Government Reform Bill To Bar City Employees From Serving On City Council Takes Shape, Possible Committee Vote This Week

Legislation introduced by State Rep. Jack Hennessy that seeks to “prohibit municipal employees from serving on any governmental body charged with preparing the municipal budget except when authorized by charter or home rule ordinance” now has official language and is expected to be voted on this week by the legislature’s Planning and Development Committee. The bill, if passed, would validate language in Bridgeport’s City Charter that bars city employees from serving on the City Council. Hennessy’s trying to close a loophole in state law that allows it.

Hennessy’s bill is now co-sponsored by Democratic State Rep. Auden Grogins, as well as suburban Republican members of the State House, Tony Hwang, Brenda Kupchick and Terrie Wood.

State and municipal union leaders have forged an intensive effort to kill the bill, leaning on members of the Democratic-controlled legislature who rely on union support for their elections. The Bridgeport City Council approves union contracts.

Hennessy says if the bill is enacted it shall take effect October 1. Hennessy tells OIB that Board of Education “employees will still be able to serve on the city council if HB 5724 were to pass” covering the five city employees on the city’s legislative body, Tom McCarthy, Warren Blunt, James Holloway, Richard Bonney and Richard Paoletto. It would not impact, for instance, Michelle Lyons, an employee of the Board of Education, who is not a mayoral appointee.

Supporters of the bill maintain this is a good government initiative that would eliminate conflicts of interest such as City Council members voting to approve their wages and benefits. Even if the bill is voted out of committee it still faces an uphill battle for passage from union opposition.

Republican Party State Chair Jerry Labriola last week announced his support for the bill.

“Allowing municipal employees to serve on legislative body expands the political rights of those employees,” he said. “But, it also brings with it the potential for conflicts of interest when the Council acts on issues that include municipal budgets, salaries, union contracts and the oversight of the municipal agencies where those Council members are employed.

“Each municipality should be free to determine for itself how to deal with those potential conflicts. If the municipality chooses to prohibit employees from serving on their legislative bodies, as Bridgeport’s City Charter does, the legislature should respect that decision, rather than imposing its will on the community.”

Citizens Working for a Better Bridgeport, a newly organized neighborhood action group, has been urging the bill’s passage. So far only Hennessy and Grogins out of the city’s eight-member legislative delegation have announced support. State Senator Andres Ayala and State Rep. Ezequiel Santiago, a city employee, are publicly opposing the bill. State Senator Anthony Musto and State House members Don Clemons, Charlie Stallworth and Christina Ayala have so far taken a hands off position. This is a tricky position, in particular for Musto who represents the highest turnout areas of the city with a constituency largely in support of the bill. Musto fears alienation of Bridgeport political support if he supports the bill.

The full text of the proposed bill is here.

0
Share

27 comments

  1. Lennie, would you reach out State Senator Anthony Musto and State House members Don Clemons, Charlie Stallworth and Christina Ayala and ask them their position on HB 5724?

    0
    1. Ron, Musto last I checked isn’t taking a position. If this bill gains traction he’ll have to at some point as will all other members of the delegation. Clemons has said he would support the bill if the existing city employees on the council were grandfathered in. That’s not going to happen. I will reach out to the other members of the delegation again.

      0
  2. This issue should not even exist. It is a conflict of interest which prevents the checks and balances of good government. Any elected official NOT supporting is failing to represent their constituency. This is very true in Bridgeport where the city charter voted on by it’s citizens does not allow for this conflict!!!

    0
  3. This is a bill for good governance. Now that some points have been cleared up, I would like to know where Andres Ayala stands on this bill now and for that fact the rest of our Hartford Delegation. Will he side with Bridgeport’s Charter and the will of the people, or side with a few special interest groups that are against this bill?

    0
  4. CG,This conflict has been going on for over 30 years with this one-sided
    Government. Its time that are city council people like Sue Brannelly from Black Rock also speaks up about city employees on the council.

    0
    1. If this has been going on for 30 years does not make it right. Let us try to change it so that citizens can be truly represented by their elected officials!!!!

      0
  5. Christina Ayala Seems like she is off to a good start in the Legislation department. She has introduced 29 Bills in her short tenure and a few of them are very relevant to Bridgeport’s corrupt state of affairs governmentally. For example: HB05498 deals with the supervised absentee ballot process, a very prominenet issue during the election cycle.

    Christina could make a fine legislator. I for one, think she may actually be thinking of the residents, and the challenges we are subject to regarding our choice to live here. She is young and impressionable, but she could take a stand here in favor of BH-5724. Don’t count her out. I am thinking she is the type that does not like being pushed around.

    0
    1. Excellent point Bond Girl – I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt thanks to your research, I did not know about HB 5498 and will take a look – maybe she just has not been approached by Auden or Jack for support, with her own 29 (wow) bills in the pipeline her focust might not be on this bill yet. I hope her voters in favor of this bill have given her a call to encourage her to support 5724.

      0
  6. It is amazing to me that the state reps are not supporting this HB. Clearly, the unions stand to lose by not having a member of their own on this council. Of course they are fighting it, they’re getting something, but for our elected representatives to stand WITH them is ludicrous! This is a BAD decision to make…to stand with special interests, and against the “right” side is crooked.
    They will regret it next election, because everyone will know how partisan, “favored,” and selfish they are!
    …really ticks me off…

    0
  7. I think it is a poor bill preventing someone from serving on the city council because they are a union member, but when you are an employee of a corporation you may serve on the city council. Everyone will vote for their self-interest, but in the end they have to answer to the voters. If the bill does pass I don’t see much changing in the city.

    0
    1. Jim, I’m a dues-paying member of the National Writers Union. My dad was a Teamster. The reason the City Charter prohibits city employees from serving on the City Council is because city voters wanted it that way. You would be okay if on a federal level the Speaker of the House was a discretionary appointee of the president? You would be okay if on a state level the Speaker of the House was a discretionary appointee of the governor? In both cases illegal. But you’re okay with it on a local level.

      0
    2. That was a convenient play on words, Jim. There is nothing about this bill that implies union members cannot run for office in Bridgeport. Your spin is both pedestrian and absurd.

      The Charter is very clear. If union members want to run for City council, they may have at it. They simply can’t work for the City of Bridgeport. No attempt to twist that simple rule into some union versus whomever s**t show is ever going to change the fact the citizens of Bridgeport voted this charter into place and the delegates are not representing their constituents by not supporting it.

      0
    3. Jim, this bill is actually an amendment to an existing statute which will allow 24 cities in CT to adhere to their city charter, which was voted on by the citizens of each city. It has nothing to do with anyone being a union member or non-union member. The private sector unions have the ability to negotiate based on the profits of a company–and the company has the ability to negotiate with unions based on their profits–which is fair and in the interest of both parties. As a union member you bring value to the company with your skills which will affect company profits, companies hire union members for their skills and having solid skills in employees adds to their profits. Public unions are paid from the taxes we all pay. Local, state and federal are pooled into the salary, benefits etc. public unions share. The city of Bridgeport has very little income other than tax base and state and federal taxes and grants. I understand the idea behind public unions, to keep good employees working even when their party is not voted into office.
      For anyone to think a public union member elected to represent the citizens without conflict when voting for a city budget which affects the funding of their department budget, their pay and benefits is something I just cannot understand or buy into. And I find it hard to believe the person who recuses themselves has not spoken in private to other members of their delegation about how they would like to see the vote go and why. I elect someone to represent my best interest, and the best interest of my neighbors. I do not want a person I elect to recuse themselves from a vote because it will impact their pay.
      I for one am very happy I do not share your view or vision you see no difference in the city with the passage of this bill. I have great hopes for this city. With the right leadership and fundamental changes in governance practices, there is the real possibility this city can and will move forward.

      0
      1. Jennifer Buchanan, I understand your position and I agree up to a point but let me ask you a question. Police and firefighters are barred by law from taking any type of job action against their employer the City where other employees CAN take job action. So what do police and firefighters do when the City refuses to negotiate in “good faith” for wages and benefits? The City has no need to negotiate in “good faith” with them because there is nothing police and firefighters can do, so Jennifer what should they do?

        0
        1. Ron, by job action do you mean strike? I do not have the police or union contracts. I would hazard a guess their right to job action was a concession in contract negotiations long ago. That is a pretty big bargaining chip–the threat of a police or firefighters strike for pay and benefits. Does Bridgeport have a history of not negotiating in good faith with these unions? If so, I would think this would be known around the state and we would be rife with openings and no applicants. Enlighten me.

          0
          1. No municipal employee can strike. This became law after Mandanici sent the teachers to jail during the strike in the late ’70s.

            0
          2. They may not be able to strike, but they can “work to rule.” This is not as effective as a strike, but still painful for management.

            0
  8. The BRBC is not going to support an initiative that might upset the Mayor or Adam Wood. Timpanelli’s need to be part of the gang is way too important to him. The BRBC is busy financially supporting planning and personnel for the various economic development projects the city somehow doesn’t know how to manage. You have to wonder what the heck the city does do …

    0
  9. Senator Andres Ayala is an educator first and foremost. He takes pride in working for the Board of Ed. Our children are not born with ethical standards. They must be taught every day. The Senator, as a teacher, must set a high ethical standard for his students. The students must understand they must avoid the appearance of a conflict whether they land a job in the public or private sector.

    Senator, the Bridgeport Charter is clear. The Charter prohibits city employees from serving on the City Council. City Employees should not appear to influence union work rules, union contracts, city budget, positions and pay rates as they carry out their city council duties. You represent me. I hope you reconsider your position, support this bill and encourage the entire Bridgeport delegation to do the same. We must ‘teach our children well.’

    0
    1. Nancy,
      You gave me the best laugh of the day! “first and foremost he is an educator”
      He is employed by the BOE. He is the farthest thing from an educator. To be an educator takes more than holding the proper paperwork from the state. To be an educator means you are caring and compassionate. Being an educator means you have a knowledge base of your curriculum. Being an educator means you have the ability to transfer your knowledge to others. Being an educator means you put the needs of children first.
      I repeat, Mr Ayala is an employee of the BOE. He holds the title of teacher, but an educator he is not.

      0
  10. I have called Christina Ayala and left messages on her cell phone several times suggesting we talk about her supporting my bill. She has not returned my phone calls.

    0
  11. This bill is Good Government 101. You can’t grandfather existing employees on the Council because it would violate the equal protection clause. Doing so would also violate the City Charter. BOE employees would be able to serve on the City Council if the bill is passed. As a result, this bill should pass with overwhelming bipartisan support if it comes to a vote. Any local legislators who do not publicly support it are defying good government principles and the will of the people of Bridgeport per the language in the City Charter. Their inaction will be remembered in November.

    0

Leave a Reply