OIB contributing writer Jim Callahan has a long history covering city government and politics. He served as the editor of The Bridgeport Light, prior to that political writer of the Bridgeport Post-Telegram. In a commentary he disses the Nov. 6 charter question that if approved by voters will give the mayor the power to appoint members to the Board of Education. See his reasons, starting with the question that will be decided by voters, below:
“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.”
By JIM CALLAHAN
The people have the right to elect public officials. The proposed charter change involving the Board of Education takes that right away. Bridgeport should vote against this reform. The charter question calls for “educational governance reforms.” Reform of “educational governance” sounds good. Is it?
Broadly, the reform means the people are giving up their right to elect Board of Education members. Instead, the mayor will make the appointment with the approval of the City Council.
The theory goes the mayor will make better appointments, and they may be less controversial and political than elected Board of Education members. Will they really?
Politics is about government and government is about politics.
There is no provision that calls for the mayor to make “good” appointments. There is no provision that forbids the City Council from making “political” decisions.
Government–good and bad–is all about politics.
Mayor Bill Finch is a likely target, for good or bad. This should not be about Mayor Finch. You may like the mayor or dislike the mayor.
The mayor has expressed his dissatisfaction and frustration with public education in Bridgeport. It is well placed. The problems are well known and well stated. This is his suggested reform to the people. The suggestion should be rejected.
The Charter Revision Commission said in its report the reform “places a single publicly accountable official in charge rather than nine wannabe mayors immobilizing the school system with their petty squabbles, power grabs and turf protecting.”
Wannabe mayors? Petty squabbles, power grabs, turf protecting? This sounds like the City Council on an average day. There are 20 of them.
The Charter Revision Commission said under their proposal “the mayor and the City Council are the focal point for public support or derision.”
Using this theory, the public should concentrate existing public support or derision in city government even more.
No. Education is too important. The people should not allow this concentration of power into the hands of the mayor. That is where it will end. The mayor, if the person is a good politician, will finagle his appointments to the Board of Education on City Council after taking into account their petty squabbles, power grabs and turf protecting.
All Bridgeport mayors would presume to govern without the annoyance of the City Council. Mayor Finch might be worse in the opinion of some.
That is irrelevant.
This reform concentrates further power into the hands of the mayor, and makes government less accountable to the people.
The “reform” rewards this mayor for a crisis he largely manufactured. The “wannabe mayors” on the Board of Education were a minority of members who the administration conspired to strangle. There was always a majority of votes–just an unsilent minority they could not control.
The nomination of Board of Education members has been criticized as overly partisan, and under the control of the Democratic Town Committee. Minority representation to a second party is provided. The collapse of the Bridgeport Republican Party over the last two decades has allowed the votes for minority party representation to drift to a more radical faction of the Democratic Party, independent of the Democratic Town Committee.
This reform would quash that drift.
It should not be the people’s business to quash the representation of the community. This reform is against elected government.
Non-partisan elections where all winners must receive at least 50 percent of the votes is one solution to that “problem.” That is not on the ballot.
Suppression of the people to represent themselves is on the ballot.
Vote against it.
Thank you Jim Callahan, well stated.
I am going to have to come out agreeing with the Mayor on one point: I have no doubt the appointments will be less controversial. He would not appoint anyone who would raise issues that may be contrary to his agenda. So in the spirit of consensus building, from his point of view, I suppose the Mayor would consider those appointments “better.” Now the question remains, can the Mayor’s spin doctors lobotomize the Public?
Thank you Jim, for exploring the Charter question not as a “education governance reform” issue but as a “voter suppression initiative,” which it clearly is. And your point is well taken because the success of this “reform” will extend beyond any currently elected Mayor.
Regarding ZL and the concept of “controversial,” do we know what this Mayor’s agenda truly is? Or do we have to wait patiently for him to tell us what he has done behind the scenes to bring about “a crisis he largely manufactured” and then again wait patiently to tell us whether we are successful in attaining his objectives or not? It’s about money and jobs and the Mayor has been very quiet about whether 2012 was a real surplus or a paper surplus that will be reversed when the audit comes out to public view in January, 2013.
This community needs diversity of thought and a commitment to make decisions and stick with them while observing the data that shows progress or lack thereof. Congress shows us what happens when a commitment to partisan rather than “for the people” mindset takes place. Our own City Council is an example of what happens when a single-party mindset rules, and checks and balance mechanisms are so weakened the public gets no timely, comprehensive and/or reliable information about the state of the City. Time will tell.
Here is the edited and condensed version of JML’s comments:
JUST VOTE NO!
Here is the edited and condensed version of Jim Callahan’s commentary:
JUST VOTE NO!
Here is the Reaper’s condensed version:
F U Finch … NO!!!
Just Vote No!
This whole thing is just too transparent. If we had a proper mayor who was truly interested in the well being of our school children, this proposition would be feasible. But we do not have a proper mayor. We have an ignorant jerk in that role who is influenced by those who would benefit greatly by having the lucrative BOE goods and services contracts under their total control once and for all.
5.5% voter turnout is a slap in my face I desperately want significant improvements in our education system. Our future depends upon our ability to produce a skillful and educated workforce. The pity of it is each and every student in our system has the capacity to benefit from a focused education. The current leadership has another agenda, which means the students will not receive what they are entitled to receive.
Those who actually get out and vote will vote the way they are told. The election could go the other way if and only if the current brain-dead registered voters who refuse to go to the polls reverse themselves and vote. Not likely.
1. Big Bird will have control over the Teachers Union if this Charter revision goes through.
2. Big Bird will also have the largest control over the City Budget in the history of Bridgeport.
3. No union in Bridgeport is safe.
4. All building school bids will be controlled by Mario Testa and the boys.
5. The DTC coffers will be full of “ill-gotten gains” so Big Bird can make a run for governor.
VOTE NO! you lowly serfs.
Did you know “the book” thrown by Jim Callahan was one titled Only In Bridgeport by Lennie Grimaldi?
Governor Finch? Seriously? Really?
yahooy, Governor Finch? Seriously? Really? This guy didn’t even want to be mayor but Mario and Timpanelli and Stafstrom needed a candidate for mayor because they were all scared to death Chris Caruso would be mayor. They knew they could not control Caruso but they knew they could get Finch to do anything they wanted so in came the big money and now we are stuck with this guy.
Best way to educate voters is to provide signs at each polling location stating what the mayor doesn’t want the voters to know, that they are giving up their right to elect their own BOE and therefore giving up free choice, which is common in dictatorships such as Bpt has become. So I will donate $300.00 for signs if volunteers will man the polls.
Way to go, bpt guy!!!
$300 for signs and you want volunteers for all the polling places. That is part of a plan. With help I have been preparing a seriously funny message for voters on their way to NO (Regular Bridgeport situation) or yes (Zombieland special) answer to the Charter question.
Do you have a listing of each of the polling places in the community, to be served by at least two watchers that day (a larger number to break up the day would be better)?
We are not the only people thinking negatively about this specific vote, but the answer to polling places that would provide destinations and poll volunteer requirements as well as number of signs and handout materials is critical. You know my number is 203-259-9642 for business hours. And you know in this case time will tell.
*** I’m feeling rather suppressed by this whole tricky education question and I refuse to take it anymore! So I will be voting “hell no” come Nov. 6! Just blogging that makes me feel better, how about you? *** VOTE NO! ***