On Nov. 6, city voters will decide this question:
“Shall the city of Bridgeport approve and adopt the charter changes as recommended by the Charter Revision Commission and approved by the City Council, including education governance reforms?”
One thing we can bank on, in light of the braindead non-voters in the state’s largest city, the turnout will be a whole lot higher for the presidential election on Nov. 6 than the largely single- and teen-digit turnouts of local elections the past two years. The upcoming general election should eclipse 50 percent.
The larger question tucked within the ballot question approved by the City Council in this Charter Revision initiative: will voters approve or reject Mayor Bill Finch’s proposal to appoint members of the school board? School board members are currently elected.
The larger election turnout places a premium on message. Which side can best make its case: the so-called reformers supporting a mayoral-appointed board or the opponents in support of maintaining an elected body?
Supporters of the mayor can point to the love, peace and diplomacy progress that took place under the state-appointed school board that, by the way, includes three of those members recently elected in a special election ordered by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The opponents will argue you don’t want to give this mayor any more power, the schools aren’t better off, just vote no.
The framing of the ballot question lends itself to an electoral embrace: “education governance reforms.” How do you say no to that, especially in a city with historic education challenges? If you haven’t been paying attention wouldn’t you fill in that oval?
Not unless an organized opposition makes a strong case to reject the question. Where is the organized opposition? Does it have bodies? Does it have money?
If not, this ballot question has a chance for passage.
I will vote no on the question and I will also vote for Obama Murphy Himes on that day as well. I’m not sure who is Musto’s opponent.
This bill might pass 2 to 1 in the city. It is written in such a tricky way if I were not informed on this I would probably vote yes if I went to vote and just saw it on the ballot.
I don’t think anyone really is interested in who you vote for. They are interested in why you are voting for these candidates and why you support their issues. You always tell us who you like or dislike, but not why these candidates and not the others. Donnie?
The title of the piece is “How Will You Vote?” So it seems the author is interested in how people are going to vote. Give the guy a break.
Exactly!!! “How Will You Vote” and that is what I stated, duh! Thanks ReallyFrustratedBptDemocrat for pointing it out to Bob.
As of 11:30pm, we already have two voters; pretty heavy turnout for an election in Bridgeport.
“How can I not raise your taxes when you voted for education governance reforms?” said your mayor.
*** While on WICC talk with the Mayor, Finch was asked about the charter revision question and why it seemed worded so “confusing” for the average voter. His take was the C/R board had so much to try to change “that’s also included with this question,” there was no possible way of being more explicit for each question! And if voters really what to know more in detail about the C/R changes and questions they can find the info on the city web site. This obviously doesn’t help the average voter walking through the polling door on election day in my opinion. The C/R board can meet 100 times and have open meetings with the attending public but in the end if they need a smoke & mirror question to get what they want, it’s not really in the city’s best interest! *** VOTE NO! ***
End the nonsense. Vote yes.
Vote yes as many times as possible.
anna,
You are in favor of the charter question and you urge us to vote YES? Mind telling us WHY, after understanding the educational, financial and governance issues facing the City now and in the near future, this change document, weighing any and all positives and negatives that may have occurred to you, should be supported so strongly?
Just asking … Time will tell.
Based on previous ballot question placements less than 60% of the voters will even see or vote the question.
How is a charter change funded? Anybody have any info to contribute? Early in 2012 informal word was the CRC had “no budget” yet Steve Mednick (a lawyer and charter experienced ‘expert’ from out of town) received compensation for his many hours of meetings, hearings and drafting. City Council Mark Anastasi was often present (as he is at other City meetings, though I have no idea whether his hours of representation on City matters have any limit, or qualify for overtime). One other ‘outside’ attorney who received $7,000 per month of compensation last year (currently?) was also present. Expenses of maintaining minutes, making copies, advertising meetings, providing the 32-page insert in the CT Post etc. also added up over six months. The seven members of the Committee presumably served without stipend or compensation of any kind. Thank you to them for this sharing. So what budget was tapped for the necessary expenses? What was the total cost of the expenses?
Who knows or can discover this information? Is there any money left in the account? Can it be used to promote a YES vote on the charter question? Anybody? Time will tell.
I will be voting NO.
So if I didn’t get a copy of the Charter in my home-delivered CT Post, where can I get one?
There should be copies at the library branches and city Clerk’s office. It is a 32-page insert. I am also told it is also online through the city’s website from their homepage. The actual charter is over 100 pages.
This charter change appears to be written in such a way so no one knows what it means except it is supposed to be for “good government.”
If there is any New Englander left in anybody in Bridgeport, that should raise the smell of dead bunker at low tide.
Ahhh. The sweet smell of the sea???
The wording of the question is terrible. It should simply state what it implies, to give the mayor authority to appoint the board of ed or not. The way it is worded now is devious at best and will probably go to further damage the mayor’s credibility.
That being said … I think people would still vote to give the mayor appointing powers anyway even if the wording were to be changed. Simply because they are tired of the ineffective boards of the past that spend more time fighting with each other than fighting for the children of the city.
The fact the newly elected members are part of the appointed board speaks volumes and although some might simply shrug it off as Dems voting the party line, the truth of the matter is the citizens are ready to try a different approach and have responded to the appointed board getting things done. (Regardless that some don’t care for what has been done … some substantial things have been done.)
The “ineffective boards of the past” were controlled by allies of the Mayor. The Mayor wants a rubber stamp because he didn’t like the fact the Working Families party was asking questions the mayor didn’t want answered … like where money is being spent, for one thing.