Notice To Moonlighting City Employees: No Hitching During Work Hours

Justices of the peace, and other city employees moonlighting matrimonial services, have been placed on notice to divorce themselves from conducting marriage ceremonies on city time, a service that cashes in some handy supplemental income.

New Chief Administrative Officer Tom Gaudett, who recently segued to that role from serving as Mayor Joe Ganim’s deputy chief of staff, has fielded many complaints about the “high volume” of municipal staffers’ marriage services at the entrance of the Morton Government Center Downtown where Vital Records is located.

In Connecticut marriage officiates may charge what they please for the services but it certainly is the way to go for budget conscience bethrothers in need of a quick hitch and marriage of convenience.

Gaudett kicked out this notice on Monday:

Please be advised, there have been several complaints submitted to the Chief Administrative Office from employees and patrons visiting the Margaret Morton Government Center (999 Broad Street). These complaints and concerns are specific to the high volume of marriages being administered and officiated at this location.

As such and effective immediately, NO city staff or government official acting within the scope of their city employment—that is, on “city time,” shall be permitted to conduct other services or activities which do not relate to their work functions. City employees who are a Justice of the Peace, religious official, or otherwise have the legal capacity to perform weddings in the State of Connecticut must do so on their own personal time and not in their governmental capacity. It is expected that all employees adhere strictly to all workplace procedures and operational policies on attendance and tardiness; and explicitly communicate to a supervisor and/or department head that they are on a designated break or meal period.

It is expected that all municipal employees (City and Board of Education) abide by ALL provisions of this order and related policies. As a reminder, the City of Bridgeport prohibits any/all employee behaviors which violate municipal regulations, policy, or ordinance, including but not limited to:

  • Bridgeport Municipal Ordinance Chapter 2.38 Code of Ethics:
  • 2.38.010(D) “It is advisable that all city officials and employees should avoid any conduct having the appearance of violating any of the standards set forth in 2.38.020 of this ordinance.”
  • 2.38.030(B)(6) “Specific Conflicts. No official or employee shall… Use or permit the use of city-owned vehicles, equipment, materials or property for personal convenience or profit, except as authorized by the proper authority.”
  • City of Bridgeport Work Rules and Regulations:
  • “Unauthorized selling, soliciting, or collecting contributions for any purpose during working time in a work area.”
  • “Behaviors that disrupts the work environment to include indecent, inappropriate, or immoral conduct.”

Supervisors should communicate this order and information to their immediate staff, taking into consideration that not all city employees have email access.

Violations of this policy will be taken seriously and may result in disciplinary measures, including possible sanctions (as per Bridgeport Ordinance 2.38.040(D)) and formal warnings, up to and including employment termination.

The City of Bridgeport’s Policy on attendance, tardiness, work rules and regulations and Bridgeport Code of Ethics has been attached and may be found on the City’s “K” Drive. For any questions regarding this policy, please reach out to the Chief Administrative Office or the Office of Labor Relations for further guidance.

2+
Share

4 comments

  1. “Moonlighting city employees” refers to more than one employee. Apparently these are, or were, municipal employees with formal duties and hours but who also enjoyed a ‘side gig’ that may have included an advantage in lining up the joining of folks in legal matrimony for which several hundred dollars may have been charged on City property and/or on City paid time.
    Is this the purpose of the Ordinance?
    Has there been more than one employee other than Wanda Geter-Pataky involved?
    Why must communication with a supervisor regarding a “break or meal period” be reported when it seems that there is no supervisory evaluation expected as part of a work record and personnel guidance annually at least as is customary in private industry?
    If, as a few have suggested, some marriages are contracted between citizens and non-citizens during this period when Congress has proven unable to create a respected structure or process for those wishing citizenship, is there any evidence that the City apparatus and officialdom is providing a platform for unethical actions?
    Does any elected official including City Council members, or a Town Committee member or an appointed Board or Commission member qualify under the Ordinance above as a “government official”?
    What are the enforcement procedures, penalties, and process for future Ordinance misdeeds?
    What does Tom Gaudett suggest will be investigations and possible actions for folks who have operated in an unethical manner to this point, and seem impregnable of consequences?
    Time will tell.

    4+
    1. JML, it looks like you failed to read to the end:
      “For any questions regarding this policy, please reach out to the Chief Administrative Office or the Office of Labor Relations for further guidance.”

      2+
  2. Addendum:
    Is there any reason to investigate any other City department, like Vital Records, to determine to what extent referrals to specific individuals were made? Is it possible to rotate Justice of Peace candidates available to perform marriage services including times they will serve and include expense of services? Or is such info extraneous to a potential consumer? Happy in my marriage. Asking for the benefit of others. Time will tell.

    4+

Leave a Reply