discussion and debate by those thinker/Founders who saw that the preceding Articles of Confederation, crafted in 1771 and finally adopted in 1781 were failing to serve the colonies turned states. One historic, well traveled, and creative Founder, Ben Franklin was 81 at the time of his participation, three years before his death in 1790. Dip into history of the time seen through his eyes as a journalist-printer, inventor, and statesman among other pursuits and see how his experience and judgment informed his work and words.
Note the Constitutional initial words, “We the people…” identifying the ultimate source of power, influence, and rights? Very different from an alliance of geographic entities as in the Confederation. Not perfect by any means, but allowing Amendments like the Bill of Rights to recognize how a republic operating in democratic fashion might work and then change through time and the context of history. But do we study such today?
Where do discussions or conversations occur? (Were you aware that Gen Now is holding a CIVICS 101 session this weekend that is free, and held on the University of Bridgeport campus?) What is the latest challenge to our governance? Who will participate in finding the truth? How many will respond through informed voting this year? Time will tell.
Articles of Confederation 1777 not 1771. Sorry for misstrike. Peace. JOHN