What pol will grow a spine? What political chickens will run for the hen house?
The newly formed neighborhood action group Citizens Working for a Better Bridgeport will host a public forum March 16, 2 p.m. at the Bridgeport Public Library on the long-shot legislative bill advanced by State Rep. Jack Hennessy that proposes to close a loophole in state law that allows municipal employees to serve on local legislative bodies. The Bridgeport City Charter prohibits city employees from serving on the City Council. The forum will take place on the first floor of the library, 925 Broad Street Downtown.
The public discussion on HB – 5724, co-sponsored by State Rep. Auden Grogins, will be led by Hennessy and David Walker, the former United States comptroller general, who resides in Black Rock. Other members of the citywide coalition include former City Councilman Tom White, 2011 mayoral candidate Mary-Jane Foster, former president of the Bridgeport Board of Education Max Medina, East Side community activist Angel Reyes, 2011 candidate for city clerk Marilyn Moore. Citizens Working for a Better Bridgeport features a cross section of Democrats, Republicans and independents.
Members of the city’s state legislative delegation and other city officials have been invited to the public discussion.
Hennessy says city employees sitting on the city’s legislative body leads to conflicts of interests such as voting to approve their wages and benefits. Six serving on the 20-member City Council are currently on the public payroll. Hennessy’s bill faces ferocious opposition from municipal and state labor unions lobbying Democratic legislators they support for election to kill it. The City Council approves union contracts.
The municipal lobbying group Connecticut Conference of Municipalities also opposes the bill on behalf of its client member City Council that approved nearly $90,000 in service fees this budget year.
While Hennessy and Grogins push the bill’s passage, the four other members of the city’s State House delegation Christina Ayala, Ezequiel Santiago, Don Clemons and Charlie Stallworth are either opposing or ducking the bill for fear of alienating political supporters on the council. Santiago, a city employee, is actively working against it. The two state senators representing Bridgeport, Andres Ayala and Anthony Musto, have not publicly announced support or opposition for the bill that is before the legislatures Planning and Development Committee. Citizens for a Better Bridgeport hope public support will keep the bill alive.
“This bill will impact the Bridgeport City Council elections and address the issue of conflict of interest in government elections,” Citizens Working for a Better Bridgeport issued in an eblast invitation Thursday. “It is important all citizens understand this bill is an amendment to an existing state statute and why elected officials will or will not support this bill.”
State and federal law also prohibit respective public employees from serving on legislative bodies.
Jack Hennessy and Grogins will present the language of the bill and the merits of the bill at the public forum. Citizens will be encouraged to have their opinion heard and will have the opportunity to sign a petition indicating their opinion of this bill, according to the eblast.
Several members of the coalition say they will be keeping score regarding local legislators supporting or not supporting the government reform bill. All 20 members of the City Council are up for reelection this November with potential September primaries in the mix. State legislators face reelection next year.
This bill is a nice profiles-in-courage test. Walker, for one, says those opposing the bill will face ballot box opposition with an effort to “take you out.”
Jennifer Buchanan, a member of Citizens Working for a Better Bridgeport, shares an explanation of what Hennessy’s bill attempts to accomplish:
This is an amendment to a current state law–which has been ruled constitutional.
Current State Statute: Sec. 7-421. (e) Any municipal employee shall have the right to serve on any governmental body of the town in which such employee resides except any body which has responsibility for direct supervision of such employee. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, (1) no such employee shall serve on any of the following unless such employee is permitted to serve pursuant to the provisions of a municipal charter or home rule ordinance or serves because of membership on the legislative body of the municipality: (A) Any board of finance created pursuant to chapter 106 or any special act or municipal charter.
Here is the Bridgeport City Charter
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF BRIDGEPORT
CHAPTER 5
CITY COUNCIL
g) (1) No member of the city council shall, during the time in which he/she serves as a member of the city council, be appointed to or hold any office, the emoluments of which are to be paid from the city treasury.
(2) No person while holding office as a member of the city council shall be a member of any of the boards of the city, and no member of the city council shall be appointed to an office by any of such boards for which compensation is to be paid.
See you in September Sue B and Lap Dance Marty!
www .youtube.com/watch?v=NDKIs0v120s
Get a clue, you muppet …
Hey Prick … sorry Brick, I have your clue right here!
Jim, that’s not a nice way to talk to your best radio station listener.
LoL
So you say, li’l Jimmy …
I can’t think of a bigger waste of time than for our elected officials to champion Hennessy’s desperate stab at political viability. Doesn’t anyone get it such a measure, if passed, is unconstitutional? You can’t discriminate against a person because of their occupation. It’s as simple as that.
This is an amendment to a current state law–which has been ruled constitutional.
Current State Statute: Sec. 7-421. (e) Any municipal employee shall have the right to serve on any governmental body of the town in which such employee resides except any body which has responsibility for direct supervision of such employee. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, (1) no such employee shall serve on any of the following unless such employee is permitted to serve pursuant to the provisions of a municipal charter or home rule ordinance or serves because of membership on the legislative body of the municipality: (A) Any board of finance created pursuant to chapter 106 or any special act or municipal charter.
Here is the Bridgeport City Charter
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF BRIDGEPORT
CHAPTER 5
CITY COUNCIL
g) (1) No member of the city council shall, during the time in which he/she serves as a member of the city council, be appointed to or hold any office, the emoluments of which are to be paid from the city treasury.
(2) No person while holding office as a member of the city council shall be a member of any of the boards of the city, and no member of the city council shall be appointed to an office by any of such boards for which compensation is to be paid.
So perhaps you should work to have the current state and federal law regarding conflict of interest law changed.
Earth to old quarterhorse! Who’s discriminating against an occupation? No one is losing their job over this bill.
Anytime one of our local elected representatives at whatever level makes a move to provide more OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE or TRANSPARENT governance, it’s a time to cheer them on. And that is what this bill does.
Our own Charter says they shouldn’t be serving. But a State Law says employees can serve but not on Land Use or Finance Boards (OMG is that current State Law “unconstitutional” OLD HORSE?); well in the day we had a Finance Board, but Bridgeport and 5-6 other towns eliminated the elected special financial group, so now a Committee of the City Council has that important watchdog duty in addition to their legislative representation. It doesn’t work because of multiple conflicts of interest present when an employee has to say NO to his employer on multiple issues annually, despite profuse interpretations by a City Attorney staff. And Fed Law doesn’t allow this either.
You can’t discriminate against those who do not have a city job and pay taxes in favor of those who have a City job plus a vote on payrolls, union benefits, etc.. Then there is no “rock and hard place” to take the part of the taxpayer who feels he is paying for more services than he/she needs and is taking on far more debt and long-term responsibilities than is healthy for the economic development of the City. Perhaps it’s the last quarter of the race, old horse, and your arteries are somewhat clogged. Waste some real time and explain how an individual’s right to a job (first) and then right to run (second) for an elected position in the face of City Charter saying NO to it, is unconstitutional. And unless your sight is going bad, tell me how you avoid seeing the “appearance” of a conflict of interest for current members of the City Council, good people though they may be as citizens. It is, as you say, “as simple as that.” Time will tell.
Another Roachette coming in with more BS.
www .youtube.com/watch?v=zXXeH2dHHck
You don’t understand the U.S. or State Constitution. There is no Constitutional issue here. Federal employees, state employees and teachers are already barred from serving on their top legislative bodies. The only Constitutional issue would be any attempt to grandfather existing people. That would clearly be inappropriate and possibly un-Constitutional under the state Constitution.
“… The only Constitutional issue would be any attempt to grandfather existing people.”
So the real reason Jack and Auden decided take back the compromise version of the bill which grandfathered existing members was due to the potential unconstitutionality of the bill. As I recall, it was meant as a compromise to the original bill. Why must we wait until March 16 to hear the proposed language of the bill?
Proposed Language of the Bill–
HB-5724 – Proposed amendment to Current State Statute
AN ACT PROHIBITING MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES FROM SERVING ON
CERTAIN MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
That subsection (e) of section 7-421 of the general statutes be amended to prohibit municipal employees from serving on the legislative body of a municipality if such legislative body has the responsibilities and authority of a board of finance and if such prohibition is set forth in the municipality’s charter.
As I note below, there is no Constitutional problem with this legislation. Any assertion to the contrary is false.
The courts have repeatedly held these types of prohibitions ARE constitutional.
Sign me up! I’d have no problem or conflict of interest in speaking at the forum. Just as long as I can be the first speaker and be able to get to work by 3:00.
What unions are opposing this HB? Are they thinking their “in” may be in danger? Isn’t that a “no brainer” and obvious they have something to lose, by eliminating a conflict of interest??? Hello!
I know the conflicts of interest must spread quite far and wide, and opposition is full disclosure of who has gained favor, the way it is.
I contacted all my representatives, Tony Hwang supports, Brenda Kupchick supports, Kim Fawcett won’t say. Sounds like a loud “no support!”
This is a good, fair bill … those who oppose it out themselves as “haves.”
Lori Pelletier, the secretary-treasurer of the Connecticut AFL-CIO, is among those working against the bill.
Maybe we should also include people who distribute gumball machines in this legislation. I never much cared for them and don’t believe they should hold office.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Maybe we should also include people who distribute barrels of beer. I’m sure the old quarterhorse never much cared for them either. lol
I’m a 40-year+ union member and Bridgeport resident and taxpayer and I support this measure. However, I am not a municipal employee. Therein lies the rub.
Flub, thank you for identifying info about yourself that helps others understand why different factors cut in different ways. As a 40-year union member (and presumably worker) you have received the support of an organization that has secured compensation, benefits, working hours, terms of employment, vacations, etc. after negotiations. If this is in the private sector, you were confident there would be serious bargaining between your union negotiator and the representatives of the corporate private interest. It would take time. There would be give and take presumably. But comparable situations in other like unions, or in other corporate employers, or even in non-union employment with similar duties and skills would be measured as important.
No one observing the growth of labor unions in the area of public employment in the past 40 years while membership in the private labor markets has decreased will miss the point something is different. And the major difference is with few exceptions there is no hard bargaining ongoing by elected leaders. Positioning with voters, but nothing passing for serious, specifically in the area of costs for this year and a few into the future. This is why the actual post-employment benefits enjoyed by union members seem so attractive as they retire today, and yet the funding of these benefits, in too many cases is on a pay-as-you-go basis. Don’t you wish there were a “crawl back” provision for those political leaders at one time elected but no longer in office who provided the benefits without caring about the costs? Time will tell.
It was the government employee unions that pushed the legislation through the state legislature in 1990. Their goal was to bring their influence to the municipal level, just as it had to the state level.
The current city council has six city employees, five of whom are union members and one is the deputy director of labor relations and is involved in negotiations with city unions. A conflict perhaps? This is just the tip of the iceberg of what my lawsuit in federal court will include as it relates to retaliation against me.
We must keep in mind though, that HB5724 amends the state statute relating to municipal employees on bodies that have the role of a board of finance.
Lest my comment be interpreted otherwise, I am proud to be a union member and fee unions are the best defense against management’s anti-worker policies. I guess being a lifelong Bridgeport resident I have seen the blatant cronyism, greed and corruption from both sides of the aisle tarnish this jewel of a city. That is why I support this effort. And remember, this legislation is directed not only to union members, but any city employee.
Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray-suited grafters
A choice of cancer or polio …
Nice to see The Kid back home in one piece with his twisted sense of humor.
A true “salt of the earth” observation, and so true.
Well today we can say goodbye to HB 5724. But not in a bad way. It’s being raised as a committee bill in a P & D meeting today and will get a new name. That means it gets its legal language and is prepared by state lawyers (LCO) to be voted–JF’d (joint favorable) out of committee. There are innumerable hurdles for a bill to pass into law and this was/is the next step.
Kudos goes to P & D committee chairs for their support despite stiff opposition.
JF deadline for the bill is April 3.
Great job Jack for bringing this bill forward and great job Auden for co-sponsoring this very important bill. So proud to have the two of you representing us in Bridgeport! You serve your community as you were elected to serve. Thank you!
Jack, thanks for your leadership. Auden and you are showing courage and persistence in connection with this very important bill. We the People have just begun to fight for a better Bridgeport and Connecticut.
Great job, Jack and Auden!
Just found out the P&D meeting was canceled today–the vote is on the agenda for next Wednesday.
Personally I don’t like the bill.
I think any citizen of this city should have the right, if sufficiently supported to be voted into office, to be a part of the legislative body.
This is not a new bill; it is to amend the current state statute so Bridgeport can uphold the city charter which was ratified by public vote. City Charter has language which prohibits city employees from being elected to city council. The city attorney has cited the specific wording of this state statute prevents Bridgeport from adhering to its Charter. The issue is the attorney using the exact wording of the Statute and not the spirit of the law that is causing this Statute language to be requested to be changed.
You clearly have a right to your opinion. However, it is in direct conflict with prevailing best governance practices and our City Charter. It is also in conflict with federal and state law for employees at that level who want to be in Congress or the state legislature. City Council members are supposed to represent the taxpayers and be a check on the Mayor. Being an employee is a direct conflict to effectively discharging those responsibilities effectively. People would have to choose to either be an employee or City Council member. One or the other but not both.
“I think any citizen of this city should …”
Are you talking about the City of Bridgeport or the Town of Easton?
Did I say city or did I say town? The distinction is in the language! ¿Prefieres que escribo en español? Luego, quizás puedes entender las palabras!
Stop OIB stalking my posts!
“Several members of the coalition say they will be keeping score regarding local legislators supporting or not supporting the government reform bill. All 20 members of the City Council are up for reelection this November with potential September primaries in the mix. State legislators face reelection next year.”
“This bill is a nice profiles-in-courage test. Walker, for one, says those opposing the bill will face ballot box opposition with an effort to ‘take you out.'”
A very revealing comment. Is this really a Citizens Action Group or is it a political group or committee? Based on the above quoted comment, The Citizens Action Group is a political committee or a Group with an obvious political arm and purpose. Connecticut law requires any committee with the intent of supporting or defeating a candidate for office to register their committee with the office of the Secretary of State/ Elections Enforcement Commission. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I suggest you heed my warning.
Joel, thanks for your comment. The quote you selected was my personal comment not one issued by the group. This is a citizen’s action group. We are trying to get all non-conflicted elected officials to do their jobs and represent the taxpayer’s interests. Hopefully they will do so. It not, we’ll see what happens in the future. I am fully aware of the state filing requirements. They do not apply to this group at this point in time. Rest assured if they ever do we will comply with all legal requirements.
Joel (and other Bridgeport citizens),
I have attended several of the formative meetings, to listen and to learn more about what people know and how they feel about our overall quality of living in Connecticut’s largest City. Not for nothing, there are people in Bridgeport who have given up on voting, on running for office, on owning property and they leave …
And there are others who have looked at the incumbents at 999, the incumbents on the Council, and those on the Board of Education(s) we have endured in recent history and say: Wait A Minute!!!
There are things that are not right in the City! And elected representation needs to take respectful notice of the viewpoints from the people. Let’s take a look at facts and opinions, discuss them, find some answers as a City proper, using the talents, experiences and diverse interests of the civic body. If we do not come together as a neighborhood, or as a religious or racial group, or as a special interest of the overall citizenry for the discussion, we are not a political party or a group that has an intention of forming a party. If we are not pleased with the repeated failure of the elected to represent their public and respect them enough to communicate with them as equals, what to do? If we are not proud of our City when Charter, ordinance or other guiding laws or regulations are routinely ignored, what Sheriff do we report the law-breaking to? I find City governance has a long way to go before checks and balance are restored, if they ever were effective, and I am not alone. Information of all kinds needs to be open to the public. Each department delivering City services needs to be accountable for human, financial and other material resources employed to produce goals through specific tasks. And City actions need to become transparent so trust in what is said, what is reported, and the burden left to the taxpayer is understood. These are things that are not present today. We are a long way from Open, Accountable and Transparent. You know this, as I do.
I think you are quoting Lennie who has not attended and he is, perhaps, working from something Dave Walker or another has said personally that is not a formal statement from the folks who are meeting. And then you provide a “warning” to a group who have gathered to encourage, support and inform citizenry about good governance. For a moment, take off your political colored glasses. Naturally, good governance asks rules, regulations and laws be upheld, not ignored, and that basic ethical practices are part of routine City actions. Aren’t these items you are seeking to make available to all of the people in the City? Come to a meeting. Learn more if you are interested. Share your life experience and opinion. Talk to us. Listen also. And no one expects you to sacrifice any flesh or blood for this cause in order for benefits to flow to the people of the City. Time will tell.
Breaking news … aviation authorities announce Bridgeport inventor Gustave Whitehead was ‘first in flight’ before the Wright Brothers. You already knew that. But now it’s official. How was a historian finally able to convince them? Find out next Tuesday when the historian calls into our program from Germany to explain.
*** LIKE “AWB” IT’S TIME TO PICK UP THE PIECES, NO? ***