In the spring of 2003 the FBI agent who began the investigation that toppled a once-popular Bridgeport mayor reflected on the state of the city from his office Downtown. “The city will never be cleaned up until you get city employees off the City Council,” the agent said.
This legislative session in Hartford is one to watch. While Mayor Bill Finch is making the rounds trying to build legislative support to ban former Mayor Joe Ganim, and others, from seeking office, Finch simultaneously opposes a government reform bill enforcing the City Charter that prohibits city employees from serving on the City Council.
Let’s give Finch the benefit of the doubt that his intentions are pure when it comes to Ganim. How credible is Finch’s mantra against Ganim, and others who have violated the public trust, when he himself is a product of the city’s political process shackled by the very Democratic Town Committee that has endorsed him for mayor twice (and likely again) and numerous city politicians indicted, imprisoned, possessing felony records and even recently endorsed a candidate for State Senate owing $140,000 in back taxes while under investigation for election fraud? Would Finch have more credibility breaking from the DTC?
Finch argues public corruption is worthy of public debate even though Ganim hasn’t been mayor for 12 years while Finch is now in his eighth year. Finch asserts this is a good message to send to investors and public at large. But if Finch were viewed by investors as an honest mayor what would be the reluctance to invest in the city? Ganim hasn’t been mayor in 12 years. Where’s the threat to investors and an electorate that must be saved from itself? Unless you think Ganim is a threat to win.
Meanwhile Finch continues a dubious relationship, in violation of the City Charter, in which the president of the City Council works at the pleasure of the mayor. In words and actions, Finch supports city employees serving on the City Council in violation of the City Charter.
Finch has said very little about public corruption during his tenure as mayor and in fact announced several years ago that Ganim had the right to assimilate back into the political process. Now Finch has reversed himself. A sincere change of heart or political gamesmanship?
Last summer Finch had breakfast with former State Senator Ernie Newton in an effort to find some common ground in case Newton won election to the State House. Finch ended up backing Andre Baker who defeated Newton. So Finch actually met with a candidate he now believes should be barred from running for office.
Although not publicly supporting Ricky Dejesus for State Senate, Finch is certainly lending tacit support to the city councilor who owes $140,000 in back taxes. Should Finch lobby for state legislation barring tax deadbeats from running for public office until taxes are fully paid up? Where do you draw the line on this stuff?
Finch talks about reform, doing the right thing but he himself violates the City Charter with City Council President Tom McCarthy who works at the pleasure of the mayor. It’s illegal for the head of the legislative branch to work at the pleasure of the chief elected official on a state and federal level. It’s perfectly fine, according to Finch, on a local level even while defying the City Charter approved by voters.
Sounds like Finch is teeing up a legislative hearing where he can testify before a friendly committee about sending the right message barring public corruption offenders from running for office. How about sending the right message by enforcing the City Charter that cements checks and balances that do not currently exist? Does the mayor support House Speaker Brendan Sharkey working at the pleasure of Governor Malloy? That’s illegal.
There’s a big idealistic piece to Bill Finch that would like to break away from the shackles of the city’s political apparatus and become a true independent-minded reformer. Reluctantly, he remains part of the hypocrisy. It’s not an easy thing to balance. It’s the nature of the beast.
If Finch really wants to be on the side of the angels about Joe Ganim and build credibility, he’d tell the Democratic Town Committee to go punt. Okay boys and girls, I have $500,000 to spend, see you in the general election. Win without them.
Then they’d be stuck with him instead of him stuck with them.
And how about staying true to the City Charter and end city employees serving on the City Council.
As FBI agent Bob Marston (now retired) said, “The city will never be cleaned up until you get city employees off the City Council.”
Lennie,
“State law requires that every general-purpose local government publish within six months of the close of each fiscal year a complete set of audited financial statements. This report is published to fulfill that requirement for the fiscal year ended June 30, 20 …”
Thus reads the opening sentence of each letter from the Director of the City Department of Finance in recent years including 2010 when the letter was not presented until February 18, 2011 and received by the public some time subsequent. On January 26, 2015 we await the audited results for 2014, not yet available on the Finance Department web site (at 10:00 AM nor at the City Clerk’s office.
For the past five years the reports available each include a letter from the Chief Financial Officer of the City with a date equivalent to a letter accompanying audit results from Blum Shapiro, the external auditor.
2013 December 20, 2013 Ann Kelly-Lenz BlumShapiro
2012 December 21, 2012 Ann Kelly-Lenz BlumShapiro
2011 December 27, 2011 Dawn Norton BlumShapiro
2010 February 18, 2011 Dawn Norton BlumShapiro
2009 December 28, 2009 Michael Feeney BlumShapiro
So, other than the 2010 report that was seriously late according to State law the Chief Financial Officer and the outside auditor seem to be meeting requirements as a City. However, what is meant by publish? City Council representatives do not yet have a specially bound and printed copy of this report. The City Clerk does not have such a publication either. And the Chief Financial Officer website is absent that material when I looked, within the past 30 minutes.
If things are getting better every day in Bridgeport, I am hopeful our processes can improve, especially those that are the only evidence from one year to the next that a professional fiscal watchdog has reviewed certain materials and is able to report to the community at large. Where is the report itself? Will the City Council review it and invite the public to their process? Will the City Council ask for a June 30, 2014 Monthly Financial Report to be published based on the audit results, rather than the DRAFT status circulated last summer?
Last year’s audited “monthly financial report” for June revealed Controller Department revenues of $500,000 of Miscellaneous Cash never before noted and never since commented upon. It also disclosed 15 members of the City Council late in June, 2013 requested purchase orders amounting to almost $30,000 payable to charitable organizations in the City, only months previous to primary and regular elections. The request was not part of STIPEND use. The request was funded from their OTHER SERVICE fund for which neither the Council persons nor the City in general received any services. Without the June 2013 final audited results, this would be unknown to the public. Watchdogs? Where are you? Time will tell.
Bravo, JML. Slow and steady wins the race! Thanks for all you do.
Bill Finch doesn’t want to do the right thing. All he cares about is saving his own hide. Reform? Don’t think so. Look at the list of conflicts, bullying, lawsuits and settlements. This is a guy who has amassed power just to hold it over people’s heads. He’s a schmuck. Doesn’t matter how he runs or what he spends. He is an unworthy cheap suit and always will be.
Stopped at City Clerk’s office around noon. No Comprehensive Annual Financial Report received yet. Perhaps lost in a snow drift? Maybe a sled dog is munching on it? Has the printing office run out of ink? When the City misses a State deadline like this, does the City face any consequences? Who will blow a whistle? Time will tell.
The dog ate my budget? Only in Bridgeport. 🙂
Anastasi is coming up with an “opinion” as we speak, he’s just waiting for Finch/McCarthy to tell him what it should be first.
Lennie, you said, “There’s a big idealistic piece to Bill Finch that would like to break away from the shackles of the city’s political apparatus and become a true independent-minded reformer. Reluctantly, he remains part of the hypocrisy. It’s not an easy thing to balance. It’s the nature of the beast.” There is no way Finch can change because he’s scared plus he will need a job after he’s the mayor and he can’t turn his back on that, he needs friends to help him get a job. Lennie, then you paraphrase Finch by saying, I have $500,000 to spend, see you in the general election, well, why would he give that up, no way plus he gets to keep what he doesn’t use.
Ron Mackey, I don’t think finding employment after he loses this election is something Bill worries about. Did you see the sweetheart deal he gave United Illuminating to build that solar field in Seaside Park? That deal was done in exchange for future employment … bet on it.
Well, do you think he would do a thing like that? Rise up through the ranks of a political organization, singing their tune but when he gets to the top he says they are all bad and acts like a crusader?
Bob, Bill Finch is so ungrateful, when he couldn’t get a job to care for his family it was Joe Ganim who looked out for him a number of times to get him a job but he couldn’t even keep those jobs. Now Finch wants to kick dirt in the face of the person who helped him when he was down, ungrateful.
Bill Finch appears to view as corrupt that which threatens his reign. He does not view as corrupt the system his administration uses to to advance his agenda through control of the city council. Bill Finch is not a reformer, he is a performer.
The legislation submitted by Jack Hennessy simply clarifies the prohibition of municipal employees serving on municipal boards of finance includes municipal legislative bodies that have the role of a board of finance as in the case of the Bridgeport city council.
I hope Bill Finch testifies in opposition to the Hennessy statute amendment so I and others can expose examples of what he endorses in his administration as part of our testimony supporting the amendment.
Changing the law that keeps city employees off the City Council would be the most anti-climactic event in Bridgeport’s political history. It’s no secret, right now, circumventing the City Charter is legal. Changing the law is what legislators do. I don’t think they can defend the City Charter because this blog has made me an expert on Bridgeport politics.
The state statute, as currently written, prohibits town of Trumbull employees, for example, from serving on the Trumbull Board of Finance. In Bridgeport, duties of a board of finance (charter revision 1988) are handled (poorly) by the city council.
So the current statute prevents conflict of interest in Trumbull, but allows it (according to Mark Anastasi) in Bridgeport. Let’s see who opposes the amendment.
Different towns have different laws. That’s how we do things in America.
State Statutes apply to all towns in Connecticut.
Loopholes are legal and supersede state statutes in Bridgeport.
Local Eyes,
Are you advocating for creating situations in local governance where actual or appearance of conflicts of interest are allowed to exist? Please clarify your answer, if you care to do so. I am not a lawyer and you have never claimed to be, but the degradation of what the Bridgeport Charter, Ordinances and other rules and regulations intend is so apparent in Bridgeport that we are talking about “the Wild East and no sheriff in sight.”
Are you just having fun, being oppositional and argumentative, to have something to do? Or do you believe Bridgeport’s current leaders at the controls are “democratic liberators” or “government by the people terminators?” Time will tell.
JML, you are asking me to repeat myself.
LE, Asking for clarification, something occasionally required in your posts: “Are you advocating for creating situations in local governance where actual or appearance of conflicts of interest are allowed to exist?” And your answer is YES or NO? Time will tell.
JML, I don’t advocate anything. I am blogging about existing realities and the ability of the GA to change them.
Some things never change, you can count on fireworks in Bridgeport Dem politics. Flashback my days in Bpt 1987-1997 … Where’s the movie? LOL