Government watchdog John Marshall Lee, in his latest OIB commentary, argues most electors don’t know what they’re voting for regarding the Nov. 6 charter revision ballot question that will determine if Mayor Bill Finch will appoint members to the Board of Education. Lee asserts that’s just the way the mayor wants it. Lee’s essay follows:
On November 6, 2012, the registered residents in the City of Bridgeport will have an opportunity to vote for a variety of candidates as well as on a most important 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?”
Last year Mayor William Finch selected seven members of the public to serve on this commission, pointed them in the direction of providing Charter authority for the City executive to appoint members of the Board of Education (BOE) and looked for the assignment to be ready for the November 2012 Presidential election. Experts on a variety of subjects were heard, some public input was considered and the City Council approved a new Charter that was published for local distribution by the CT Post and is available on City of Bridgeport web site. The Mayor declared he needed the power to appoint BOE members so he could be accountable for education of youth. Evidence he is not fully accountable to the current Charter today was offered but no support of his claim to accountability was made. No metrics were presented to show what Mayoral accountability might look like to voters. The public would be trading away multiple voting opportunities every other year to elect BOE representation for a once every four year chance to unseat a non-accountable Mayor.
In a recent local radio interview with Mayor Finch, listeners were invited to call in. One person asked why the multiple changes were covered by just one question, as if the only revisions in the Charter had to do with ‘reforms of education governance.’ Mayor Finch responded there were a number of changes in the Charter and you couldn’t have a question for each one. He went on to indicate the Charter could be read by any party interested on the City web site.
It will surprise no one for me to indicate the Mayor’s response is disappointing at best. If we keep in mind this City for decades has had poor and decreasing voting statistics, we could understand initiatives in schools, churches, community agencies and homes well supported by media have been necessary to improve voter participation. What’s in it for them? Instead, the dominant political power in the City has been comfortable with less passion, less organized opposition, less questioning by media, fewer forums for intelligent civic interchange on governance, in fact, a real ‘dumbing down’ of the electorate. A similar low status quo in terms of the environment for tolerating conflicts of interest has existed and continues. These are perfect media for a ‘power grab’ to take the vote away from the public on Board of Education issues. That would put responsibility for an additional $240 Million education bonding, nutrition and operating budget as well as $70 Million or more of educational grants annually into the Mayor’s office along with the regular City operating budget in excess of $250 Million.
Whether you oppose the Charter revision or not, it would be helpful to know the myriad of other “changes” contained within the 140 pages of the document. The cover letter mentions seventy* changes that were seen to be necessary and advisable for our document to become ‘simpler’ and more ‘modern’ according to the legal experts. However you look at it, it is unfair and irresponsible for City leadership in the Mayor’s office, the City Council and the Charter Revision Committee not to have provided a summary or listing if you will of the most relevant changes that will govern our lives for years to come. Each item or issue addressed should be indicated or grouped with other associated changes so they can stand on their own merits or demerits in the eyes of voters ready to read, comprehend and vote. Why was this course ignored? Why are there no community gatherings scheduled by City leadership or CRC to instruct, respond to questions, and provide background to the public in the run-up to November 6 Election Day? Perhaps it is because such education will not serve this usurpation of power by the executive branch? Perhaps the City Council still has the final vote so they feel they have maintained their power, but what type of genuine representative power is it, when most often the City Council votes to approve what the Mayor provides? Is there any genuine check or balance mechanism in the City of Bridgeport today? Time will tell.
*Perhaps the Mayor can be asked to provide a TOP TEN NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE CHARTER from his viewpoint as a voter summary, and set some opportunities for public review before election day? He might also provide data regarding the cost of the Charter process to the taxpayer for all expenses incurred for legal consultants, expert counsel, recording and printing, publishing in the CT Post per CT General Statutes, etc.
*** Citizens who really are opposed to a Mayor-appointed BOE and the sum of the Charter Revision recommended changes (whatever those are?) need to unite and donate some money for signs or flyers (keep it simple) that will bring much-needed attention and some type of understanding concerning the “yes or no” “tricky question” that will appear on the voter’s election ballot this coming Nov. By bringing attention and a clearer understanding to this issue, voters hopefully will be able to not only be reminded there’s a political question to vote on but also have a better understanding about what they’re voting for and its possible effects on the Bpt. schools system in the future! *** CLOCK’S TICKING ***
If the citizens do not know the meaning of the Charter question, someone other than you should explain it. There isn’t enough time left in the existence of the world to read your pedantic bullshit. It’s too bad, really. You have the message but are unable or unwilling to communicate with those who really need to know and understand what you say.
*** The prior blog says nothing about me explaining anything personally to anyone but merely states maybe those who oppose and feel strongly about the wording and possible effects of a “yes” vote concerning the BOE should come together to try to educate city voters before the Nov. election! Whether by simple yard signs or B&W flyers, etc. bringing attention to and getting the message out could be quite helpful in defeating the Mayor-appointed BOE charter measure. Leave it to you (or the beaver) to not have enough time to comprehend a simple blog paragraph and be able to communicate “respectfully” about the subject without spurting out your usual pedantic venomous B/S! With all this “negative wind” you seem to have stored up inside and like to “blow” on OIB, maybe you should go “fly a kite”, no? *** THE WORLD ACCORDING TO YAPOOY ***
Mojo,
I think yahooy was once again referring to me, JML, rather than you. He should swear off reading what I write if it bothers him so much. It does produce a lot of ‘negative wind’ as you call it, which, if ignited, might light up a corner of the world, but as it is, neither delights, ignites; but only fights. Time will tell.
Yes, JML. Time will, indeed, tell just so long as you figure out a way to tell in a concise manner.
*** My bad, I thought yahooy was addressing my blog! *** A Thousand Pardons ***
PS JML. I did not say your writings bother me so much. I said you have a strong message to deliver. But because you are so impressed with your ability to take a single thought and translate it into 10,000 polysyllabic words, your valuable message is lost. That in itself is a disservice to the community. I am critical only of the manner in which you continually attempt to self-aggrandize yourself at the expense of those who really need to understand what it is you say. Motivation and inspiration is yours to bestow.
I support anyone’s efforts to bring more understanding to the Charter Revision vote.
I am confused though … Someone said revision vote’s only purpose is to change voting status/appointment status. City says there were a number of changes in Charter and ‘you couldn’t have a question for each one.” Which changes?
I did read through most of the document when included in CT Post and couldn’t tell, since I hadn’t read the original charter. Is there a red-lined before-and-after doc somewhere? I did however notice extensive language in the BOE section on what qualifies BOE members which seemed like the bar was set high.
Bridgeport Now,
Please refer to the City home page. On the tool bar click on City Clerk page. When you get there refer to the list on the left side of the margin. The bottom listing refers to the copy of the document that will go into effect if the voters approve on November 6. It is neither red-lined nor annotated. It is the end product. However, the letter from Charter Revision Chair Cathy Simpson is most instructive. It mentions 70 Charter Revisions (CR) and then in an Appendix lists the Chapters where those revisions may be found, along with Erratum (Er) of one type or another that indicate corrections in this new Charter.
There is an annotated copy on the left link if you look up the list. And the listing of 70 changes is significant in number even if the Mayor had one primary intent in calling the Commission together, which was to gain for sitting Mayors into the future to have the power to appoint people to the Board of Education.
Now the City Council gets the last word (or vote) on such issues, so they feel they have protected their power. In the meantime during the budget session they eliminated any legislative support in the legislative budget, thereby terminating a competent and experienced employee who asked for evaluation of performance but could never get a response from leadership. Sad but true!!! Will there be another suit or settlement for poor administrative sense? Don’t know, but is this an example of long-term planning to get some balance into our checks and balance system? I don’t think so. (One change not discussed publicly in City Council President’s initial comments to the CRC was providing a personal assistant to the CC President.) It shows up in the Charter document near the end of the 2013 budget process, after the budgetary termination of the “legislative assistant.” Go figure. Who’s going to ask? Who’s going to care?
And NOW, when you look at all of those qualifications for BOE members, how does your sense of those compare to all of those Bridgeport residents serving on Boards and Commissions with no criteria for appointment listed, and none practically used beyond a police report, etc. Again, an unbalanced structure. I like the idea of having a diverse group of energetic, experienced and skilled people on any board of commission I serve on. With a statement as to status of potential conflicts of interest and some ethics training, that should be a better step than where we are today in this regard.
If there are a few good things in the revised Charter, that means there was some good effect from all the hours spent. However, net on net, eliminating the voting for BOE representation by citizens and handing it over to a Mayor who is not accountable (and who has no standards set for accountability neither) is an invitation to worse results on several fronts than we had last year. Progress is being made today. Sit tight. Vote NO on November 6. Time will certainly tell.
*** IF voters really want to know all about the charter revision changes, etc. then it’s up to them to get on the city website and find out for themselves before they vote in Nov. If not, then “let them eat cake!” ***
Okay, I will look at documents on the site. But for those who don’t, what are the “few good things in the revised Charter?”
Cathy Simpson, chair of the Charter Revision Commission, reported there were 70 changes (aside from numerous error corrections). Rob, you are now asking “what are the ‘few good things in the revised Charter'”?
The Mayor thinks there is one very positive thing about the Charter. It provides him the power to appoint the BOE members in the future unimpeded by the voters who go to the polls with their own sense about candidates for election. Does that mean there are 69 other ‘good’ or ‘bad’ changes? The favorability of any change is in the mind of the reader, but if you fail to read, and if neither the Council nor the Mayor nor the CRC review each change one by on for those who care, all sensitivity to what those changes may do is lost.
And since this CRC does not claim perfection, it may be because of all the errors uncovered and corrected in this edition. Does anyone think this edition is perfect, or is it a ‘best effort’ towards the Mayor’s primary goal that assumes the Mayor is ACCOUNTABLE, but does not provide any instruction on how to show he is ACCOUNTABLE in the Charter on which a trusting public might rely?
Not a good scene in my opinion. Don’t wait for the “few good things” to happen in the future. If you don’t hear about it now, trust the best that may happen are “unintended consequences” and those are usually not pleasant. Time will tell.
In some instances allowing the Mayor to appoint BOE members could be a good thing. This assumes the Mayor is an altruist who is singularly committed to providing a quality education to every student and the Mayor is beholding to no one. This is not the case with Mayor Finch. Placing the authority to appoint BOE members in this man’s hands will benefit only those who tell this man what to do and how to do it.