It must be frustrating for lawmakers to know they have the support to pass their legislative proposals, but they will not be brought to a vote. Such is the case with State Rep. Jack Hennessy. As the state legislative session winds down with just days left Hennessy’s government reform bill to enforce the Bridgeport City Charter prohibiting city employees from serving on the City Council approving their own wages and benefits looks like it’s dead for this session. The votes are there for passage in the State House, according to Hennessy and several other legislative supporters. House Speaker Brendan Sharkey will not bring it to a vote because it does not have the full support of the city’s State House delegation such as Ezequiel Santiago, a city employee. Such is the world of legislative politics. One or two people can kill something a majority of the body sees as a viable protection for taxpayers against government abuses.
Hennessy says he will bring the bill back again next year. State Rep. Auden Grogins, the blonde banshee from Black Rock who co-sponsored the bill, says sometimes it takes a few years for a piece of legislation to become reality.
Four of six members of the city’s State House delegation support the bill. While solid support for passage in the State House is there, the 36-member State Senate is a different story with Bridgeport’s two state senators Anthony Musto and Andres Ayala opposed even with a grandfather provision that protects five members of the City Council on the city payroll. This has not stopped Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a possible candidate for governor in 2014, from trying to rally support for the measure.
It’s illegal for state employees to serve in the legislature, it’s illegal for federal employees to serve in Congress, it’s illegal for municipal employees to serve on boards of finance. The rub in Bridgeport is the city’s legislative body also serves as a board of finance. Supporters of the bill simply want the legislation to extend to any legislative body that serves as a budget-making board to remove conflicts of interests. As noted by the bill’s supporters the legislation is not limited to Bridgeport. Its passage could impact roughly 20 other municipalities in Connecticut.
The bill’s relevance isn’t going away. Some supporters of the reform bill say they’re weighing legal action to enforce the City Charter. It could become an issue in this year’s City Council races. The state legislature is up for reelection in 2014 when Hennessy will reactivate the bill.
“It is truly outrageous that Speaker Sharkey has not brought HB-5724 up for a vote yet,” says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, who serves as a spokesman for the community action group Citizens Working 4 a Better Bridgeport. “It is a critically important piece of good governance and home rule legislation that has the support of a significant majority of House members, including a significant majority of House members from Bridgeport. Hopefully Speaker Sharkey will do the right thing for the state and the people by allowing a vote on HB 5724 before the end of the session.”
If you want something like this to pass you find similar legislation that has support and you add it as an amendment, it’s really not that hard if you have friends amongst both sides of the aisle. Make sure to get the fiscal note first, no cost to the State = more support. IT’S EASY TO PUT YOUR NAME ON FEEL-GOOD LEGISLATION (IF IT’S NOT GOING ANYWHERE).
Also if it passes are you big enough to SHARE the credit?
Hector, good to see your comments. Let’s see if I have this right.
First you need to have friends on both sides of the aisle.
Second, if the bill will not cost the State anything financially, that’s positive.
Third, you can add such language to another bill as an amendment (perhaps the legislators do not read the entire bill, maybe?) but you do need to find ‘similar legislation.’
Isn’t that the crux of the matter? This is a bill that gets back to attempting to create and environment of integrity for City lawmakers who happen to be City employees and cannot help but be conflicted on matters that come before them for a vote.
And fourth, if you happen to have friends … both aisles … find upstanding legislation that can be amended and does not cost the State anything (but limits self-interested personal behavior on the part of a legislator, and that is a costly limit by itself to too many representatives), then you must SHARE the credit.
OK … think I have it now … but I still don’t know how you would vote on this one, Hector. SHARE a little of your mind with us, please. Time will tell.
Just for you John, I found myself in a similar position when we voted on State takeover of the General Assistance program that was at the time administered by the municipalities. I was working for this program when I first was elected and was still employed there then. I could have recused myself and would have if I were voting against the bill, which I didn’t … because it was the right thing to do. It would be easy to say I’d be a proponent of this legislation if I were still there, in fact very easy …
Hector, I am still unclear on whether you support or oppose HB 5724. A YES I support the bill or NO I oppose it will be acceptable. I happen to support its passage as you may guess. Trying to get a clear statement from you. Time will tell.
Such a bunch of crap Sharkey WON’T see what’s going on down here in Corrupticut. I will work hard to remind voters who stood on the right side of this issue come election time. Disgusted.
Interesting Sharkey will not recognize a House Majority of Bridgeport Representatives. Smells kind of unconstitutional to me, but my allergies are kicking up today, and what do I know?
Also interesting is the fact Sharkey is assigning the Bridgeport Delegation the responsibility of making a decision for an issue that encompasses the interests of as many as 20 other municipalities in CT. Do you think THEY want Bridgeport making ethics decisions for their municipalities? Let’s take a poll.
Oh wait, they did take a poll–in the State House.
I want to thank Santiago and Andres Ayala for joining the NBA club. These two Finch piss boys don’t have a pair between them. Santiago has a do-nothing job with the city and Ayala just got a big promotion and raise from the BOE. That’s just freaking great, sell out the citizens of Bridgeport and get a reward. You won’t be in office forever.
Now that’s a sentiment I can really get behind, uh, I mean, under!
Can someone answer an unrelated question please?
Why is the State of CT posting an RFP from the BRBC for a CPA on their bidding list for state and local municipality work
Isn’t the BRBC a private entity?
Chosen, dial 203-335-3800 ext 115. Ask for Paul. He will explain to you what you need to know about the RFP.
I’m surprised none of the legislative proponents of this legislation have offered it as an amendment. The opportunities have been there.
We should all be thankful our legislators will not have to waste time debating this useless piece of drivel from Jack “The Grandstander” Hennessy. Hey Jack, do me a favor: don’t tell me who I can vote for and who I can’t.
Old horse–know the law before you make such statements–this is an amendment to an existing law–you can vote for who you want–the elected official simply must decide to either serve their term or keep their government job–the rule applies at the Federal and State but not in good old super corrupt Bridgeport–no one is telling you who can run for office or who you can vote for–geeze.
*** Once again the city’s representing body up in Hartford could not come together to decide on a simple yes or no vote and why? And the sad part is voters “have and will” continue voting for most of these clowns! Who knows, now that illegals can get a temp drivers license, maybe soon they’ll be able to vote as well, no? *** Maybe they might get it right! ***
There is no good reason for this bill not to pass this session. If it doesn’t, I will do what I can to make sure the responsible players are embarrassed in the media and held accountable for their failure to support the concepts of avoiding conflicts of interest, promoting good government and respecting home rule.