The latest column from Keila Torres of the CT Post centers on the wording of the charter revision question to voters:
Who would vote against education governance reform?
Probably not many people in Bridgeport, given the number of failing schools in the city. And that’s exactly what it seems city officials are counting on come Nov. 6.
The City Council on Monday night approved a charter referendum question that will ask Bridgeport voters on Election Day: “Shall the city of Bridgeport approve and adopt the charter changes as recommended by the Charter Revision Commission and approved by the City Council, including education governance reforms?”
Education governance reforms can mean anything. I don’t think you can get more ambiguous than that. Those who haven’t been paying attention to what the changes are get no answers from this question.
And those who have been paying attention could easily be confused (tricked, really) into voting yes. Because based on test scores and graduation rates alone, the city definitely needs to reform its governance over education.
But it’s an entirely different thing to ask voters something specific like: “Shall the charter of the city of Bridgeport be changed so that the mayor and City Council, with the help of an advisory committee, be given the right to appoint Board of Education members instead of Bridgeport residents voting to fill those seats?”
The first question might elicit a quick “Yes!” from me if I dwelled on the last part and forgot the first, which is likely to happen. The second would make me pause and reread.
Bridgeport residents should absolutely have the right to vote for the people who make the policies in their children’s schools. But turnout at recent Board of Education elections have shown most people here don’t vote in these elections.
Is giving the mayor and City Council more power the solution to this problem, though? I’m not convinced. They’ve had power for decades over many other issues that this city is still struggling with, like economic development.
I would have loved for the city to choose a hybrid board proposal, with some appointed and some elected seats. A chance for both city officials and residents to have a vote and for board members to be accountable to both parties, not just the mayor.
This mayor doesn’t have a great record when it comes to education. This is a mayor who had a publicly acrimonious relationship with both the BOE and the superintendent of schools and flat-funded the school system every year during his first term.
This is a mayor who publicly lambasts his city’s only four-year public university.
This is a mayor who kept the planned dissolution of the former elected Board of Education a secret for months before it was quietly executed as his constituents watched it all unfold in confusion.
This is a mayor whose solution to making the dissolution stick was to appoint a Charter Revision Commission that voted in record speed to approve the changes exactly as he wanted.
And it seems this is a mayor who thinks these strategies–keeping his constituents at bay, giving as little information as possible and working only with those he likes–are worth repeating. The mayor should follow his own advice. Keep adult politics out of this.
Residents should know exactly what they’re voting for on Election Day.
Keila Torres must not want to keep her job by writing this article although I agree with what she is saying.
Putting the selection of the BOE members in the hands of Bill Finch would be a big mistake. He has shown time after time he really doesn’t care about the school children of Bridgeport by not properly funding education during his first four years.
What really scares me is giving the council more of a say in education matters.This group of lemmings will only rubber stamp what Finch puts in front of them. If the council really wanted to help Bridgeport all 20 candidates would NOT seek reelection. I firmly believe the city will never move forward with these 20 who are now serving.
While I am at it, a memo to John Olson. You did not show for the final budget vote and your tenure on the BOE was less than stellar so any ideas you have for the BOE please keep them to yourself.
Unfortunately for us, the Mayor had a political motive for setting up the Charter Review group. It was to provide him with additional power over the educational system through appointing people to the governance process and eliminating the vote and therefore voice of the people. In politics, direct power comes from Charter, ordinances and other legal authorizations like statutes and laws outside the City itself. Indirect power can come from supplying or withholding funds. In that sense as Keila Torres has indicated the Mayor failed to use his financial power and taxpayer money to improve the Bridgeport system for four years.
If he did not like the accountability of the BOE members or the Superintendent around finances, he had a ‘bully pulpit’ he failed to use in that regard. He also had behind the scenes ‘jaw boning’ that would not necessarily surface publicly. And he had Tom Sherwood who handled the presentation of all public finances with the City and the BOE on the same MUNIS system. Mayor Finch owns the stage, the spotlights and the whole stage crew and had full access to media to cover the news. What happened to the show? He moved the opening to Hartford, unfortunately, and his show had to ultimately close because the Supreme Court found the staging to be unlawful!
That does not stop the drive for more power. And it does nothing for the Mayor’s claim of accountability that has been my major concern when it comes to Bridgeport finances. Of course what the Mayor thinks he needs and what the average taxpayer thinks they need are probably widely different objectives. The Mayor has left “internal auditor” as part of internal control staff in the dust. He has no Board of Finance to act as sounding or review board for administration ideas or as a municipal check and balance. All he has is a City Council and committee system that keeps public comment limited and not recognized generally in their fiscal actions, and a pattern of keeping City financial information under wraps. My questions will continue. Yours should as well. About money. About Charter change. About discovering candidates with integrity who have no conflicts of interest. Time will tell.
Ron:
I wouldn’t worry about Keila.
From a guy who knew how to turn a phrase or two:
“Truth will out.”
*** Voter Elected or Mayor Appointed BOE? The question needs to be kept simple for the voters or they will skip it altogether, no? ***
I think that is their intent, no?
*** Due to lack of a “State Appointed BOE” pick, I’ll be voting for a “Voter Elected BOE!” *** HERE WE GO AGAIN! ***
I was patiently waiting to see how the City Council would word the charter change question on the ballot. Now that they have written it in such a devious manner, I know I am voting NO on the question. The best interests of Bridgeport’s children is a blended board. There are some very good changes within the full text of the proposed charter changes, but the wording of the ballot question makes the rest of the charter changes secondary. Bah humbug City Council! Good job Keila!
There is hope, after all, for the Connecticut Post. It may have to go back to its previous moniker, the Bridgeport Post!
Bridgeporteur, now that’s what I’m talking about.
Gooooooooo Keila!
I will be voting NOOO! And a few others …
*** The entire process from start to finish concerning the hand-picked charter-revision members and their choice of words in asking a simple question on “elected or appointed” BOE members in itself is questionable! This power-hungry admin. along with “some” of the Democratic endorsed city council members need to be investigated by the Feds. Who’s paid their car and property taxes, how, when, where, would be a good place to start, no? *** NO PICKING ON CHARLIE BROWN CHARTER REVISION. ***