Judge Revokes Half Of Dunn’s Pension For Conspiracy To Rig 2018 Police Chief Test

David Dunn, the city’s former personnel director who helped ex Police Chief Armando Perez rig the top cop test in 2018 has had his pension reduced by 50 percent by a state judge for his transgressions in the scheme.

The state Attorney General’s Office that brought the action against Dunn sought a harsher penalty.

Superior Court Judge Charles Reed halved the $82,000 a year pension based on Dunn’s municipal service that covered several mayors, dropping the gain to approximately $3,420 from $6,841. See Reed ruling here.

Excerpt from Reed’s ruling:

In September 2020 Dunn and Perez were charged with wire fraud and providing false statements to federal law enforcement officials. Both entered guilty pleas and were sentenced to federal time by U.S. District Judge Kari Dooley. Dunn received four months.

When Dunn, 74, surrendered to the prison facility in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania he was expecting assignment to the federal camp reserved largely for first-time, non-violent offenders. Instead, he spent 42 days in solitary confinement due to the prison’s Covid protocol policy, allowed to leave his windowless cell only 15 minutes per day.

In 2018 Mayor Joe Ganim announced a national search for chief of police after appointing his long-time friend Perez in an acting capacity in 2016 shortly after his return to the mayoralty.

Federal officials charged that Perez and Dunn had conspired to rig the test utilizing help from police underlings to receive an unfair advantage over other police chief candidates. Dunn provided Perez the test questions in advance, allowing Perez to finish among three finalists for a mayoral appointment.

The case was split open just days after Captain Mark Straubel was placed on administrative leave in the summer of 2018 for racist texts against the department’s highest-ranking African American officer Captain Roderick Porter. Perez visited Straubel at his house to seek additional assistance with the exam to select a permanent chief, an appeal recorded by Straubel who shared the conversation with federal authorities.

For additional background see here.



  1. 1/2 is not enough but legally he would win if they took it all (and of course the appeal will follow anyway)
    As I said here on OIB when this whole thing with him, A J, and the “un-indicted co-conspirators” broke open, if you want to clean it up, pass the ordinance taking it all away if convicted of the crime. It’ll never be done so……good luck! 😂

  2. RA is talking about meaningful consequences for breaking the rules, a few at a time or daily. What is the loss of $40,000 or more annually when your career is complete? Significant for most folks. What advisory or cautionary behavior have City employees been encouraged to pursue, that was never officially mentioned in the past? Any? How has the DEAN of Accountability and Integrity used this educational opportunity to provide guidance to City employees?
    According to notes I kept, Dunn was not the former director, but rather an Acting Director in a personnel function. (Frankly it is easy to confuse Civil Service, Personnel, Labor Relations, etc.) It seems that Dunn was present and staffing Civil Service Commission with an appointed Chair who resided and voted in Trumbull. Another form of governance corruption in Bridgeport which blew over with no admission of wrongdoing, much later than it should have.
    So if Dunn was part of the personnel/employee pipeline in the City, why was no one doing oversight and calling him to do whatever is required to go from ACTING to permanent or full time??
    Carrying a similar sentiment to the Board of Education, why didn’t negotiations previous to this year, require the Superintendent to take action on moving to Bridgeport before the Board met his request to open up his contract early? Is there a lesson in that moment for elected members of the BOE?
    The point I wish to leave with you is that employment process and practices in this City have caused confusion, corruption, and extra court actions and costs when employees find there is no evaluation process, with an up to date annual record of their employment status. And we are also law with staffing of Boards and Commissions relative to qualitative review of service by those appointed. Who is minding the store, Ganim2? If there is no one OVER YOU, WHO? Time will tell.


Leave a Reply