Planning to submit the first budget of JG2 to the City Council on Monday, Mayor Joe Ganim is still trying to close what financial officials assert is an inherited $20 million budget deficit. As a result, Ganim has directed about 50 discretionary appointees to give back two weeks pay covering the last three months of the current fiscal year and the one that begins July 1. He will also be asking municipal unions to work with him to achieve millions more in savings via unpaid furloughs or in lieu of that concessions that achieve the same. Also on the table is “an early retirement incentive program to all eligible city employees.”
Mayoral spokesman Av Harris says Ganim has set an example by giving up two weeks pay, but appointees may give back the two weeks over the next 15 months. City officials have not publicly announced how deep they’ve cut into the election-year budget inherited from the Finch administration but it could very well be part of the deficit will be carried over to the next budget year.
Officials have been tight-lipped about the details of the coming budget, preferring to share briefing information with council members on Monday. The budget will be referred to the council’s Budget and Appropriations committee where the real work of reviewing the proposed spending plan takes place. Ganim’s proposed budget will be impacted by the revaluation of city property kicking in for the July 1 budget year.
Finance officials says taxpayers will experience a mixed bag of some taxes staying the same, some going up and some down. The mil rate for the current budget year is roughly 42. Overall, say finance officials, the city’s revalued grand list will be about 15 percent lower. Irrespective of any potential tax hit for homeowners, one piece of good news for taxpayers will come in the form of lower automobile taxes. The Connecticut legislature passed a law that creates statewide uniformity of car taxes, capping the tax rate on cars at 32 mils. The state will reimburse the city for the revenue loss as a result of the lower mil rate on car taxes.
By city charter regulation, Ganim must submit the budget to the City Council no later than Tuesday. The council will meet Monday night. The budget committee is scheduled to meet April 11. It will spend the next month reviewing the budget, interviewing department heads, conducting public hearings and tinkering changes. Generally what occurs on the committee level is ratified by the full council which will set a final mil rate in June.
Statement from Ganim:
“The fiscal reality my administration inherited has forced our city government to make some very difficult choices,” said Mayor Ganim. “The bottom line is we need to achieve some real savings and reduce our personnel costs. Those in my administration – myself included – are already giving up some of their salary to help balance the budget. We will also be offering some incentives for longtime city employees to retire. These are good faith efforts to cut spending in a responsible way, and my message to organized labor is one of partnership. We are all in this together. My appointed staff is giving up real dollars, and therefore I will be asking for concessions from our partners in collective bargaining units as well.”
You know the city keeps trying to balance its budget on the backs of union employees. Sure he is seeking two weeks’ pay from his appointees but that will not hurt as much as two weeks’ pay from a clerk making $11-12.00 per hour. How much is unemployment going to cost the city?
Why don’t we get rid of assets that are costing us money, for example the airport has been losing money on a steady basis. Why are we paying for recreational fliers to fly?
Why are we paying $91,000 to someone to check potholes? Why are we paying someone to look in our garbage cans and our recycling cans looking for infractions? The list goes on and on and the mayors all sing the same tune. I will screw you but you won’t know it.
Is that a typo or does Ganim really have 50 appointees? Do they actually perform a viable function other than trying to look busy? I also read on this blog last week 20 council members each get a $9000 stipend every year and I know other cities and towns don’t pay anywhere near that, if at all. If that stipend gets cut in half, the city would save $90 thousand. Why aren’t the city taxpayers taking a stand on this? It’s preposterous in my opinion.
Godiva,
Fardy and I have discussed the Stipend account for more than five years. The Council as a whole has not spent the entire $180,000 in years although some manage to find enough Council-related expenses to secure $9,000 or close to it each year. Were they to consider it carefully (and after making sure they have adequate support for their decisions), they might easily cut this amount by 1/3 to $120,000.
In the big picture, they have no expert legal or financial assistance independent of the administration as a check and balance body. Why not take the $60,000 saved from Stipend and combine it with $80,000 from their OTHER SERVICES line item and hire two technically capable assistants to their body???
There is a rumor they are considering such. A study of other legislative bodies will find more such support is in budgets of better fiscally situated cities than stipends. And if stipends are to be used for junkets to Washington DC and other American conference cities each year, does the public need to know what was learned that will benefit our city (or should we expect signed menus from the grazing places they dined on taxpayer budget)? Time will tell.
Godiva, actually it’s $90,000 a year, but here’s the capper, each CC person who doesn’t use all their stipend donates it to their favorite charity rather than gives it back to the city.
Don, if they do that it is illegal. The money they get is meant to cover their expenses, it is not a slush fund and it is not something that goes to charity.
What kind of expenses? What is a legit expense and what is not? How are the expenses accounted for?
Rocco, this abuse has been going on since I left the council 12 years ago. When McCarthy became council president he changed the rules that held each member accountable, every expense they incurred, and receipts had to be submitted. He had no authority to do this, but who was going to stop him? It became a slush fund, and had nothing to do with constituent-related use. Maybe Joe G. will get around to reviewing this practice and force the CC members to follow the intent of the ordinance.
Donald, if there are 20 members and each one gets $9000, that is $180,000 in total. I suggested cutting the $9000 each in half, so the city saves $90,000. Now, I’ll bet each one spends all of it or damned close. But if they have any left over (doubtful), they should have to give it back to the city coffers. Donating it to a charity of their choice is a win-win because they get to take it as a deduction on their income tax returns. What in hell is up with that?
Donating the unused stipend makes me furious, what in hell gives the council the right to donate OUR money to THEIR favorite charity??? I believe this was all McCarthy’s idea last year. How dare they? Vizzo-Paniccia donated her unused stipend to her husband’s drum core for god’s sake! Makes me sick, and it better not happen again this year. Give it back to the city, it’s not your money to do whatever you wish with!
“The only new addition to the budget process is Chief Administrative Officer Andy Nunn, one of the few bright spots in a new administration loaded with hiccups.”
onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/what-would-you-cut-plus-mitch-the-switch-and-finch-on-business-and-brownfields/
Any OIB reader or poster interested in knowing what will transpire as far as the City of Bridgeport’s budget is concerned need only visit the OIB archive. Most of the future press releases from the city will sound very familiar and only the names of victims and players will be different. What happens if the unions don’t agree to “Givebacks?” There is a layoff list being put together just in case. Again, we are hearing nothing from the union leaders. It seems like the media (CT Post) knows more about our labor matters than the unions. I might as well send my union dues to the CT Post. I decided to put together (very quickly) my own layoff list. By the way, Local Eyes can you take a look at the photo of us during the OIB Party (link below)? Take a close look at your shirt pocket. Isn’t that a microphone?
onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/examining-the-layoff-list-plus-the-debate-paul-newman-and-blackmail-photos/
My pen, disguised as a microphone, matches the color of your tie. Conclusion: I’m not just eavesdropping, I’m doing it with a certain fashion flair while retaining my ability to take notes.
The City operating budget has been compromised for the past several years by excess overtime expenses, well above generous allowances for such in each budget. OK, overtime was abused? Management was lax? It happened? Yes, and in the meantime fire and police officers retired to income flows from the State of CT that included overtime and are now causing our City to fund increased millions to the State over what past budgets called for.
And all the while the police force continued shrinking. And the Police Commission did not notice? Did not comment? Put up with the situation and are rewarded for political loyalty as City-paid advisor today? And now retirement-pension obligations are on our City balance sheet and we have more liabilities than assets. Watchdogs asleep at the switch? Not sensing their higher obligations? Politics trumps public service? Didn’t see the big picture? What, me worry? Time will tell.
As I detailed in a commentary, the total expense of the city council when Lisa Parziale and I were members was our stipends totaling $10,000 annually. We cut it in half. The current stipend totals $180,000. The total cost of the city council is about $345,000 annually. Will they reduce their cost to the taxpayer? It was done in 1992.
Way too much emphasis on the City Council stipends. Why don’t some of you ponder the $10 million dollar Bridgeport Police portion of the Flatto “budget Deficit.” I know it was oh-so-popular to rant and rave about about Finch and his gang’s last-minute grab for money on the eve of his departure. How much of the $2.5 million went to Finch et al. and how much went to the Supervisor’s Union, part of a standard contract??? Ganim should take the $10 million, take it to Chuck Paris, put it in his lap or shove it up his ___ and say “You will pay for this out of the next Police Union Contract.” BUT we all know this demand will never happen because Ganim is owned by the Bridgeport Police Union, LOCK, STOCK AND BARREL.
Frank, don’t get pissed off when your car gets booted.
Joel, thank you for the reminder.
Frank, the reason for the emphasis on city council stipends is:
1. It has ballooned from a total of $5,000 per year in 1992 to $180,000 in recent years.
2. The total budget of the city council has increased from $5,000 per year to about $345,000 per year.
3. It is a cut that would have no consequences.
4. The only other city with a stipend is New Haven, less than 1/3 of what the Bpt city council members receive.
5. There is no justification for a $9,000 per year stipend.
Tom White, thank for the succinct recap of the issue of the stipends. JML hints at some activity to address this issue. There remains the ancillary issue of how to empower the City Council so it can legitimately serve as the “legislative” arm of city government.
If the city council members abuse the stipends by spending them outside the guidelines, why would they then look at the rules of the charter and uphold any other mandates as the legislative arm of the city?
If the stipends equal $180,000 and the total CC budget is $345,000, how and where is the additional $165,000 (above stipends) being spent???
Frank, they are empowered by Charter, they choose to remain complacent, it’s less work and they always want to please the higher-ups. In addition, they don’t have a clue as to what their duties to the public entail. That’s why they’re able to abuse stipend funds, you rub my back, I’ll rub yours.
Lisa Parziale, thank you for your insight, as well, as to the City Council Stipend issue. Once when I was young, I wrote a letter to Senator Abraham Ribicoff saying I was interested in a career of politics and governance. I thought it was a noble profession.
Frank, you are an example of what could be if politics really worked for us. There are some noble politicians at all levels who passed that test, but unfortunately not enough. Power and greed trump what starts out to be noble. The good people, like many on this blog, must keep voicing what they know is wrong and unfair. It’s the only vehicle we have (thank you, Lennie).
Lisa, you summed it up well. Given the city council is responsible for overseeing the city code of ordinances, it would be appropriate for a member of the city council to raise concern and call for a review.
Why has that not happened? Go back and read Lisa’s comment.
Lisa and Tom,
You, like Bob Walsh, Angel DePara, Joel Gonzalez, “Mojo” and a few other observers of CC behavior, though not necessarily posters on OIB, do know what “used to” pass for responsible CC behavior. Today is different, each of you agrees.
Was there ever a “Handbook of Council Member RESPONSIBILITY?” rather than a rulebook that seems to suggest powers the CC has to keep things from the public rather than how they can serve and include the public especially the taxpayers in the process?
If not, what used to be handed down is no longer and the CC because of years of conflicted leadership (McCarthy) has no independent, research and discussion supported sense of City governance. It is not for lack of attending Municipal Conferences each year by many who may consider this their “taxpayer-supplied vacation,” or not, but we pay their bills and get no reports on what they see suitable to apply in our City towards economic development, budget controls, and better use of information technology to monitor what is accomplished towards objectives.
Perhaps we ought to convene a study group, with a few sessions for folks to listen, speak and listen some more, to draft a simple but fundamental list of duties, as seen by former CC members, to be observed by current and future CC members. Time will tell.
Tom, when we served many council members would raise the question of abuse, and most likely follow-up with a resolution explaining the intent of the ordinance and amend the ordinance if necessary. We were not greedy, nor would we add to the expense of taxpayers. When a new council term began, newly elected members were mandated to attend an orientation session, plus they were taught the basic rules and practices of the CC. This was held over a two-day period by the City Clerk’s office. It was an introduction to council responsibilities as well as the City Charter. I’m not suggesting orientation prepared members for contingencies that occurred in almost all business and situations that passed their desks, but it was a start. In addition, there were always experienced members who assisted the new members, so therefore good governing was perpetuated. I don’t know when this ended. When the last knowledgeable ones left, Bob Walsh, Andre Baker and Ed Gomes, the remaining members and the ones to join later had no guidance, and not a clue as to what their jobs entailed. As I said before, the last two administrations did nothing to correct that, the irony being they both served on the Council (Fabrizi and Finch) and knew better. They took advantage of the ignorance of new members, in addition the council President could have turned it all around, he also knew how it should have been. Our present City Clerk, Lydia Martinez, was a good council person with loads of experience and savvy. Maybe she’ll step in and try to get this council on track. I worked closely with Lydia for many years and her heart was in the right place when it came to her constituents and the City. She could do it if she decides to share her knowledge and experience.