Phil Smith, long-time Republican and student of the City Charter from his days leading charter revision efforts, shares his take on the process to replace John Bagley who resigned from the Board of Education Oct. 15. Bagley won a school board seat running on the Connecticut Working Families Party line as a registered Democrat. From Smith:
The City Charter provisions governing the membership of the Bridgeport Board of Education and the filling of vacancies are clear and unambiguous.
Section 1 of Chapter 15 of the Charter provides for a Board of Education composed of nine members elected for staggered four-year terms. Five are elected at one city election and serve for terms of four years. Two years later four more members are elected for four-year terms.
The Charter also limits the number of candidates any party may nominate for election to the Board (three in years when five members are elected; two in years when three members are elected). Significantly, these provisions do not require the election of a member of any political party. They just limit the number of candidates any party may nominate for office.
Section 4 empowers the Board to fill any vacancies which may arise in its membership. It requires “The person so elected shall be a resident and elector and a member of the same political party as the member vacating such office.” John Bagley is a registered member of the Democratic Party and, if the Charter governs, his replacement MUST be a registered Democrat.
But, the matter doesn’t end there.
Under the provisions of Section 9-167(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes not more than six members of a nine-member board, such as the Board of Education, can be members of the same political party. The appointment of a registered Democrat to replace Bagley, as required by the Charter, would appear to violate that law. The law appears to require the appointee be anyone other than a registered Democrat.
That raises an interesting question. If it is illegal to appoint a Democrat to fill Bagley’s seat because it results in too many registered Democrats serving on the Board, it was equally illegal for city officials to seat a seventh Democrat as a member of the Board of Education following last year’s elections. In light of the state law, it appears that seat should have gone to the highest vote-getter who was not a registered member of the Democratic Party. If that had happened there wouldn’t be an issue today. The responsible city officials need to explain why that didn’t happen.
One final note. Despite speculation to the contrary, none of these provisions appear to require a member of the Working Families Party be appointed to fill Bagley’s seat on the Board of Education.
Phil Smith’s read is every vote John Bagley cast was done so illegally and any vote that won by a Bagley vote or tied as a result of a Bagley vote should be recast or retabulated.
A rather drastic interpretation of what occurred.
Instead I would suggest by taking the office, Mr. Bagley acknowledged his allegiance to the Working Family Party and the Registrar of Voters should have formally switched his party affiliation. Chalk it up to another Santa clause.
No free seat for the city Republicans.
Well, there are three legal opinions that state otherwise. CT State Statute supersedes the City Charter, therefore the replacement must be a registered WFP member. Denise Merrill’s office, the BBOE attorney and even Mark Anastasi all agree the replacement must be a registered WFP member.
Mr. Smith, if you want another Republican on the BBOE, you need to win at the polls in 2015.