On Monday, former Board of Education member Maria Pereira wrote in an OIB comment, “Unfortunately, there are so few Bridgeport politicians who are principled, transparent and ethical.” If that’s the case, why is it the case? And does Bridgeport own a monopoly on dubious decision making? If you start preening pols who are “principled, transparent and ethical,” couldn’t they be picked apart for this decision or that?
A lot of this is so subjective in this day and age of politics. Popular today, a pariah tomorrow. And maybe if you share a list of political undesirables, you could offer a list of things they got right?
Pereira is a tough judge when it comes to politicians in general and Bridgeport in particular. She got involved in public education in 2009 after her daughter was subjected to a revolving door of teachers. To her credit she has clear core values when it comes to public education and is unafraid to challenge institutional powers when staking her claim backed by research. She also takes as good as she gives, embracing with humor the “Maria Piranha” moniker sometimes associated with her aggressiveness.
Politics is an impossible business without compromise, but Pereira argues you cannot compromise on the most essential matters relevant to her, for instance, yes to magnet schools, no to charter schools she contends rapes resources from traditional public institutions.
Politics is not a pious profession. It’s the nature of the beast when compromise splits the pie. We can pretty much name someone “principled.” That can be good and bad, right? “Transparent” can also be good or bad. Some people are just transparent blowhards. “Ethical?” Ethel, you out there?
So let’s get this party started. Name a politician or elected official in Bridgeport “principled, transparent and ethical.” Spinning your wheels trying to name someone? Okay, how about state government? Still not sure, how about federal government?
Still not sure, how about naming someone you’d like to run for something? Or if you’re still short of a name, dig deep into history to offer someone you respect.
DEVIL’S DICTIONARY OF BRIDGEPORT DEFINITIONS
Principled–An identification of a problem and resolution to do something about, for example, agreeing to find employment for a town committee member with 20 or 30 votes, or a town committee member delivering such votes.
Transparent–Giving your word at a meeting of supporters to find such employment, or publicly stating your support for a candidate and your intent to deliver.
Ethical–Delivering.
That about covers it.
I knew I could count on you.
I have one, Carmen Lopez. She should run for any office she so chooses. I don’t care what anyone says on this nominee, she cannot be bought, she is completely principled and as transparent as can be. She is the smartest person, man, woman or child, I know. She doesn’t buy what you are selling until she thoroughly researches the issue, organization or individual. Her decisions are informed and based on facts. She won’t support a person because they are friendly and have a great smile. She will support you based on your level of knowledge, work ethic and your willingness to want to learn and discover the truth. If you don’t want to be exposed to the truth, then she isn’t the candidate for you. If you want your eyes completely opened and able to see things you never knew existed, she is the candidate for you.
I speak from first-hand experience because she has taught me everything I know about politics in Bridgeport and beyond.
Maria, Carmen has served as a Superior Court judge. Why do you think she won’t run for elected office?
Lennie, are you changing the challenge now? It is certainly not my place to answer that question. The only person who can answer that question is Carmen Lopez, not I.
Carmen is an extraordinary woman and has inspired many. But if I were to nominate someone who has been down in the dirty and stayed above it all, I would nominate Alma Maya. There isn’t a mean or vindictive bone in her body. She is unrelentingly fair.
Oh and by the way, if you doubt me–she is about to be screwed by the Finch administration. That is serious cred.
Are you not Baffled after reading my comment made to Lennie in regards to this stupid topic? You would think Lennie could come up with better topics. I’ve sent him topic ideas much better than this–the most stupid comment/topic from Lennie Grimaldi. Lennie, take your meds.
The person credited for the comment herself is indeed one. The fact she picked Carmen Lopez as her choice can be part of my explanation as to why. Birds of a feather …
I second the Alma Maya selection. Nothing but fair. And as beautiful as she is fair and honest. Total package.
So BARF is George Estrada.
No Speedy, he’s not.
I already met Mustang Sally and know who she is.
I would like to see George Estrada in the race, but I think those traits are exactly what keep him from joining the fray!
Lennie, in a way this commentary or posting of yours is kind of very stupid. How the fuck am I supposed to know the posters with handles are not nominating themselves? Mustang Sally, try another one.
George Estrada would be an excellent choice. I always thought George Estrada would be an amazing mayor. He could also give hope to Republicans as I believe he would get both sides of the aisle to support his candidacy. He is a real Bridgeporter and a Republican by way of his nationality for sure. I believe he is honest and sincere and would be a most respected and revered mayor if he ever chose to run. I’ve been waiting for George Estrada to run for 25 years. Maybe he will switch to a Democrat.
George Estrada is another great candidate. Smart, focused, serious integrity and seriously tough and fair and besides, a really nice guy.
Republican George Estrada more principled than Republican Enrique Torres? George give hope to Enrique? “I always thought …” “… I believe he would …” Blah, blah, blah. “Maybe he will switch to a Democrat.” Steve, he switched a long time ago. As simple as it is to go to the Registrar of Voters to do it officially, he hasn’t done so. Why? Because any time a Republican needs to be selected for like a Charter Revision Commission appointment, George Estrada is always a phone call away.
I agree with you, Joel. He was selected to serve on the Charter Revision Commission, which does illustrate Mayor Finch could count on him to deliver. I attended a good amount of the meetings. He is intelligent and articulate, however he did everything Mayor Finch wanted him to do while serving on this commission.
Maria and Joel, George Estrada may have done what Finch requested but he would only do it if it was the right thing to do. The goals of these individuals are not, I repeat not to be a thorn in the Mayor’s side.
Recognizing Lennie has chosen to ask his readers to “deconstruct” Maria’s statement about Bridgeport politicians and their degree of “principled, ethical and transparent,” are members of Boards and Commissions considered to be “politicians” for this purpose?
My own pursuit of people and systems that promote open, accountable and transparent governance is akin to Maria’s question though not the same. However if Board and Commission members are included, I would nominate Joseph Ianiello who has served the public on the Police Board, the Ethics group, and in his neighborhood as the leader of the Black Rock NRZ. He is hardworking, very objective, and task-oriented. He also believes in reporting to the public annually or more frequently on what his teams have been up to. No secrets.
Board and commission members are part of our local governance system. Though they do not run for elective office, the decisions they make or shape are critical to our life in the City. If we broaden the canvas, will we find more people to celebrate? Time will tell.
Politics, like life and relationships, is about the art of compromise. When things don’t go your way you can’t take your bat and ball and go home. Finch could have proposed a blended board of education. He lost. I have much admiration for the judge but question her temperament.
Follow the Money, Hartford has a “blended board of education,” however it is a mayoral-controlled board. The mayor appoints five of the nine members which means the electorate can never change the makeup in any real way so the majority of the members represent them, not the mayor.
If the worst thing that can be said about Carmen Lopez is she has a temper, then she should definitely run for office. I will take a candidate with a temper over one who is unethical, dishonest, unprincipled, secretive and more interested in cutting backroom deals than doing what is in the best interest of their constituents.
Maria–the mayor could have offered a blended board of five elected and four appointed. Maria–my comment about the judge is not her temper but her temperament. She is like you. Unyielding and not willing to compromise. What good is it if you win the battle but not the war?
Fact: Nobody has more Bridgeport-themed assets than I do. I didn’t join this blog to fit in, I joined to stand out!
Follow the Money, why shouldn’t voters have a right to elect every member of their local school board? Apparently voters are smart enough to elect their president, senators, congressmen, state representatives, secretary of the state, treasurer, mayor, city council members, registrars, town clerk, etc. however we are just so uninformed and incompetent we are incapable of electing all our school board members. Do you honestly believe that?
I am willing to compromise on issues. Steve and I reached a compromise on this very blog about naming the new high school Warren Harding or Obama. However I will not compromise or “cut a deal” on my core principles and values. If I am firm on my position it is because I have thoroughly researched it and my position has been based on research and fact, not rhetoric.
Since 2009, there have been significant battles won. You must win individual battles to win the war.
In 2009, Mayor Finch was defeated on the library referendum and Sauda and I won the BBOE election.
In 2012, Mayor Finch was defeated when the CT Supreme Court ruled the BBOE takeover from July 2011 was illegal. This occurred even though Ex$ell Bridgeport and the Bridgeport Public Education Fund retained the law firm of Pullman & Comley (John Stafstrom) to submit legal briefs in SUPPORT of the illegal takeover. In addition, John Bagley was elected to the BBOE.
In 2012, the charter referendum was soundly defeated. Even though Ex$ell Bridgeport and wealthy charter school supporters made significant financial contributions of over $500,000.
In 2013, all three of Mayor Finch’s BBOE candidates were soundly defeated. For the first time in over 30 years, the Democratic Machine did not have complete control of the BBOE budget.
In 2013, Vallas was found to be unqualified to hold the position of superintendent in Bridgeport. It was appealed to the CT Supreme Court and they ruled an administrative process had not been followed, not on whether Vallas was qualified or not. However, the damage had been done and the “rock star” of the “deform” movement had been discredited. Bellinger’s ruling made it into the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Times, etc.
In 2014, Vallas resigned before he was terminated and rode into the sunset. He called on every favor owed him to formulate some sort of graceful exit strategy. His brother is a high-level employee in Governor Quinn’s administration.
Although Bobby, Sauda, John and I usually lost when it was time to vote, we won some significant battles too. However more importantly we exposed the mismanagement and poor leadership of Dr. Ramos and Paul Vallas and elevated the conversation around education in Bridgeport.
Minus the library referendum, none of this could have been accomplished without Carmen Lopez.
I like Carmen Lopez but let’s not get crazy and say all you describe above is because of Carmen Lopez. Those victories are because the working people of Bridgeport stood up and said NO MORE!!! Carmen Lopez did what was necessary.
Minus the library referendum, Carmen Lopez was instrumental in the success of every single one of these victories. I don’t recall seeing you at a single one of the strategy meetings on a single one of these issues, so how can you possibly make such a statement?
Well just so you know, I was at several meetings held at the office on Stratford Ave. Just because the all-knowing Maria P did not see me or my wife there does not mean we were not there. I also spent 14 hours at the polls. Where were you at the polls because you were not at Hooker?
You may have been at a meeting at the Stratford Avenue headquarters, however you were not one of the leaders of the “Vote NO” campaign on the charter referendum. I listed quite a few initiatives Carmen Lopez was involved in and a key to each initiative’s success.
I worked at Central High School from 6:00 a.m. to approximately 8:30 p.m. I didn’t start working at the polls in Thomas Hooker until August 2013.
Andy–success has many parents. Failure is an orphan.
Maria–the Supremes rightfully ruled the actions of the BBOE and the SBOE were wrong in their actions based on the rule of law. The State Board did not follow the state statute to reconstitute. By this action they were arbitrary and capricious. The local board had no legal authority to blow up the Board.
If the proper legal procedures had been followed, the reconstitution would have gone through.
I applaud your passion.
Follow the Money, sorry, I disagree. The law in itself violates the CT State Constitution, therefore we felt confident we would win on the question of constitutionality even if the CT Supreme Court ruled the SBOE had met every requirement of the law itself. That was one of our arguments. Because the CT Supreme Court ruled in our favor on the first question, they were not required to address the question on the constitutionality of the law itself.
Maria–with all due respect, please re-read page 29 of the decision.
HARTFORD — The state Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the state takeover of the Bridgeport school system, declaring the state violated the law when it failed to retrain the city’s Board of Education before seizing control of the struggling district.
Follow the Money, with all due respect, I was the lead plaintiff in this lawsuit. I think it is fairly safe to say I know a bit more about this court case than you do.
You are completely accurate in stating the CT Supreme Court ruled in our favor based on the SBOE not following the requirements of the law, however there was a second question posed to the CT Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the law itself. Because we prevailed on the first question, the CT Supreme Court never took up the question on the legality of the law itself. If we had lost on the first question, they would have had to rule on the second question.
Maria–In your legal logic can you explain to me how you can prove a moot point? Furthermore, there were three parties to this action, not just you.
A ruling on whether the law itself is illegal is not a “moot point.” I believe it is important to know whether this law is in violation of the CT State Constitution. We did pose this as one of our questions to the CT Supreme Court. However, because they ruled in our favor on the first question, which was did the SBOE follow the requirements of the law, the justices were not required to weigh in on the second question.
Actually, there were more than three plaintiffs.
Bobby Simmons and I hired Norman Pattis & Kevin Smith.
Sauda Baraka, Lauraynne Farrarh-James and Shavonne Davis retained Josephine Miller.
Mary-Jane Foster retained two attorneys as well.
I don’t believe I stated I was the only plaintiff. I stated I was the “lead” plaintiff.
Maria-Foster was never named as part of this case. It was Walsh, Cash and Pipkin.
Charles Coviello, George Pipkin, Pertrinea Cash-Deedon and Bob Walsh were all members of Mary-Jane Foster’s BBOE slate. The attorneys who represented them were John Kadaras and Michele Mount, both of whom were retained by Mary-Jane Foster, not the individual plaintiffs.
I cry “Uncle!” 🙂
You see Andy, if you are not at “specific meetings” you are not part of the team at least in the recollection of Maria Pereira, and so any part you may have played is irrelevant, or at least insignificant, and your words or opinion is overstated, as well.
Now don’t you feel warm and fuzzy? Don’t you wish to get on that team in the future? Will it concern you going forward to know where retired Judge Carmen Lopez stands on an issue, and where her student Maria Pereira is strategizing? Is this a message that is likely to grow deeper roots in the community? Time will tell.
John, what Maria P does not know is the amount of meetings I had at Carmen Lopez’s house, nor does she know all the information amassed by Carmen was read and studied by me and commented on by me. What Maria P doesn’t know is you don’t have to stand in the limelight or cry look at me to be effective.
I know what I know. And I “know” you are completely exaggerating. I am not the one repeatedly submitting Op-Eds to OIB, that would be you. So much for not wanting to be in the “limelight.”
Please do list the initiatives you have been a significant contributor to where you were “effective.” As far as I know, you were actively involved in the recent Democratic Town Committee elections and Mary-Jane Foster’s campaign for Mayor. We all know the results of these two efforts. What else do you have for us?
Maria, get a grip on yourself. Submitting articles to OIB is not seeking the limelight. I guess based on your thinking??? the only opinion that is right is your opinion. You are outstanding in your field, too bad you are alone.
Maria, we do know the results of the town committee elections and we know you are being Investigated by the Secretary of the State for you maniacal behavior at the polls. As for MJF, we did a great job against an incumbent. By US who do you mean by US? You really have someone who puts up with your bullshit?
Can you quote the CT State Statute that allows the State Elections Enforcement Commission to investigate someone “for maniacal behavior at the polls?” Whether you did a “great job” or not doesn’t really matter. You referenced being “effective.” If you lose, you weren’t really effective.
“Us” is in reference to all OIB’s readers.
I never made one comment on whether Andy played a significant role in any of the victories I listed above, although I do know the answer to most. I spoke about the leadership demonstrated by Carmen Lopez.
My comments were related to his statement on the significant role Carmen Lopez played in every single victory besides the library referendum. His attempt to downplay the importance of her leadership and contributions is not supported by the truth.
Every one of these victories occurred because a group of people organized and strategized on how to get the job done. All of these were true grassroots efforts organized by average residents in Bridgeport, not those with wealth or power. Some groups had five members and some had over 20.
Bow Tie, you were not involved in these meetings either. These were all grassroots efforts that began with the planning and strategizing of a few average citizens. I know you assisted with financial contributions, door knocking and phone banking on some of these initiatives, however you were not part of the meetings to strategize on how to best educate voters and the community at large.
Ultimately, every voter contributes when they cast a vote at the polls, however that doesn’t make them a leader in an organized community effort. And no one voted on the lawsuits several of us filed and funded in order to protect the rights of many.
I don’t believe either you or Andy were invited to “get on the team” in the past, why should anyone do so in the future? Time will tell.
Maria, wherever you are involved there is NO team because it’s always about Maria. Did you ever wonder why most people want nothing to do with you after they meet you?
I know, Andy. I am so against being a team player, when I was asked to help a challenge slate for the Democratic Town Committee in our neighborhood, I refused.
I didn’t host many of the meetings in my home, I didn’t supply all the refreshments, I didn’t raise the most money, I didn’t go door-to-door in 17-degree weather to gather petition signatures, I didn’t phone bank for three consecutive days to get the vote out (24 hours), I didn’t stand at the polls in frigid weather for 14 hours, etc.
No, not me. I was just as selfish as can be. There are approximately 140,000 citizens residing in Bridgeport. How do you define “most?” Are you saying you know every single person I have met and they have shared with you they “want nothing to do” with me? Well list all these individuals on this blog so all OIB’s readers can see for themselves.
I certainly have a great relationship with the vast majority of those who live in Thomas Hooker. Please do share.
Really???
Maria, for God’s sake I was at the meetings and never claimed to be a leader of any type. I was a worker. What were you other than a big mouth spitting out clichés?
Those same kind of “clichés” from Maria caused you and two others to lose DTC seats. Whatever works for Maria is fine and fair.
Joel, you have no clue what you are talking about. I did not run for a seat on the DTC. As usual, you are wrong.
Joel, just so you know and your post shows you don’t. I did not run for a seat on the DTC. Try getting it right once in awhile.
Sorry Andrew, I stand corrected. Was it not your wife and two others? Why is it you usually don’t correct me? Maria Pereira and Joel Gonzalez are usually and once in a while wrong on their comments. If this were included as a referendum question, Maria and I would win that too.
Andy, please don’t compare your commitment to a cause or candidate with mine. You will lose. Whether it is financial contributions, door knocking, phone banking, working the polls, etc.
Oh my, I thought you found it so offensive to name call. I called your dear friend John Lee “bow tie,” and you called me a “big mouth.” I think it is fair to say your comments are more offensive. This is what is often described as pure hypocrisy.
Maria, there was no comparison made to commitment, here is your need for attention coming into play. I only said I was a worker. It’s funny but the meetings I attended at Stratford Ave, you were not there. Maria, you are a fraud.
You wrote “I was a worker. What were you other than a big mouth spitting out clichés?” You clearly implied I did not contribute to the “Vote No” campaign, which is completely false. Don’t ask a question if you don’t want an answer.
I hope so in your case.
He conducts his activities in accordance with the highest professional and community ethical standards. The one. The only, SENRZ Rev. Dr.Carl (I’ll take that $50k please) McCluster.
I think James O’Donnell, Esquire fits the bill. Others I admire are Carmen Lopez and Tom White. George Estrada too, perhaps.
Am I the only one who is ecstatic Maria Pereira had made the decision to join us here on OIB? Two of the most “Principled, Transparent, Ethical” elected officials to have served us is Maria Pereira and Bobby Simmons. These two fine leaders were the only ones who put their money where their Principles, Transparency, and Ethics were. They are the only ones who paid out of their pockets to fight the illegal takeover of our schools. After the reversal by the courts, a bunch of less-deserving candidates were able to run in a free election for BOE. I can imagine how much money they paid. The legal cost is definitely high and I’m not sure how much it cost them. I daresay they have a huge debt still. While most wannabe elected officials are out there on their selfish relentless pursuit to raise money for their campaigns, NOT ONE has ever bothered to stop and think about this. If am correct, I’d like to hear from both Maria Pereira and Bobby Simmons on this in private. I’d rather spend my time raising and contributing money for these two fine individuals. Maria, I sent you my phone number on Facebook. The Pereira & Simmons fund?
I’ll set the stage and reach out to Judge Carmen Lopez as I hear she did Pro Bono work for the parent of a student.
Yes, to answer your question.
The Supreme Court struck down the takeover for one reason and one reason alone; because the State Board of Education failed to follow the law. Speculation the Court would have also found the law unconstitutional is without basis in fact or law. Indeed in recent years the Court’s decisions have made it clear the ultimate responsibility for the public school system rests with the state, not the towns.
CT has a deep-rooted history in local control, especially in education. The CT Supreme Court has also ruled an elected official cannot be removed from office, including a recall by voters. If voters cannot go to the polls to remove an elected official in their town, how can a bureaucratic institution such as the SBOE removed elected BBOE officials?
I don’t know you, Mr. Smith, however I do know and trust Carmen Lopez, Attorney Norman Pattis and Attorney Kevin Smith.
Actually, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled local officials can’t be recalled. It has ruled they can’t be recalled unless the legislature has authorized the recall procedures.
If the legislature wants to authorize recall elections it can do so tomorrow and there is nothing in the state constitution that prevents it.
Phil, only five municipalities in CT have a CONSTITUTIONAL recall provision in their charters. They were all established prior to the establishment of home rule.
www .cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0076.htm
There was a municipality that allowed recall in their charter. An attempt was made to recall an elected official. It went all the way to the CT Supreme Court and they ruled recall was not allowed in CT.
Based on the anger so many politicians are feeling from the electorate, I highly doubt the legislature will pass legislation allowing an elected representative to be recalled any time soon. After all, many of the elected representatives in our legislature could easily be the subject of a recall.
The case was Simmons v. Canty; it was decided in 1985; and, as any lawyer who can read will tell you, the recall provision was NOT struck down on constitutional grounds. The Court invalidated the Watertown Charter provision solely because the legislature had not authorized cities and towns to adopt recall provisions.
Phil: This is the law from that all-knowing person, guess who.
Phil, as of today’s date, is recall or the removal of an elected official allowed in the state of CT, minus the five municipalities that have it via special acts that were passed prior to home rule?
If the answer is no, if the electorate of a municipality cannot remove an elected official at the polls, can a bureaucratic agency such as the SBOE remove elected officials?
It is not permitted only because the legislature has not authorized it. Nothing in the state constitution prohibits it. In short, it is not, as you suggested, unconstitutional.
As for your original speculation the State Supreme Court would have declared the takeover law unconstitutional; it is still without basis in fact or law.
Maria,
As of today’s date, you have offered 22 comments (as is your freedom and privilege, per OIB) of the 68 offered in search of a Bridgeport politician who might reasonably be described as ‘principled, transparent and ethical.’ The conversation has gone in many directions, as it sometimes does. But if memory serves me you nominated former Judge Carmen Lopez. Subsequently I nominated former multi-commission member Joseph Ianiello, and then folks also nominated George Estrada, Alma Maya and Jim O’Donnell. Did Joel G. offer a back-hand nomination of Enrique Torres?
Anyway, at this point I reflect and ask myself are these folks politicians, as you sought? Or are they public servants in their activities of recent years? Are we still looking for an elected party political candidate? As you know, I pursue open, accountable and transparent governance process as my gold standard. Still do.
How do the current nominations stand up in your opinion to the standard of “transparent?” And since the many comments have nominated so few candidates, and none from the “political elected,” what does that say about the City? Time will tell.
It must be another slow day at the office. I didn’t seek the names of politicians or non-politicians who should run for elected office. I believe you have me confused with Lennie.
Actually Maria, Lennie quoted you, “On Monday, former Board of Education member Maria Pereira wrote in an OIB comment, “Unfortunately, there are so few Bridgeport politicians who are principled, transparent and ethical.” Is that the truth Maria? (See above.)
Then Lennie posted the question I must assume, as I did not see the context of your original sentence above.
But then you are the second responder to the OIB article with a nomination to carry the title of “principled, transparent and ethical.” Why are you now raising the issue about running for elected office? It was not part of my post. I was however trying to ask the question as to whether “Bridgeport politician” includes those who serve the public in a governmental process but are not elected.
Things are neither so fast, nor so slow, in my life that I would confuse Lennie Grimaldi and you. Unless you are moving to Redding CT and then it might be a tossup. Time will tell.
You wrote “are these politicians, as you sought?” I made a comment and did not seek the names of politicians or potential politicians. That request was made by Lennie, not I.
Clearly, things are so slow in your office, you spend time counting how many comments I post on a particular topic. Don’t worry about how many posts I make. Focus on your posts and their content and length, not mine.
Perhaps “things are slow in your office” since you accounted for approximately one-third of the total comments. But that is not factual, is it. Rather an assumption or supposition on my part, but something you do frequently in your posts, to see if they irritate others. The master issue of this blog is dysfunctional governance, Maria, not who is “king or queen of the hill” in comments.
As someone who follows education issues in the City for the past five years, you have identified the lack of funds available to the BOE from the City and from the ECS outdated formula. At least part of the responsibility for this is the lack of competence on the Council and in Council subcommittee on this subject.
Why don’t you join those who speak to the CC on the first and third Mondays with a five-minute address on topics of vital concern? They have to run for office 12 months from now. They have to understand the dynamics. Aren’t you an appropriate mouthpiece to put the pressure on financial realities? Time will tell.
You really are a sweetheart. NOT!!!
XOXO