About a week away from the Nov. 4 general election featuring races for Board of Education, city sheriffs and City Council, as well as two charter revision questions.
The school board candidates lead the ballot. Due to the overwhelming Democratic registration, the real race is between the Republican candidates incumbent Akisha Cassermere and David Gelin, and incumbents Rob Traber and Joe Sokolovic, running on the Working Families and Independent Party lines, for the two remaining minor-party positions on the nine-member board. The two highest vote receivers among those candidates will join the new board in December.
From city website:
There will be two questions included on the ballot. Proposed revision of the Charter of the City of Bridgeport to be voted on in the City of Bridgeport in the Election to be held on Tuesday, November 4, 2025, Pursuant to §9-369b (a) of the Connecticut General Statues (C.G.S.). The full text of the Charter Revision and Questions are available at the Town Clerk’s Office for public inspection. (Habrá dos preguntas incluida en la papeleta de voto. Propuesto de revisión de la Carta de la cuidad de Bridgeport para ser sometida a votación en las elecciones de la Ciudad de Bridgeport el dia de martes 4 de noviembre de 2025 Conforme al §9-369b(a) de los Estatutos Generales de Connecticut (C.G.S.). Texto completo sobre la Revisión de la Carta Y preguntas estan disponible en la Oficina de Town Clerk para inspección publica.
- Shall the City of Bridgeport approve and adopt Charter amendements to modernize the City Charter, including but not limited to, strengthening Ethics, reforming Civil Service, and establishing uniform standards for departments, boards and commissions? ¿Aprobará la Ciudad de Bridgeport y adoptará enmiendas de la Carta para modernizar la Carta de la Ciudad, incluyendo, entre otros, el fortalecimiento de la Ética, la reforma del Servicio Civil y el establecimiento de estándares de uniformes para departamentos, juntas y comisiones?
- Shall the Charter be amended to discontinue electing the Town Clerk, City Clerk, and the municipal Sheriffs following the municipal election in 2027 at which election these positions will be filled for terms ending on November 30, 2031, and thereafter the Town Clerk and City Clerk positions will be filled by a non-partisan civil service selection process effective on or after December 1, 2031?¿Se modificará la Carta para dejar de elegir al Secretario Municipal, al Secretario de la Ciudad y a los Sheriffs Municipales después de las elecciones municipales en 2027, en las que se cubrirán estos puestos por mandatos que finalizan el 30 de noviembre de 2031, y posteriormente los puestos de Secretario Municipal y Secretario de la Ciudad se cubrirán mediante un proceso de selección de servicio público no partidista a partir del 1 de diciembre de 2031?
See all Bridgeport sample ballots here
See tutorial to new machine tabulator here
Bullet Joe Sokolovic!
Sonny, just in case someone gets the wrong impression: “A bullet vote refers to a voting strategy in which a voter selects only one candidate, even though it is possible to vote for multiple candidates.”
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the support.
Except for the elimination of the elected Town Clerk and Sheriff’s positions, the questions on Charter Change are much too vague and ambiguous to merit a YES vote. We need important “particulars” to make Charter changes. I will be voting NO to changing anything on Ethics and Civil Service since there is no real indication of where the changes will take us. I will also be voting NO about the elected positions, since those positions will be even more ripe for “nepotism” if they don’t require an election process.
The Charter Change questions look too much like a tactic to hoodwink the voters…
Vote NO for CHARTER CHANGE!
Jeff,
I have read your opinions and understandings in the past and agreed with you on multiple occasions.
But did you not know, read, or hear that a Charter Commission was agreed to by Mayor and Council President in January 2024, and that a group was not assembled, larger than the targeted seven, all thirteen of us until 2-28-2025.
There have been notes taken in each session, plus continuing revisions during the sessions scheduled until a document was approved and sent to City Council for review. Publilc hearings, special meetings and regular sessions by City Council and Charter Commission exceeded 25. A video tape system available to the public was used so every word was captured.
You have not dealt with Civil Service in the current 1993 Charter and that revised and approved in the 2025 Charter or you would not declare confusion about the direction of future actions. In similar fashion, Ethics has enforcement, a staffed process, and some energy to deal with “conflicts of interest”.
You likely have some strange bedfellows, who split the revisions in two parts, at the last moment when no comments from the public were entertained or admissible.
Particulars were public. What are your questions, even at this late date? As I usually reference upon departure, time will tell.
Does it even matter? It’s just rules of engagement for Port politics, for whatever side holds/elected office and those who are in opposition, and how, when,where they are applied. Thought regardless it will be a Democrat. No?
Outside of coded side words, for hooray for our side, everybody says they want accountability particularly when it suits their political side team, but generally speaking there’s no such thing as accountability in democracy’s politics. Because no one really there be held accountable. It just recycles itself untill the next election cylce.
Sure some may get caught in the dragnet but, but no really give a shit, as long as it is not them. Thus The Beat Goes On.
Don’t buyt that take G1. He was held accountable, no? Yet we are, for better or worse, pointing that fingers at what is, what was,or what could have been, with regards to Port’s charter revision. However, there wasn’t much finger pointing between the sides back then because everybody had a hand in the cookie jar getting fat off taxpayer money where the word accountability is a mirage an illusion, for the most part.
Like accountability, it’s all on a need to know basis. Don’t buy that check the Billboards. Be for that generally there where no questions no inquiries but the beat went on. John.
So when it comes to ethics rules and regulations what are we really saying?
It says we are basically unethical and we have to make rules to adhere too via through punishment if broken, particularly when the only thing in politics is getting reelected that you are accountable for AKA what’s in it for me as it pertains to my side that g8ve me a sense of value, as I am damnd If do and damned if I don’t.
It’s not if but the one’s that enjoy it. John?
Building a stronger ethical mouse trap doesn’t adherently create a stronger more ethical Mouse’s just a stronger mouses willing to go beyond The Rules of Engagement, ethnically speaking. JMO
Try to play nice or at least not enjoy it as you case your stone
BTW, is this a coded thing that has to be deciphered? Because this is the most retarded thing I ever heard of for the Port, I mean let’s build a bridge right over our beach, cut through city neighborhood so we can connect people to Long Island to 95 in CT.
That shits retarded on a level. The Port must be hated on another level to have a bridge through their Beach. The saddest thing considering the dump that they put on the side of the Port’s beach I’m not sure if this is a joke, a coded thing, or real intent, just saying
https://connecticut.news12.com/ct-developer-pushing-for-50b-long-island-sound-bridge-prepares-pitch-for-president-trump?fbclid=IwY2xjawNs2lxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE5U3MwT1hPaFl3M2pFaEMyAR7AbD7BhAOn-jsAFimFKP9rIni2yXKlDrJhoPb_6Gl4iNgY3pKsKwMcSt3OSg_aem_1t4iwCsyvkqZa5o4WJ_BNA
Never ever give up your right to vote on anything.
All elected should have a 4 year term.
Joe: Voting for the 4-year term in the Charter revision of some 25 years reduced our right to vote by 50%. Changing from two-year terms to four-year terms reduces your right to vote! It makes for less accountability and more shenanigans… WE SHOULD NOT GIVE THE COUNCIL THE FOUR-YEAR TERM AND WE SHOULD REMOVE IT FROM THE MAYOR AND HIGHER OFFICES…
To be fair, with the modern tunnel technology having a tunnel to easy traffic convert traffic flow on 95 and low NY makes sound sense, js
John: The vague, ambiguous language presented per the ballot questions on Charter Change, just because of their vagueness and ambiguity, merit a NO vote. Regarding the Ethics Commission, there needs to be particulars to merit a YES vote. There are no specifics. The change from elected to appointed positions for Town Clerk and Sheriff, in my opinion, merit a NO vote due to the risk of nepotism. Civil Service has proven to not be a reliable, honest broker for ensuring against nepotism and unqualified persons being “appointed” without merit to Civil Service positions… The system in Bridgeport is broken, and wholesale political change will be necessary in order to create the comprehensive, effective Charter changes that need to be installed in the Bridgeport City Charter. (First and foremost — get rid of the 4-year mayoral term and take it back to the much more accountable 2-year term…)
Whatever the public comments and committee debates concerning Charter Change, they didn’t distill out, per the Charter change questions on the ballot, into anything meriting a YES vote…
Vote NO to Charter Change on November 4. (Back to the drawing board…)