Don’t ya just love election season in the Park City? Charlie Coviello, supporter of Democratic-endorsed Ernie Newton opposed by Andre Baker in an August 12 Democratic primary, has filed a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission claiming Baker “expended funds … and held a fundraiser …” before the State House candidate formed a committee to raise money under the state’s Citizens Election Program of publicly funded campaigns in violation of state law. As a result, the complaint urges those funds invalidated to derail Baker’s request to qualify for public financing. Baker campaign registration is here. The SEEC will issue its final grants before the August 12 primary in the upcoming week.
From the complaint:
On 06/14/2014, Mr. Baker expended funds for a magnetic car sign which he used as a participant in the city of Bridgeport Junteenth Parade. The sign advertised him as a candidate for state representative in the 124th Assembly District with a paid for by Committee to Elect Andre Baker. As of 06/14/2014, there was no such committee on file with the state of Connecticut Elections Enforcement Commission nor with the Citizen’s Elections Program. This is in violation of state statute.
On 06/19/2014, Mr. Baker held a fundraiser at the Dolphin’s Cove marina in Bridgeport for a Committee to Elect Baker for state representative claiming participation in the Citizen Election’s Program. During this time he was soliciting these funds, Mr. Baker had not filed a committee with the state of Connecticut Election’s Commission nor declared his participation in the Citizen’s Election Program. He raised the money under the name of a non-existent campaign committee.
Baker’s campaign filing on record with the state shows his treasurer signed the paperwork to form a candidate committee June 19. When did the state receive paperwork? The complaint alleges that “Mr. Baker violated” state law “because he failed to file a committee prior to expending and soliciting funds under the name of a non-existent committee … The state of Connecticut should assess fines for this violation of $100 per violation, and since funds were solicited for a committee that was not filed with the State of Connecticut, all funds raised prior to the committee filing should be returned to the donors and not be counted toward the funds needed for the state Citizen’s Election Committee since they were raised prior to the filing of a committee.”
With less than four weeks to go before the August 12 primary, the game is on for control of the soul of Bridgeport’s East End involving state heavy hitters. Newton supporters, in door knocks, phone calls and eventual mailers will frame Baker as a puppet of Mayor Bill Finch whose serial campaign contributors appear on Baker’s campaign finance report. A number of anti-Finch contributors also appear on Baker’s list. Last week, Speaker of the House Brendan Sharkey endorsed Baker declaring public trust must guide voters against Newton’s federal corruption conviction 10 years ago and pending state charges alleging violation of state campaign finance laws.
What’s the irony? When Baker served on the City Council he voted largely against Finch and even supported the mayor’s 2011 primary opponent Mary-Jane Foster. Baker left the city’s legislative body to challenge the Finch-backed party-endorsed candidates for Board of Education. He won a seat last year, opposing the mayor’s city charter proposed question to appoint school board members.
As a school board member Baker has been criticized for backing some Finch initiatives such as construction for a new Harding High School on environmentally challenged property owned by General Electric on Boston Avenue. Baker says he does what’s good for the kids, but his votes to support Finch initiatives have opened the door for cynics to challenge his veracity against the political establishment he had opposed.
And in recent weeks, Baker has been front and center with Finch in photo opportunities such as the mayor’s announcement Wednesday backed by Governor Dan Malloy for state money for construction of a new train station on the East Side.
Yes, politics is a crazy business. And in this primary season, we’re just warming up.
Newton is raising money outside the public financing program. His campaign finance report.
Charlie Charlie Charlie … This just makes everyone want to scrutinize every last detail of Ernie. They will.
I don’t know very much about election laws but one would think the fundraiser had to be advertised prior to June 19th. There would have had to have been an email blast or invitations sent out utilizing traditional mail to invited guests. If traditional mail were used, there would be the cost of invitations and postage as well. Is there any evidence the candidate committee paperwork was not accepted by the state on June 19th?
I just checked the State Elections Enforcement Commission’s website and Andre Baker’s committee filing was not received until June 20, 2014. I think this could be a very real issue for Andre Baker.
seec.ct.gov/ecrisreporting/SearchingDoc.aspx
The SEEC has a history of laziness when it comes to registering forms and information. I know because a filing was made and physically hand delivered to the SEEC on behalf of a candidate I knew and the SEEC denied such receipt despite a written acknowledgement to that effect.
Bob, I am not 100% sure of this, however I believe you can only submit your filings electronically now, therefore the submission date would be date and time stamped by the email. Can anyone else confirm or deny this?
You are only required to file electronically if you raise over $250,000. You can still mail filings/reports utilizing traditional mail or hand it in personally but it must be received by 5:00 PM on that date. If you file electronically, you have until 11:59 PM to file.
Maria–does the postmarked date have anything to do with it? For all we know, they could have received it and let it sit unopened on someone’s desk for a day.
The regulations on their website state documents must be “received” by a specific deadline. The website states the “received date” as June 20, 2014. I could not find anything that flagged whether the campaign committee filing was hand delivered, delivered by traditional mail or filed electronically. I cannot answer your question regarding the postmark because that information is not available on the website.
Yawn.
There are rumblings on the East Side. Here comes Charlie Coviello, a Ralph Ford piss boy coming out against Baker. Everyone knows Ford and Finch are at war so is there any truth Baker has gone over to the Finch Team? I don’t know, do you?
Although there is rumbling on the East Side with the State Rep seat, I must correct you, AF. Ralph, Coviello, Baker and Newton are in the East End.
Okay then, that means I live on the East Side. I can never get that straight. Thanks.
Andy, you actually live in the northeastern part of the City. The fact you are part of lower Boston Avenue is like night and day, that being the East Side. Beardsley Park is considered the furthest northeast section of the City. Just saying. 🙂
Thanks Steve, I have finally figured it out. I live in Bridgeport near Beardsley Park. Whew, that was a tough one. Thanks, Steve.
Let me see if I have been listening to ALL the comments that have been addressed to Andre Baker’s candidacies and/or elected offices.
1) If you run for office in the East End of Bridgeport, do you have to be a Finch candidate or Ford/Newton/Coviello-backed or achieve a 100% Ms. Pereira rating?
2) If you research the siting of a new Harding HS and and are not as worried as some about potential health issues because you are also looking at the necessary remediation of contaminated sites in the City (to residential standards for schools), and vote to keep the project moving rather than stalled with a potential cost of real State capital for such project, does that make you a Finch supporter?
3) When you hold regular meetings as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the BOE and listen to how fiscal stability has been achieved for the public schools for the past three years; and you (and other BOE members in attendance) are able to ask questions and receive credible answers from the Chief Financial Officer of the schools (not something experienced when you were in City Council a/k/a Finchland), as well as see the record of revenues, appropriations and variances including employees in positions at various school locations and including grants funding special programs, are you performing as a Finch puppet, or a WFP marionette, or as a local civic-minded businessman who is sharing time, talent and judgment with others for the benefit of the youth of the community? Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, I believe Andre Baker is a local civic-minded businessman who is sharing time, talent and judgment with others for the benefit of the youth of the community.
That means he is doing what you need to do to NEVER get elected in BPT.
Ron Mackey–you and I often disagree, but I’m with you 100% on your comment about Andre Baker. I’ve met him on a couple of occasions. He’s a perfect gentleman and he’d make Bridgeport proud as a member of the delegation.
Ron, I guess there are more than the two of us who believe that. Many people do not wish to place their name and identity on the ‘firing’ line that sometimes happens on OIB. They read and reflect and later tell you what they have comprehended. Have to wait for the primary to see how many see things as we do. Time will tell.
Steve, Maria, Ron, Bob, Invincible and all the other regulars who own cars and real estate, especially houses and condos in Bridgeport, why no comments from you on the following posted on Tuesday? It’s about City revenues! It’s about fairness! It’s about creating UNSUSTAINABLE financing of City services!
From Monday OIB, regarding a tax abatement action before City Council: “Over a similar time period, property at 3336 Fairfield Avenue on 1.22 acres has been the subject of development, last purchased in July, 2004 for $700,000. The owner razed structures and proceeded to secure land use permissions to build over 50 residential units on the property. Land use waivers offer time for owners to move development along. By 2009 condo development was not looking practical so the owner put a foundation in the ground improving the property by $175,000. By 2014, approaching another deadline, the developer has put together a plan to build 56 apartments (2 br units at $2,243/month and 1 br units at $1600 per month). However now he is requesting tax relief in the form of a ten-year PILOT that will provide the City with $120,000 the first year and $157,000 in the last year. Regular taxes on the project would be almost three times greater!!!
The real estate market has been talking to this investor for ten years. Leaving the land idle and paying $20,000 of taxes annually has not added value to the City. It has not enhanced the values of neighboring property owners. There is no other overriding reason for Bridgeport to subsidize this investor who is seeking a “less than 12% return” according to the promoting letter. Should what appears to have been a “bad investment” from ten years ago be allowed to lose its waivers and be sold by the owner for “fair market value?” When the Economic and Community Development Committee of the City Council meets, the public has no right to speak. When a PILOT is approved by the Council process there is no public hearing either. Is there any justification for private developers to be subsidized by City residential taxpayers and other commercial owners who are paying their tax bill in full? What is that justification? Why muzzle the public?”
I got a chance to speak at the meeting. Subsequently I have learned the owner did receive about $400,000 as a one-time payment from a utility company for providing a home to two utility coffers underground. Why is People’s United Bank (the rumored mortgage provider), requiring this 1/3 guaranteed tax payment with no chance of an increase to the City for 10 years? Does People’s feel financing a 12% return for this investor from Fairfield makes good sense for one investor? For their bank? What about all the taxpayers in Bridgeport to whom the bank is paying 1%, is it fair in these times? And perhaps the bank will participate with People’s mortgage holders to ask OPED to receive abatements? And the justification will be? And why should one owner get all the City services when he pays 33 cents on the actual one dollar that is due?
Will you express your opinion now? Will you show up on Tuesday evening for the Special Meeting of ECDE committee? Will you be present when the entire Council faces the question if it is approved by the ECDE? Justification? Think of your tax bill for July 1. If it were only 1/3 of actual would you be happier? And if it were locked in at a 3% increase for ten years guaranteed? Happy? Does the Council have any better reason to offer an abatement of taxes to the owners of 3336 Fairfield Avenue than it does to you? When jobs are needed, when the schools are not treated fairly by State of CT Education cost sharing formulas, and when the Mayor is offering “solar” farms that will cost us more money as UI customers, water taxis to a beach too far that spends millions to begin, and more parks for more millions, why is it time for OPED and the Mayor to give away City services at a 2/3 discount to a builder of “market rate” apartments? When will the Mayor get his own fiscal house in order? And the potential $100,000 per year gain in property taxes next year with the abatement formula, can the same $100K be found in the Legislative Department budget easily?
Answer is YES! DURING THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WHEN YOU review the 12-month COUNCIL BUDGET THEY HAVE FAILED TO SPEND HALF OF THE STIPENDS AND 70-80% of their OTHER SERVICES BUDGET. Will they cut $100,000 from those items going forward or make a fool of all of us without justification? Cutting expenses by $100,000 that are unnecessary has the same effect on the 2014-15 budget as keeping the current accounts the same and adding $100,000 of unexpected revenue (except there would be 56 fewer apartment lessees expecting full City services). Time will tell.
Earlier this week you strongly urged me to take a break from OIB and now you are taking issue because I did not post a comment to the story noted above. Are you wearing a bow tie again?
Are you fascinated by bow ties?
I did call attention to the relative number of your posts to the total number on three of six subjects. Remember I was worried about your blood pressure? You reported it was fine.
And you are posting on subjects of your choice and interest again. Happy to see you researching and helping others get the facts on election law.
If Bridgeport is shorted $40 Million or more for education, as you have reported, isn’t some of that underfunding coming from the City side, as well as the State and Federal side? Isn’t the tax abatement issue and any precedent it will carry both a personal budget issue for taxpayers, as well as a genuine budget issue for the City? Time will tell.
Mr. Lee, I am absolutely not “fascinated by bow ties.” I am just as genuinely concerned about your level of oxygen intake as you are about my blood pressure. According to Malloy’s Education Cost Sharing Taskforce report, Bridgeport Public Schools is underfunded by approximately $43 million a year. On a cash basis, we have the most underfunded school system in Connecticut. However, I do think it is inappropriate of you to pressure others to post comments to topics that are of specific interest to you. Can’t people decide for themselves if they are interested in posting a comment or not? It just serves as further evidence you are frequently arrogant and condescending to others on this blog.
John Marshall Lee, I’m one who does like bow ties.
Where will the money from City taxpayers come from when giveaways like this are approved? How do you find $43 Million?
Why is it arrogant and condescending when I repeatedly speak up at City Council and/or BOE meetings for education financing as a practical topic? But when others keep lamenting a $40 million shortfall it’s OK to be non-specific in how we get to solutions? Time will tell
Mr. Lee–this comment was exhausting and absolutely irrelevant to the topic.
Godiva 2011, you just may receive a reprimand from Mr. Lee for simply stating “this comment was … absolutely irrelevant to the topic.” Mr. Lee may also recommend you take a break from OIB and ask if your blood pressure is at an acceptable level.
LOL Maria–it won’t be the first time! What irks me is the subject is diverted to whatever topic he wants to discuss and the subject at hand gets kicked to the curb. The incessant rambling on is exasperating and most times a moot point. My BP is just fine and hope yours is as well.
Well of course it was “exhausting.” I copied Mr. Lee’s response and pasted it into a word document. It was an 827 word response. That would equate to 8-10 separate posts for the average person on this blog.
Before Mr. Lee takes it upon himself to recommend others should take a break from OIB because he feels they are frequently posting, he should take a long look at himself in the mirror.
Ignore the topic, as you wish. Many people seem exhausted except to complain. Not you, of course.
If you are not a property owner or taxpayer, you have nothing to be concerned about directly. However, ultimately this type of offer from the City to get any economic development completed with less revenue to support the services required of new tenants is shortsighted and digs our hole deeper.
Is “topic relevance” a kind of blog-oriented “political correctness?” Time will tell.
I’m sorry to say Mr. Lee, but it’s not about political correctness, it’s about sticking to the subject rather than diverting it to whatever you feel like discussing. So in short, yes, topic relevance should be adhered to rather than creating your own whim.
I will make this response as laconic as possible. Although I have been known to be a proponent of tax abatements as a catalyst to spur economic development, in this case I say no. Take the property back and put it on the market. Real Estate is improving and this particular proposal is not going to enhance the area. If he gets an abatement everyone will expect one. I do however, support DiNardo’s property and the train station. The benefits to the community over the next decade will be noticed on many fronts.
JML,
I keep falling asleep trying to read your post.
JML,
Actually I responded to one of your posts about this already. But you were obviously reposting because you felt you should have gotten more kudos than you did.
Bob,
At your age, falling asleep at odd times is simply an indication of the years you have resided on the earth. You really don’t have to look further than that for a reason.
And since you post about “kudos” we can understand your primary reason for being in public life at all.
At the beginning of my introduction to City governance, particularly around finances, I thought of you as a bright and shining light who raised material issues so the public might be better informed. Now I can see it is about getting “kudos,”
I reposted because only Fardy, BOE, Buchanan (2), White, Parziale and I addressed the issue.
I find it hard to believe most people who are serious about Bridgeport, including Steve, Ron, Bob, Maria, Invincible, etc. have nothing to say about the City offering a deal to an investor who lives in Fairfield and does not vote here, to abate taxes by 2/3 that will amount to a forgiveness of at least $2.5 Million over the next 10 years. And nothing to say about the precedent that sets. And no comments about raising the issue with their Council persons who should attend the ECDE meeting, the same Council persons who will be called on to pass or deny the issue on August 4, 2014 because the developer is in a hurry. The deal he has arranged with People’s United Bank has a performance date we are told. Do you guys, as taxpayers, have a position on this? Time will tell.
Back to the issue at hand. Are Andre Baker and his supporters naive or just plain dumb? You have to expect, given the tenor of this campaign, everything you do will be closely scrutinized by the opposition. Every “I” must be correctly dotted and every “T” correctly crossed. Failing to comply with every aspect of campaign law and regulations will result in the campaign being scuttled.
Ask Lisa Parziale, she’s an adviser to his campaign.
I spoke with Andre Baker yesterday about the tax abatement issue. He is a businessman and property owner and would oppose this OPED offering for development of market-rate apartments unjustified. Thank you for speaking for the current taxpayers, Andre. Whether people in Bridgeport can get used to their representatives learning about multiple issues and using their intelligence to find an independent answer is still up for grabs. Time will tell.