State Representative Jack Hennessy and State Senator Marilyn Moore have introduced the government reform bill An act prohibiting municipal employees from serving on certain municipal legislative bodies that would extend state law to include all governmental bodies that serve as boards of finance such as the City Council. The Bridgeport City Charter approved by voters bans city employees from serving on the City Council, but city officials have used state law as a pretext to violate the local charter.
“This legislation is aimed at closing a loophole in state statute that allows city employees to serve on their city council where they get to vote on the budget,” Hennessy said. “This bill will extend the ban on city employees serving on their local boards of finance. Ironically, Bridgeport already bans this practice in its city charter, but due to a loophole in state statute, the city is able to ignore it. The measure excludes members of Boards of Education.”
“Many of my constituents in Bridgeport have expressed that existing laws create the potential for a conflict of interest on the city council,” says Moore. “This legislation attempts to remove this potential and I look forward to discussing this issue in the current legislative session. It is our responsibility to ensure that residents are represented in a fair manner.”
State Representative Charlie Stallworth has co-signed the bill.
Currently four city employee councilors would be impacted if this bill is passed into law: Richard Paoletto, James Holloway, Milta Feliciano and Tom McCarthy who serves as president of the City Council. This is an election year for the council.
Supporters of the bill maintain too many conflicts exists such as city employee councilors approving their own wages and benefits. Opponents argue the bill lessens the pool of candidates that could be involved in elective politics.
Moore’s support of the bill was a factor in toppling incumbent Anthony Musto in a Democratic primary last August. Musto blocked the bill’s passage on behalf of the political establishment.
The bill has been submitted to the legislature’s Planning and Development Committee.
You can’t serve Two Masters!
Interesting, is Andre Baker supporting this legislation? Why isn’t he mentioned as a co-signer of the bill?
Thank you, Representative Hennessy and Senator Moore!
Please keep the public informed on how we can support the passage of this bill as you have drafted it.
Ditto on that. I hope this is the year this bill succeeds. All hands on deck!
This bill MUST have the entire Bridgeport delegation in full support to get this bill to pass.
Ron, so far it has a large majority in support, except Chris Rosario. Ed Gomes supports the bill. Ricky DeJesus? Some legislators in Hartford at the urging of the local political establishment will try to block it.
I know it’s a fast world we live in but did I get that right? Does Ed Gomes support Bill?
LennieGrimaldi, that’s what was said last year when it failed, if all the Bridgeport legislators are not in favor then why should they vote in favor of it?
Ron, the two state senators representing Bridgeport Anthony Musto and Andres Ayala worked against it, which carried weight with their peers. It had support in the State House but State Senate another story. Musto and Ayala are now gone. It appears the support in the House is still there. What will happen in the State Senate? We’ll see.
What is Ricky DeJesus’ position on HB 5886?
Behold the all-knowing Ron Mackey, whose knowledge of all things Bridgeport makes him a trusted authority on this blog.
My guess is he will pay no attention to this bill just like he pays no attention to his tax bills. But if the only Bill that matters (Bill Finch) tells him what to do he’ll do it because right now he is not paying his tax bills and nothing is happening to him (with the exception of being endorsed for the senate by Bill Finch).
Come again?
Ron Mackey does not hide behind a pseudonym.
Tom White, thanks. I refuse to reply to those who hide behind a pseudonym.
Neither do I.
www .twitter.com/door24
Bravo!!! Senator Moore and State Rep Hennessy!
And Hennessy is a hypocrite. Ask him about “stolen valor” in that he has put himself out as an Army Ranger, but has no training to that effect. I have several Army Rangers who want to “talk with him” about this. He was only assigned to a Ranger unit in the CT Nat’l Guard. He is not a Ranger.
invincible, you shouldn’t applaud them for re-introducing a law that failed last year. Instead, wait for it to pass.
You’re too liberal with your kudos.
p.s., identify yourself!
Thank you LE for your compliment! Or observation?
The fact they reintroduced the Bill 5724 is my personal feeling in applauding their efforts. Why should I identify myself just because you are asking?
Answer: Invincibility
Those who call themselves invincible should have it. That’s why …
Bravo to State Rep Hennessy and Senator Moore for not wasting time! Listening to what constituents want and trying to force a city to honor the decisions the voters made! Wow, what a concept! This administration has no problem reminding voters we voted for them. NEWS FLASH, we voted to forbid city employees from seeking city council offices too.
Maybe we can get Anastasi to concoct a reason we don’t need to abide by the election of this administration. That would be boss! Well Mark? Can you come up with one?
Love and Kisses,
Your REAL bosses. The ones who pay your overinflated salaries.
Thank you, Jack and Marilyn.
We can count on the legal mind of Hamilton Burger to put a spin on how Finch can get around the new state law after it’s passed.
Jack Hennessy has always been a straightforward man. I wish Andres Ayala would not have backed the rejection of the bill previously.
Thank you, Jack and Marilyn. Opponents of the bill do not have a credible argument. If a City or Town Charter allows employees to be on the Council then it’s OK. Bridgeport’s City Charter does not allow it but some small town charters do. It’s called local control and home rule. After passage, people will have to make a choice. They can be on the Council or a City Employee, just not both. That’s called good governance with individual choice. This bill needs to be supported by every Bridgeport Senator and Representative and it needs to pass this year effective the next election. Rick Torres is for the bill without grandfathering. That is the place current and prospective elected officials need to be. After all, either you believe in avoiding clear conflicts of interest or you don’t.
If it’s not a secret, it’s not a clear conflict of interest.
Completely disagree. Elected officials should not and cannot serve two masters. Should you wish to have your cake and eat it too, then you should register as lobbyist or as adviser for either side. We’ve tried it the other way and it really hasn’t worked out so well, now has it?
Steve Stafstrom, if elected, is supporting this bill in whatever form it is presented to him for a vote.
And there is the real problem with Stafstrom. He has stated publicly in community meetings the grandfather clause is the fair way to go for those people elected, and he believes the only way this would pass is with the grandfather clause. It was co-sponsor Auden Grogins who approached Jack Hennessy to include the grandfather clause. I understand one can argue compromise and something is better than nothing, but why support someone who says from the start, what ever form. Is he really going to push for the bill as it stands now? Sue Brannelly stood up and said, I know this will cost me votes, but I am against the bill because these people sitting in office are good people (wonder if she still feels this way about Richie?), at least she had the courage of her convictions and, oh yes defeated Stafstrom in the city council race. And why is Steve’s treasurer stating Joe CRASHED the fundraiser, when Joe was invited by someone on the host committee? And why is this same treasurer considering returning Joe’s donation check? It was obvious Finch was uncomfortable with Joe there–why is Steve’s committee?
If Steve would support the Bill in any form, would that include an amendment concerning corporations involved in city business, e.g. bond counsel etc.? He would probably recuse himself like he may have to do on most issues concerning Bridgeport, because of his firm’s relationship with the city.
And the state per Denise Nappier’s report: Pullman was third highest payer for law firms doing business with the state. To be fair, let us give the benefit of the doubt there is a direct firewall between Uncle and Nephew and …
Jennifer, how do you know Ganim made a donation?
Because his treasurer told me and a few other people. As did the host who invited Joe.
Oh that’s rich. Not even a lawn sign out and recently deposed City Councilman is already shifting gears?
When asked about his position on the Good Government bill, Steve Stafstrom said “he would support the change in State law if it “grandfathered” in current council members and also if implementation was delayed.” CT Post Oct 23rd 2013
So. Full of poop then, or full of poop now?
Here is the link to the article:
www .ctpost.com/local/article/GOP-candidates-blast-council-record-4921417.php
Did Steve Stafstrom tell this to Mayor Finch when Finch came calling at Steve’s fundraiser last week in Black Rock? I hope so. Good to stand up for the public interest, despite your law firm being a beneficiary of the mayor’s mismanagement of the city.
We must remember this bill is not Bridgeport-specific. Over 20 years ago, the Connecticut state legislature passed legislation prohibiting municipal employees from serving on municipal boards of finance. It just so happens Bridgeport’s legislative body has the role of a board of finance. This amendment simply clarifies the intent of the original legislation and state statute that is already in place.
Steve wants to see the bill passed. PERIOD.
MY OPINION: Ideally, it would be without any kind of phasing in of the effective date. You, Hector, would reject the bill if not put forth in an all or nothing manner and jeopardize its passing and need to go through the whole thing again in the next long session? That seems a tad counterintuitive. You would try to ram it through and risk alienating those who would otherwise support it? It’s not wishy-washy, it’s realistic and smart to be open to conversations that would advance this bill.
Bond Girl, do you know how I’d vote? I haven’t committed or not publicly and frankly no one I’ve spoken to has brought the issue up. Anyone who has served with me knows I would align myself with my Bridgeport colleagues on any bill they feel strongly about and is introduced by any one of them, as long as it does not interfere with the well-being of those I represent. As I would expect the same courtesy. It’s hard enough to get legislation passed that affects communities such as ours against legislation that benefits the suburbs, home rule is still alive and well in Hartford and, with the exception of Rosario who has a clear conflict, all the remaining members of the delegation should support each other on their bills including this one. I admired the New Haven delegation when I last served because hell or high water they voted and submitted bills as a bloc, the only other delegation that was just as impressive yet not as noticed was, in my opinion, the delegation from Waterbury. Waterbury’s delegation was made up of Dems. and Reps. and still always supported each other and when votes were party line they wouldn’t be part of the debate if it was in direct contrast to a bill introduced by one of its delegation members. So if you’re wondering how I would vote, there you have it.
To clarify Hector, you support the bill as is, with no grandfather clause or phase-in date? You would not plant the seed of grandfather or phase-in to other representatives across the state who might be on the fence when supporting this bill?
Yes Jennifer, I would welcome a debate amongst all the candidates. Public Library, PT Barnum community room, St. Ann’s gym, even your TV show etc. Let those who vote get to know the candidates and the issues closest to their hearts. John from Black Rock? Lennie, why don’t you moderate one, those who are scared can get dogs at “A Hand for a Paw.”
A grandfather clause would not be a compromise, it would change the outcome of the legislation and endorse a different guideline for conflict for Bridgeport.
Jennifer, let me go back to your post regarding Ganim crashing a fundraiser for Steve. Although I couldn’t make the event, I am on the Committee and never thought for one minute Ganim would “crash” any event. I believe he was invited to attend and in doing so gave the obligatory contribution that is a requirement in such circumstances. I do not agree with the Treasurer returning his check, and I further don’t believe that is the role of a Treasurer of any campaign, unless so instructed by the candidate. I’m sure Steve gave no such instructions. SO THERE. (I’m with team Jennifer on this one.)
Mayor Ganim has an open invitation for any of my events up to and including my swearing in. Any help offered be it financial or just making phone calls to supporters is appreciated. If there is a candidate who would shun support from any past Mayor, they would be doing a disservice to their campaign. I will not be seeking the extra money from the State so many think is needed to be competitive. If you believe in order to be competitive you need $10,000 or more, you shouldn’t be running, why would you need $21,000 in an election with less than six weeks of campaigning? I will raise the necessary amount to cover my election materials, handouts, posters and to pay those who need to be paid for election day help. Lennie, I know your mantra is MOM, but this election could be won with just us and MO (see what I did there?), Motivation and Organization. That combination seems to have kept you afloat, eh Lennie?
I must say on issues like this I truly miss the voice of Chris Caruso.
Oops, I made a mistake. The treasurer for Steve and Ed Gomes’ campaign did not say she would return any contribution. I really feel bad because Gab is impeccable and, I jumped the gun on this one.
Wel, well … Do I hear the sounds of document shredding and rumor planting? She said, then she said then she said … I apologize if I misheard the phone conversation.
Considering is still different from doing or did, right?