In what he describes as “the first of what will likely be a multi-pronged effort to shine the light and turn up the heat on those who need to be held accountable for their actions,” David Walker, the former U.S. comptroller general, has filed an ethics complaint against City Council President Tom McCarthy claiming the leader of the city’s budget and legislative body took measures to increase his salary in violation of the City Charter and code of ethics, as well as citing other conflicts of interest that require McCarthy “to resign from the City Council or else he should be removed from City Council.” McCarthy is deputy director of Labor Relations. Walker, a resident of Black Rock, filed the complaint on behalf of the community action group Citizens Working For A Better Bridgeport.
Walker centers part of his complaint on a City Charter provision approved by voters that prohibits city employees from serving on the City Council to avoid conflicts of interest such as approving their own wages and benefits. City Attorney Mark Anastasi claims a provision in state statute trumps the City Charter allowing municipal employees to serve on the council irrespective of parallel laws that forbid this on state and federal levels. Walker also sets the table for what could be legal action challenging city employees serving on the City Council.
Will Walker’s complaint resonate with the Ethics Commission? No. McCarthy will simply wave an opinion letter from Anastasi (whose office also advises the Ethics Commission) asserting McCarthy’s on the side of the angels. The city’s Ethics Commission, whose members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council, has been largely a do-nothing toothless tiger since its creation in 1986. But Walker’s strategy appears to be following a remedy “reserving our right to pursue this and related matters in court if we are not satisfied with the outcome.”
In the cover letter to his ethics complaint, Walker claims “Tom McCarthy has engaged in multiple violations of the City Charter and the City of Bridgeport’s Code of Ethics as outlined in the attached letter.” OIB will reach out to Big Mac for a comment. Walker’s complaint follows:
On Behalf of the Citizens Working for a Better Bridgeport (CW4BB), I am filing this formal ethics complaint against City Council President Tom McCarthy. Importantly, we believe that the Commission needs to have an independent counsel work with you on this important matter. In our view, given the person and the nature of issues involved, this complaint raises important separation of powers issues between the Executive and Legislative branches of city government and therefore the City Attorney and his office are not independent in connection with this matter.
During the past two years, including the last two budget cycles for the City of Bridgeport, Tom McCarthy has engaged in various activities that violate basic ethical principles, as well as certain important provisions of the City Charter and the Code of Ethics for the City of Bridgeport. As you know, in addition to being President of the City Council, Tom McCarthy is an employee of the City of Bridgeport. Specifically, he is the Deputy Director for Labor Relations for the City of Bridgeport.
Despite the fact that Tom McCarthy is a city employee and not a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committee (Committee), during calendar 2012 and 2013, he engaged in various discussions and participated in Committee meetings in situations where issues were being considered that could have a significant direct or indirect impact on his compensation and/or the work done by him and his office. For example, during the FY 2013-2014 budget discussions, a range of issues were being considered by the Committee, including possible pay freezes, temporary reductions in pay, and/or furloughs for the Mayor and various senior City Managers, including Tom McCarthy. Additional recommendations made to the Committee that were under consideration included possible actions relating to bargaining units for which Tom McCarthy is responsible for ongoing relations and periodic negotiations.
Despite the above clear potential conflicts, Tom McCarthy actively participated in several Committee hearings, meetings and various communications. For example, as reported by the Connecticut Post, despite his conflict and the fact that he was not a member of the Committee, he urged the Committee not to consider reductions in the Mayor’s budget and certain other items, including some that could have impacted him personally (e.g., putting his proposed over $15,000 raise at risk).
While Tom McCarthy abstained from voting on his proposed over $15,000 pay increase in 2012 when the Council acted on the related matter, he did not recuse himself in connection with the matter. Specifically, he engaged in discussions with other Council members regarding the proposed pay increases for senior managers, of which he was one, and took steps to make sure that the votes were there to pass even if he abstained from voting.
As noted in a recent Connecticut Post article, Sue Brannelly, Co-Chair of the Committee, stated that the 2013-2014 budget included more concessions from the unions in order to fund the pay raises for senior managers, including the over $15,000 increase for Tom McCarthy. Importantly, Tom McCarthy both lobbied and voted for the budget that contained the related union concessions and that funded his significant pay increase.
On a somewhat related matter, Chapter 5, Section 5 (g)(1) precludes City employees from serving on the City Council. This provision was designed to parallel both federal and state laws that prevent employees from serving on their top legislative bodies because of the very real and perceived conflicts of interest that are inherent in such situations, including in connection with pay related matters. This prohibition was approved by the citizens of Bridgeport in the 1980s.
The City Attorney has asserted that this Charter provision is preempted by a state law that passed in the 1990s. As a result, Tom McCarthy and four other City employees currently serve on the Council. Importantly, the issue of whether the aforementioned state law preempts the City Charter has never been litigated. In addition, legislation (i.e., HB 5724) is currently pending in the Connecticut state legislature. That bill would make it clear that city employees are precluded from serving on the City Council unless that City Charter expressly allows them to do so. Such is not the case in Bridgeport. As a result, depending on the resolution of HB 5724, the City Attorney’s interpretation of current state law may be the subject of future litigation and both the City Attorney and Tom McCarthy would be named in any such suit.
Irrespective of the above, even current opponents of HB 5724 recognize the basic conflict issues that can be raised by City employees serving on the Council. For example, State Senator Anthony Musto, who is a practicing attorney, recently wrote, “While there is a certain potential for a conflict of interest, members (of the Council who are City employees) should recuse themselves when appropriate …” Tom McCarthy has consistently failed to do so.
The City Charter contains other provisions that are designed to prevent any real or perceived conflicts of interest by City Council members. Specifically Chapter 5, Section 5 (f)(1) states “No member of the city council shall take any official action, or attempt to influence the official action of another person, with respect to any vote, resolution, or matter whatever in which he/she has a direct or special pecuniary interest or where his property will be directly or especially affected thereby.” Furthermore, Chapter 5, Section 5 (f)(2) of the City Charter states “Any member of the city council who, while holding office, shall directly or indirectly, take or bargain for any fee, compensation or reward to influence his vote or action upon any matter pending in the city council, shall be expelled from the city council.” These Chatter provisions are not affected by the aforementioned state law.
In addition to the above City Charter provisions, basic ethics rules require that government employees avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. In that regard, Section 2.38.010 of The Code of Ethics for the City of Bridgeport states “It is advisable that all city officials and employees should avoid any conduct having the appearance of violating any of the standards set forth in 2.38.030 of this ordinance.” In addition, Sections: 2.38.030A provides a general prohibition in matters that involve a “substantial conflict” with the proper discharge of his/her duties or employment in the public interest and of his/her responsibilities …” Furthermore, Section 2.38.030.B3 states, that city officials or employees should not “Engage in any business transactions or activity of have a financial interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of his/her duties or employment in the public interest or which may compromise his/her independence or judgment in the performance of such duties or employment.” Tom McCarthy has clearly violated these provisions when, as President of the City Council, he should be leading by example in connection with prevailing ethical standards.
Given the seriousness of the above violations, the leadership position that Tom McCarthy holds on the City Council, the fact that Tom McCarthy received a more than $15,000 pay raise as a result of the City Council’s approved city budget and the related tax increase for FY 2014, which Council President McCarthy voted for, and the resulting harm that has been caused both to the City of Bridgeport’s taxpayers (i.e., property tax increases the past two years which helped fund pay increases for Tom McCarthy in each year) as well as to the image of the City of Bridgeport as a result of these violations (i.e., the existence of a dysfunctional Council with clear competency challenges and major conflict of interest issues), we believe that Tom McCarthy should either be required to resign from the City Council or else he should be removed from City Council.
We hope that you will give this matter the serious, independent and expeditious attention that it deserves. We are also reserving our right to pursue this and related matters in court if we are not satisfied with the outcome.
This is an important first step in addressing key ethics and performance issues in our elected officials. Government must be held to be legitimate if people consent to it, and people must consent to it if it is legitimate. The City Charter is our contract with our city government, our consent to its legitimacy. The city officials have mercilessly bent, violated and loopholed our city charter rules into an agreement that does not serve its citizens. The actions of Mr. McCarthy are wrong. There is no shame in being wrong, even the most successful people make significant mistakes. The problem is not in being wrong, but rather persisting in wrongness–failing to get less wrong over time. Over many years, this has not happened in the case of Mr. McCarthy. Addressing this wrong behavior should start at the top, at the first transgression, it has not. It is now time for all citizens of this city to unite and demand satisfaction. We must let the city know we are no longer going to grumble amongst ourselves, shake our heads, shrug our shoulders and allow this behavior to continue. We are going to unite, keep vigil; we are going to file public, legal documents until you have no choice but to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the law and our city charter.
This is indeed an important step in addressing fundamental flaws in our City Governmental adherence to our City Charter and the glaring conflicts of interests that are present with regard to the dual nature of many of our elected City Council members’ relationships to the City they serve.
The City Charter is indeed our contract with our city government, and it is indeed our consent to its legitimacy. The Charter clearly outlines the rules we the citizens consented to, and any deviation from the document we voted into place should not be accepted, nor should it be recognized as a legitimate way to conduct the business of running this City.
Our vote for the Charter dictates we fail to recognize any need whatsoever to seek out loopholes that provide a way for the Charter to be violated, and furthermore, we were not consulted by the City of Bridgeport elected officials or attorneys regarding a need to do so.
In short, many of the Citizens of Bridgeport do not recognize a vast number of the current methods utilized to run this city as viable, ethical or effective.
Who is currently on the City’s Ethics Commission? Have they passed background checks and been approved by the City Council? Were any city employees who serve on the council members of the committee that interviewed the members? Did Tom McCarthy or any other city employees/council members vote for anybody who is one of the current sitting members of the Ethics Commission? Have their terms expired? Do they have party affiliations? Who provides legal counsel to the Commission? Will the Commission entertain amicus briefs? When do they meet? Are any of their proceedings open to the public? This is a very important complaint that deserves serious consideration by independent thinkers. Those who are conflicted would have to step away from the issue which begs the question of whether they can muster up a quorum.
Lennie posted a great outline of the current ethics process a few days ago–can you direct count to this, please?
This should be real good. David Walker, meet City Attorney Mark Anastasi.
Not to mention violation of the Connecticut practice Book 2013.
Under Rules of Professional Conduct.
Bring forth these Testators to justice!
Marc Anastasi. Tom McCarthy and Steven Stafstrom.
The will of the people have been violated!
Once more!
Hmmm, I wonder how many other state statutes “trump” local ordinance! This could get ugly.
$15,000 raise is only $3,000 more than a substitute teacher makes in the City of Bridgeport for a year. Lolololololol. Sad but so true.
UGLY is what our “representative body” has come to be. I am making a judgement as I say this. It is based on five years of observing City Council practices, supplemented and fed by the administration. In addition to observing the way the Council does business, I have held up better practices from other communities that allow the people to be heard, elected representatives to get more professional assistance and timely information, and support a widespread trail of info within the City of meetings, minutes and activities of members of the Council, Boards and Commissions.
Where there is no training or standards of behavior, anything goes. And one attorney, with absolute loyalty to the incumbent Mayor, provides the legal support for whatever seems to pass as legal in the City. “In my opinion” when uttered by the City Attorney who brooks no independent opposition too often is leading us into murky territory, where we do not need to wander if we would do the “due diligence” first including a review of the parties at hand and who may have the appearance of a conflict.
Were we to take a look at the number of cases in the past five years filed by former employees and listen to the stories (neglecting for the moment the legal process), I believe many voters would be alarmed by the time and expense caused by City process and the future settlements risked also.
So we have a chance to see how our Ethics process works. There has been a rumor recent Board and Commission appointees are required to file a letter of resignation with the City as they accept their appointment. True? Or not? People working in the private sector are startled to hear that requirement. What is going on is about control, complete control and maintenance of the status quo. Is this Ethics Complaint the beginning of a process that will, over time, unravel the King’s Sweater and reveal him in his altogether? Time will tell.
With a 20-0 Democratic majority, there are no minority voices present on the existing Council to provide any dissenting opinion or at least challenge the conversation and provoke some thought prior to action.
What makes it even worse is the sad fact there is no clear delineation between the executive and legislative branches of city government. City employees weighing in on fiduciary matters that impact the city, their departments, and even their own pensions and wallets is the leading example of why this city can’t get out of its own way.
While I am pessimistic about the Ethics Commission doing the right thing (or anything for that matter), I hope the recent tax hike and McCarthy’s comments in the paper about protecting the Mayor’s office budget shines a light on the actions of many of their elected officials and what they’re all about.
Perhaps we can get these people out the old-fashioned way.
Tar, feathers and a faulty railroad tie? Absentee ballot queen Lydia Martinez and her gang will make sure a fair election will not happen.
*** “RIGHT OR WRONG,” A LIGHT NEEDS TO BE SHINED ON THIS AND THESE TYPES OF ISSUES AND EXAMINED CLOSELY THUS CREATING A PAPER TRAIL FOR ANY FUTURE FOLLOW-UP COMPLAINTS OR CHALLENGES, NO? *** TIME TO EXPOSE BPT’S ETHICS COMMITTEE FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS! ***
These are important questions that need to be asked and answered. That said, much (but not all) of the complaint appears to be well beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.
Phil, good points obviously, but where do you make the first cut into a strawberry rhubarb pie? If we take a look at how court actions relative to the Bridgeport Public Schools have been handled in the past year or so, the State courts have indicated you need to address steps before seeking other decisions.
So the first step is to ask our local Ethics watchdog for an answer. Should they fail to bark, or roll over onto their back when a City favorable opinion is offered by the City Attorney’s office, then we can note the tail wagging activity when we move to another venue. The Bridgeport body politic is very sick. From month to month the CC does not get an accurate financial report to see how well the City is operating. It is as if the Finance Department spits out the thermometer and dares anyone to try for a real result. The Council is so sick its members cannot even focus on getting accurate info. That is their duty. They are failing and have been for some time.
So start at the very beginning, a very good place to start, and we start with E T H I C S … and proceed from there … Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, all of the administrative remedies first must be used, then legal action can be sought. Talking about this will solve nothing.
That’s why I said earlier this should be real good. David Walker, meet City Attorney Mark Anastasi.
Mark Anastasi, meet your match, David Walker and his highly organized and highly numbered CW4BB.
Ron, would you please explain what you mean by “administrative remedies?” By the way, it is noteworthy the Ethics Complaint and the Airport disclosures will keep more than two lawyers who work for the City pretty occupied for some time. We may get a new definition of what “lawyering up” means by the time these reviews are complete. Time will tell.
David Walker could very well be the light at the end of this tunnel.
JML, I was just following up on what you said. Mr. Walker would need a written opinion from the Ethics Committee giving their reasons why they will not act on Walker’s request. Then determine if their reply is legal or just an opinion and then take it to court.
Thank you. Makes sense to work that way. Time will tell.
David Walker; our first sign of hope. Thank you sir, please do not give up. They will threaten you and try their best to hurt you. I hope you stand up to them and won’t just pack up and leave, as I am sure this would be an easy option for you. You are our only hope. Thank you Thank you Thank you (let me be the first to sign onto that class action lawsuit)!
“hope I can sell my house,” I mean no disrespect but I think you are getting ahead of things and forgetting others who have already given us our first sign of hope. The only thing so far Mr. Walker has done is to file a complaint with the Ethics Committee. Current Bridgeport history will show against Mayor Finch’s takeover of the Board Of Education and his attempt to take the voting rights away from the voters of Bridgeport so that they could not vote for whom they wanted to be on the BOE. People like retired judge Carmen Lopez who helped with the legal lawsuit that was won and blocked Mayor Finch’s takeover. People like Mary-Jane Foster and Bob Walsh and so many others who also fought to help us keep our right to vote for whomever we wanted for the BOE. And then there’s State Rep. Jack Hennessy who is fighting to have the law enforce city employees cannot serve on the City Council. David Walker has long road ahead of him to come anywhere near the fight and results of those who are listed.
Ron, in your history lesson I want you to consider the library question from several years ago. Library finds a way to support enhanced funding for the Bridgeport system after watching four years of no increases. The voters side with the Library Board and outvote the administration.
Of course the 1 mil due to the library has not been delivered in 2011, 2012 or the current year. And despite “huffing and puffing” threats at Library representatives about failing to build new structures in the East End and East Side locations, the City Council and the administration have put the Library into a slow stall, a story that should be covered by the CT Post. Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, thank you, good point. I was just trying to point out to “hope I can sell my house” there have been others who have taken legal action against Mayor Finch and have won and now we have Rep. Jack Hennessy taking legislative action against Mayor Finch, so before someone crowns David Walker, let him do something.
Mr. Walker is on an ego trip and my bet is he will get a lot publicity and nothing will happen. I worked to defeat Finch’s school board scheme and it won because it had wide support all over the city. After Walker’s advocacy of selling the Merritt Parkway to a private company I don’t see any reason to trust him any more than Finch. I bet he is getting a lot of publicity for his book, though.
BlackRockGuy, I agree with your statement, “Mr Walker is on an ego trip and my bet is he will get a lot publicity and nothing will happen.” David Walker is bloviating.
Ron, I applaud them ALL and stand behind them all! I just love the real threat of a lawsuit because I feel this city for years has taken advantage of property owners. Please don’t misunderstand, I love anyone who challenges these people!
Hey Big Mac, would you like fries with that? 😉