Powerful special interests want to kill a conflict-of-interest bill in the Connecticut legislature enforcing the voter-approved Bridgeport City Charter prohibiting city employees from serving on the City Council.
OIB Poll: What If Special Interests Kill The Good Government Bill?
Where’s the ‘all of the above’ button, Lennie? Hey, was that a ponytail I saw today? Ready to click the submit button and receive the “your comment is awaiting moderation” message. I’ll vote when Lydia Martinez gets here with the AB.
I’m with Joel. All of the above.
Perhaps I should have placed the last question first.
Fellow citizens of CT, especially voters and taxpayers in Bridgeport.
Our founding document is our City Charter. It sets a structure and scheme of governance to be followed. Another set of standards are the Ordinances passed by the City Council. Presumably they are reviewed and obeyed.
When State law is combined with these two local sets of standards we should have checks and balance that allow the elected executive and legislative representatives to review all procedures, issues, and developments coming before the City in depth and come to wise decisions.
Their combined work should create trust in the leadership of the City, especially what is done with taxpayer funds, from local property tax, State income tax and Federal taxes. In the most recent year audited the City operating budget received $296 Million from Property taxes, $57 Million from charges for services and $386 Million from State and Federal grants.
I am in favor of the State Legislature passing 5886 to eliminate the specific conflict of interest whereby an employee of the City of Bridgeport receiving emoluments from the City can sit on the City Council and have the appearance (or greater) of going along with the Mayor’s Executive team routinely. The City Council has slipped into bad habits and shown no willingness to clean up their act. Perhaps if the elected President of the Council were just another representative, with no conflicts apparent, with their taxes current with the City, and with a desire to represent all in the City rather than those on their personal agenda, we would regain some self-respect.
Specifically:
• Would we have a community meeting to discuss the findings of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report annually where questions and answers flow freely? This is our only audited fiscal report and the Budget & Appropriations Committee of the CC does not schedule meetings for this purpose.
• Would we have a 90-page monthly financial report, always delayed, mostly unread by the Council members, or a 20-page Executive Summary suitable for posting on the City web site?
• Would we have public hearings on both the operating budget (as occurs where the Council merely listens without responding to the input) and the Capital Budget? For a City that has been spending upwards of $60-100 Million per year on school buildings, etc. shouldn’t the Capital budget follow Charter language? It does not and the City web site carries no specific info on the Capital Budget as money is authorized, bonded, projects are developed and completed. Why not?
• Bridgeport purchases lots of “stuff” and services each year. An Ordinance directs an Internal Auditor (terminated by this administration years ago) to prepare an Annual Report and an audit every third year. Who attends to this?
• I have asked about the Stipend Ordinance in existence. The current debit card practice does not follow the existing Ordinance in critical ways. The CC President feels no reason to deal with that procedural problem, therefore leaving a set of rules that is unobserved and broken.
• Fifteen of the 20 Council persons were offered an opportunity to devote some of your taxpayer funds in June 2013 to charitable causes. About $30,000 was sent out through City purchase orders. No City meeting. No Agenda. No minutes. Illegal use of public funds directed by a City employee who, as an attorney, knows the rules but is not inclined to obey them.
How much can I say in three minutes? Not as much as I would wish. When the powers that be indicate my comments are not “constructive criticism” I have to respond: follow the current Charter, Ordinance and applicable rules as they are. Who is the Sheriff anyway in this City? Is it a billboard that offers a phone number to report corruption? 1-800-CALLFBI? Time will tell.
John, dream on.
Andy,
I have to go get my meds now. Perhaps you want something to sweeten up? What we have been covering for five years now, my good friend, is not a dream, but rather like some Indian tribes in the Southwest, where they send their young men off on a “vision quest.” To change Bridgeport you first need a vision of what we can be but aren’t today and it helps to see where other communities are operating. Second, you require enough agreement from the governed to win at the polls. And the Finch team has found itself vulnerable on more than one occasion in the past seven years. Third, the information needs to be repeated on how far short the incumbency is on all matters financial. And in this case they have no belt or suspenders to support their story and only “droopy drawers” to feature if they are forced to respond. Show me the Money, Bill. Show me what you have been doing with our money, Bill. Show all of us what you have stuck on our backs in future years, Bill. Have you looked at the proposed capital budget for the coming year? The Mayor sent it to Fleeta Hudson on March 2, with the comment: “Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office.” Will Ms. Hudson be voting on the capital budget this year or the CC? Thirty-one projects listed for the 2016 Capital Plan for a total of $42 Million with no explanation of what is covered, range of priorities, etc. Pleasure Beach Water and Park Accessibility for following year for $5 Million? Time will tell.
I see the poll at 5:35 is in favor of calling the FBI, well that is like calling an Empty Suit.
This movement to clean up Bridgeport government is noble -and brave on the part of most participants (but simply opportunistic on the part of others).
I’ve been involved in quite a few reform movements in Bridgeport over the past 20 years–from the imposition of ethics standards for appointment to city boards (financial/conflict of interest reporting came out of that–and we see how effective that has been), to reform of the ethics commission itself.
This is a positive gesture, but it will mean nothing whether the intended bill passes or not, because our fate doesn’t rest in our hands at the moment. It rests in the hands of moneyed interests and elitist defenders such as Toni Boucher.
As long as the people of Bridgeport believe all it will take to turn Bridgeport around is good, upright, non-conflicted, local representation, we will continue to remain poor and underemployed, with a failing (albeit, corporately exploited school system). The elitists who run this state are happy to see us blaming ourselves for our failure to thrive–they use our “terrible corruption” as an excuse to continue to exploit us and deny us our due recompense as a labor force and municipality of great service to the region, as well as basic respect as a city of living souls.
What we need is “firebrand” leadership that isn’t afraid to speak of social justice and socialism to the powers in Hartford and Washington. Leadership that can rally Bridgeport votes against the elitist status quo in Hartford and Washington.
Whether or not our lackey, elected leadership works for the city or not doesn’t mean much if they aren’t willing to take off the gloves when advocating for Bridgeport interests.
Sure, I would love to see squeaky clean local government, but I would much rather see effective leadership (albeit with a little bit of mud splatter) bringing good jobs and tax base to Bridgeport. I would rather see our leadership feared and respected in Hartford and Washington than recommended for sainthood.
Stamford was notoriously corrupt during most of its economic ascent. Ditto for Shelton, et al.
Of course, I don’t advocate corruption at any level of government, but I do advocate effective leadership that brings home the bacon, rather than saintly, docile leadership that is praised in public but laughed at behind closed doors in Hartford and Washington after they’re sent home with nothing–or even worse, Bass Pro.
I’ll watch Bridgeport’s “clean government” initiative with interest, but also with a realistic, jaundiced eye.
Unfortunately, I believe we need to get bloody, and dirty, and prosperous, before we use a lot of time and energy trying to become squeaky clean. (Which we can never become anyway, because it will always be possible to buy our elected representatives–via their BRBC handlers, state jobs in return for vote production, etc.).
We need angry voters who will direct their anger toward Hartford and Washington, not internally. The elitists want us occupied with a civil war at home so they can continue exploiting us in Hartford and Washington. If we turn on the elitists in Hartford and Washington, they’ll remove their corrupt lackeys in Bridgeport and we’ll start to see some change.
This doesn’t sound very wholesome or attractive, but it is the way the economic-political world operates under the auspices of human beings. It wasn’t for nothing Mark Twain referred to us as “the damned human race.”
Jeff, as usual you are right on! Unfortunately there is a group of sanctimonious, righteous, opinionated individuals who couldn’t care less about the points you expressed in your comments. They must protect their personal interests at all costs. For seven years our taxes have increased, no substantial redevelopment, and a huge tax increase looming around the corner. Yet the intention of this administration is to introduce a bill that would prevent an individual from running for public office. What a waste of time and energy. Why not put that time and energy into significantly reducing the upcoming budget to possibly cushion the blow of a financially devastating tax increase that will put seniors and others who are economically challenged underwater. There are at least three knowledgeable men who have offered effective, well-researched advice regarding matters of the budget, yet they go unheeded. I’m referring to participants on this blog.
Lisa,
As you and others who post on this blog served and departed the Council, whatever good habits of fair governance that were present have been lost. Perhaps those who have had practical experience on the Council and still care would form an alumni group including yourself, Bob Walsh, Angel DePara (who did not stoop to take a $2,000 purchase order from the taxpayers in 2013, and others. Let’s look at the current numbers both for the Capital Budget revealed by the Mayor on March 2, and later for the Operating budget. This would be a taxpayer service certainly when the operating budget is revealed within the month.
Instead of relying on the B&A Committee not even reviewing all of the Departments, a look at how Tom Sherwood has inflated full-time personnel in past years might save dollars right away. And questions about purchases and the sources of Capital Budgets adopted may bring real interest and expense savings, as well as some embarrassment. Time will tell.
JML, I’m open and available for your suggestion.