Walk This Way, Talk This Way

As OIB friend Tom Kelly says the city’s legislative lobbyist in Hartford represents the ultimate in jaywalking.

One day after it was disclosed that the city’s lobbyist Jay F. Malcynsky had acquired a convenient case of amnesia while pocketing a $55K consulting fee to work on the city’s behalf, City Councilman Bob Troll Walsh wants his contract revoked.

Walsh says he will submit a resolution to the City Council calling for the revocation of the contract that the city’s legislative body had approved for Malcynsky’s lobbying firm Gaffney, Bennett & Associates which also represents the Bridgeport Port Authority, a quasi-city entity that the Finch administration is looking to dissolve.

Walsh says Malcynsky violated, among other things, the terms of his firm’s contract with the city by lobbying a piece of legislation that served against the city’s interests, double-dipping a fee with a subordinate agency of the city and failing to notify the city about a piece of legislation that would undermine home rule.

Walsh is one of several City Council members whiplashed by the disclosure that Malcynsky’s firm was responsible for lobbying state legislation that bars the council from abolishing the Bridgeport Port Authority that it created without consent of the state Department of Transportation, a provision sanctioned by port authority officials for self preservation.

The legislation awaits gubernatorial signature.

Wouldn’t be a revelation but for the fact that Malcynsky represents both the city and port authority. That would be like a lobbyist representing two cities for the same pot of cash. The lobbyist gets paid twice and someone gets screwed.

Walsh, so often the council’s solo trumpeter, may have a legislative orchestra hitting high notes in council chambers with him judging by the discontent expressed by his peers.

Malcynsky, the highest profile influence peddler in Hartford, deftly leveraged his relationships and experience managing state election campaigns into a high-powered lobbying firm. He’s been the go-to guy for a number of municipalities and businesses through the John Rowland and Jodi Rell years.

And to his credit he has managed to avoid the political sinkholes so common in the money-for-access game. But sometimes, even the most careful become careless and this is one of those times.

Now maybe Malcynsky thinks he had a signal from City Hall that it was okay to push legislation through that worked against the city’s interests, but he’ll have a hard time explaining it.

(By the way, when you’re done here check out my related blog at the Connecticut Post, blog.ctnews.com/grimaldi/2009/06/16/lobbying-with-two-forks

News release from Mayor Finch

Mayor Finch Gains Seat on Advisory Board of U.S. Conference of Mayors

Announcement made conference in Providence, R.I.

BRIDGEPORT, CT (June 16, 2009) – Mayor Bill Finch has been elected to the Advisory Board for the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM). He joins mayors from cities such as Arlington, Texas, Rochester, N.Y., St. Louis, Mo., and Mesa, Az., among others across the United States in serving on the Advisory Board. The group announced its new leadership during the opening session of its summer meeting held in Providence, R.I.

The 27-member advisory board works with the USCM Executive Committee on all matters related to policy and program.

“I am honored to join such a notable group of mayors from across the nation in helping to shape policy and program for the organization,” said Mayor Finch, who is attending the summer meeting in Providence, R.I. “The Conference of Mayors provides mayors from across the country an opportunity to learn and share from one another, and I am proud to be a member.

“This appointment will afford the City a greater opportunity to interact with federal-level officials on a more regular basis, which will help raise the awareness of and promote the City’s agenda all the way to the White House,” he said.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,139 such cities in the country today, each represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the Mayor.

Calling All Principals

News release from the Fairfield County Community Foundation

Seven Future Bridgeport principals complete training to lead public schools in face of looming mass retirement

Fairfield County Community Foundation brings together four school districts to create pipeline of qualified principals prepared to narrow achievement gap

Twenty-nine prospective public school principals recently completed a year of specialized training to fill a looming leadership void in Fairfield County’s four urban school districts. Seven are from Bridgeport Public Schools. Five of the 29 have already moved up to new leadership positions, including two from Bridgeport.

Connecticut has the largest achievement gap in the country, and Fairfield County’s 92 urban public schools face a new crisis. Within five years, half of the principals and assistant principals leading public schools in Bridgeport, Danbury, Norwalk and Stamford will retire, and there are few qualified candidates to take their place. The combined enrollment in the four school districts is 60,000 students.

The 29 prospective principals made up the first class of the Fairfield County Community Foundation’s Urban School Leaders Fellowship program. The program was initiated by the Fairfield County Community Foundation and created in collaboration with the Bridgeport, Danbury, Norwalk and Stamford school districts, the Connecticut Center for School Change and the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. It will increase the number and diversity of principals who are committed to urban education and working in Fairfield County’s four urban school districts.

The year-long fellowship program is part of the Foundation’s School Leadership Initiative to help close the achievement gap between Fairfield County’s urban and suburban public school districts.

“Good teachers are crucial,” said Susan Ross, president and CEO of the Fairfield County Community Foundation. “Yet it’s the school principal who establishes the vision for the school and creates its culture, who inspires the teachers and staff to excel, who is the instructional leader, who recruits the community and parents to help children succeed, and nurtures an environment where children feel safe and can reach their potential.”

To qualify for a fellowship, applicants must be a teacher, assistant principal or other educator with an 092 endorsement on their teaching certificate. They also must want to become a public school principal in Bridgeport, Danbury, Norwalk or Stamford.

The Urban School Leaders Fellowship program begins where academic preparation ends. Over 12 months, as they continue their regular work, fellows learn how to improve teaching quality and foster a culture that inspires learning. They develop and lead a learning project to improve student performance in their current position in their schools. They also apply their learning first-hand as challenges unfold at their schools.

“We estimate that these twenty-nine fellows will have the opportunity to transform schools that teach tens of thousands of urban children in Fairfield County,” said Ms. Ross. “Although philanthropy makes up a fraction of educational funding, when well targeted, it can achieve significant change.”

Two of the five fellows who have been promoted work for Bridgeport Public Schools. Charmaine Worthy is the new principal at Dunbar Elementary School in Bridgeport, and Terese Martorella is a new literacy curriculum specialist for the Bridgeport Public Schools. In Danbury, Leonard Cerlich is the new principal at Hayestown Avenue School. In Norwalk, James Martinez is the new principal at Fox Run Elementary School. In Stamford, Bryan Olkowski is the new assistant principal at Scofield Magnet Middle School.

Remaining fellows from Bridgeport Public Schools are: Lisa Anderson-Andrews, Classical Studies Academy; Debra Arganese, Central High School; Selena Morgan, John Winthrop School; Deborah Tisdale, Paul Laurence Dunbar School; and Esther Werneck de Almeida, Multicultural Magnet School. Cynthia Fernandes, was one of the instructors, and Superintendent John Ramos was a guest instructor.

To fund the first class of the Urban School Leaders Fellowship, the Foundation awarded a $200,000 grant to the Connecticut Center for School Change, which provides program curriculum and management, additional instructors and materials. United Illuminating contributed to the Foundation to support the program in its first year.

The second class of 38 fellows begins their coursework later this month. Twelve are from Bridgeport Public Schools.

The Fairfield County Community Foundation promotes the growth of community and regional philanthropy to improve the quality of life throughout Fairfield County. Individuals, families, corporations and organizations can establish charitable funds and contribute to existing funds. The Foundation also provides philanthropic advisory services, and develops and leads initiatives to tackle critical community issues. It is in compliance with the Council on Foundations’ national standards for community foundations. The Foundation has awarded over $110 million in grants to nonprofits in Fairfield County and beyond. For more information, visit www.fccfoundation.org.

0
Share

32 comments

  1. *** (aka) Double Dip should have his contract reviewed & if possible, revoked as noted by B/W. *** And I may be wrong on my assessment but seems like Bpt’s Capitol 88s don’t seem to want to help nor care to keep Finch informed on any news that could affect the Park City, good or bad lately? If it weren’t for his Hartford connections, he’d be like a fish out of water! No wonder he’s joining anything pertaining to boards, etc. on the State or Fed. level to get some frequent flier miles away from Bpt! *** The stress is killing him, just look @ his gray hair, Hah! *** I know, “forget about it”! ***

    0
    1. Mojo, all good questions. All deserve answers that should be prepared for the Council BEFORE they act to dissolve it. My main point is to blow something away without having those answers will send a terrible signal to those that need to have confidence in the city. The City has to demonstrate confidence and thoughtful action. This does not seem to me to be thoughtful action.

      Please remember, those that are seriously considering investing in Bridgeport, either by providing loans to local businesses or developers with larger plans, use ‘google alerts’ or something similar. All the articles and blogs show up on their screen if the google alert is ‘bridgeport’; I know I do it every day. It is going to be very strange to have this story appear on their screens. How do you explain blowing away something that has high visibility nationally as a ‘port authority’ without doing the research first? Trust and confidence, it’s all about trust and confidence. The residents need that in my opinion. Ask the governor to veto the bill.

      0
      1. *** What say you dear if the Gov. disagrees on a veto? Where does that leave the city’s legislative body, etc. which created the BPA as an extension of the city’s interest as well as their eyes & ears in those venues? It seems to have evolved over time into its own independent consultation business in which it gives its advice on do’s & don’ts yet no one seems to know exactly what it is they do & for whom? ***

        0
  2. Is this the same Gaffney that is a power player in Hartford? Is this the same Gaffney that’s tight with Nancy DiNardo? Is this the same Gaffney that was a friend of Finch’s while he was in Hartford? Is this the same Gaffney that is part of the Hartford contingent advising Finch & Company? Somebody should be doing Due Diligence before these firms are hired.

    0
  3. Things get stranger and stranger as this port authority issue moves forward. Last night at the downtown business council meeting the Economic Development Director Eversley spoke in favor of keeping the Port Authority.
    Eversley just spent the weekend in Providence with mayor Finch at the US mayor’s conference and made a point of being at the DBC meeting.
    The questions are numerous:
    1. Does the administration want to keep the PA?
    2. Does the administration want to get rid of the PA?
    3. Are the people in the Finch Administration on the same page?
    Better Yet:
    4. Do the people in the Finch Administration talk to each other?
    5. Are the people in the Administration all on the same page?
    6. WHEN IS FINCH GOING TO WEIGH IN ON THIS MATTER?
    It’s time for Finch to get his head out of his ass and lead this city.

    0
    1. Three questions:

      1. Did the Mayor know about the proposal before it was introduced?

      2. If he did, did he object?

      3. Did anyone in a position of authority at DOT actually ask for or propose the legislation?

      My guess is that the answers will be yes, no and no.

      What’s next from the Keystone cops and the friends of the ferry company?

      0
  4. Finch and Wood had to be in on the legislation, but I am sure they will let Jay take the fall. Finch has a few old buddies who still work in the Senate on the City consultant payroll. If Wood or Finch didn’t know I’ll run around City Hall Annex naked with Anna.

    0
          1. *** Oh my it’s the “old” little bad wolf in women’s lingerie coming out of the closet he’s been hiding in! *** Sound the alarm, call out the N/Guard or just pull out the insect repellent, he’s just another bloodsucker trying to get a free bite! *** Time’s a ticking, Tic-Tic- … … ***

            0
  5. The City Council is holding a public hearing Monday night at 7pm on the Ordinance Committee’s proposed resolution to dissolve the Bridgeport Port Authority (BPA), eliminate the mayoral appointed board of commissioners and expunge any trace of the BPA from the Code of Ordinances. In my opinion, the Council is rushing to make a decision without understanding its full implications. I attended the Ordinance Committee meeting Monday night and could not believe my ears. Yes, the council members were very upset that home rule is being challenged by the possibility that the Governor is going to sign a bill that will require prior approval by the Commissioner of Transportation on specified major decisions of all port authorities in the State. This appears to be a frontal attack by the State on Bridgeport’s home rule. I get that. However, a decision to dissolve this public benefit corporation without doing and sharing with Bridgeport residents a full analysis including the legal liabilities, the status of the millions of dollars in grant money that are pending and have been awarded to the BPA, the real reason and impact of the Ferry Company’s proposed move to the east side of the river, the proposed high speed ferry, and the ability of the BPA to finance the long awaited structured 198-car parking garage at the Ferry Terminal property is NOT serving the best interests of the residents of Bridgeport. I urge the City Council to do what is right; have the complete due diligence done; share that information with the public; then decide whether the Port Authority should bite the dust. In my opinion, there is much more at stake here than a fight over home rule. We are one of only three deep water ports in Connecticut. Dissolving the Port Authority has HUGE economic development implications. Please don’t give Bridgeport another black eye. Please know before you go.

    0
    1. Nice to see the city’s former director of economic development weighing in.

      I’m also wondering if the governor does not take action to sign legislation within a certain timeframe does the measure automatically become law? If MCAT hasn’t left for vacation, maybe she can help?

      0
  6. What are the “HUGE economic development implications”?

    The harbor has been studied for over 60 years. We are not the largest deep-water port in Connecticut since the Banana boats peeled and slipped out of town. How come the largest ever proposed non-project, Stealpointe, does not come under the purview of the BPA?

    Markets evolve naturally. It there was a demonstrated need for a high speed ferry or a feeder barge system it would have happened out of necessity. It seems the only projects that get funded are pork barrel stuff like a proposed parking garage for the present terminal.

    The BPT-PJ Ferry Company is willing to expand, do extra development, become more efficient and profitable, by spending their own money.

    If the Ferry Company moves out of town the BPA will have zero revenue streams and will be up the Pequonnock River without a paddle or a boat.

    Hadley is right on the money about this being a “Home Rule” issue, but something stinks on this deal and it ain’t Cedar Creek at low tide.

    0
  7. *** The time spent can be for a study to reinstate a board that’s going to be beneficial to Bpt first, then the State of CT. Where bylaws & policies are clear to all, as well as its functions and overall benefits to everyone involved without personal cookie-jar accounts! It’s a good move worth taking @ this time, if for the right reasons overall. *** Besides, the clock is always ticking, is it not? ***

    0
  8. My comments have to do with the Port Authority as a legal entity. I want it clear that I am not talking about the staff or the personalities that revved this issue into a duststorm. I believe Port Authorities play a strong role in successful ports. There are examples all over the country. This Port Authority has spent the last four years in ugly litigation. The litigation is over and in my opinion both sides won. The Port Authority proved it could impose a tariff. The Ferry Boat company proved that the tariff has to benefit the passenger. Yes some of the tariff didn’t benefit the passengers, it went to pay to defend the lawsuit. So both sides have to figure that out. Maybe the BPA will need to find the money to pay the passengers back a portion of the tariff. Who knows, but the solution should not fall on the City if the BPA is dissolved. That is one small example of the research that needs to be done on the legal implications of blowing away the BPA. There are lots of issues that need to be identified before the BPA is blown away. That cannot be done in a couple of days. In my opinion, that research has to be done BEFORE the Council acts.

    Now, as to economic development. Trust in the City is key. Trust that the City will not act in a rash manner is key. Trust that the City will act in a prudent, thoughtful manner is key to whether investment in the city will happen. This city is still coming out of a ‘pay to play’ corrupt black cloud. It has a long way to go to be trusted before the grand list is to grow. Trust does not mean a knee-jerk reaction. Think about it. If the City wanted to blow away the Board of Ed, the State Education Department would step in and stay stop, take a breath, and let’s figure this out. If the City wanted to blow away the Harbor Commission, the DEP would step in. If the WPCA were blown away, the DEP would step in. I could go on and on but you get the picture I hope.

    Home rule is important. I am not disputing that. I believe in it. However, this knee-jerk reaction without the necessary due diligence is far more disturbing. It isn’t a matter of blowing it away and starting again with a new definition. It is the manner that this is being done that will send a message of emotion over substance. That, in my opinion, has huge negative implications for the economic development of the city. I do not want Bridgeport to give itself one more black eye.

    0
  9. One more thing. I read the bill that is before the Governor for signature. It appears to be a clean-up bill for the Department of Transportation. Unless I missed something, there isn’t anything in there that is time sensitive. Therefore I sent a message to the Governor’s office asking her to veto the bill. I would hope that the Mayor would join in a letter with Mayor of New Haven and City Manager of New London and request the same. Everyone who reads this blog could send the same message to the Governor. It’s clear that she didn’t put this rat in the bill. It was wrong how it got there and it’s wrong that it is there but write a letter folks. Swamp her with requests to veto the bill. That makes more sense to me than throwing the Port Authority out with the trash.

    0
  10. *** What is the BPA’s main function & how does it serve the city of Bpt. and the State in general? What’s its “$” cost to the city or State, plus or minus now? Also, if the P/J Ferry Co. moves in the future, what then? *** No trans barges in future plans, Bpt’s losing business from incoming ship vessels of all types and if others think green energy proposals pan out, oil tankers, etc. will be fewer in the near future! What’s the downside basically if the BPA is disbanded ’til a study is done on whether it’s needed & what positive changes need to be made? *** If it’s not a vital part of Bpt’s or the State’s revenue economy or homeland security measures in general, then maybe it’s not needed in the capacity that it’s functioning in now! *** When good clear understandable answers can be given to all the whys, then I might e-mail the Governors Office to veto! ***

    0
  11. The simple answer here is that because the Legislature is adjourned the Governor has 15 business days to act before it becomes automatic. (see *** below for more detailed info.) The bill became a Public Act on 6/12 so you do the math. In the past 6 months I have gone to several schools and taught classes on “How a bill becomes a law.” For a simple diagram go to www .cga.ct.gov and go to Citizen Guide. The following is the explanation from the Clerk of the House:

    Prior to the opening of the odd-year session and for a limited time thereafter (as specified in the joint rules), members and members-elect of the General Assembly may file proposed bills and resolutions in the house in which they serve. In even-year sessions, individual legislators may introduce only those proposed bills and resolutions that are of a fiscal nature. Standing committees may introduce bills on any topic in any regular session of the General Assembly.

    Proposed bills are not written in full statutory language. Rather, they state briefly (usually in a single paragraph), the substance of the proposed legislation in informal, non-statutory language. Only a committee may introduce bills written in formal statutory language. Proposed bills may be jointly sponsored by Senators and Representatives, and any member may co-sponsor a proposed bill originating in either house by requesting the Clerk to add his name to the list of sponsors.

    The member presents the proposed bill to the Clerk of the House or Senate who assigns it a number. First reading of a proposed bill or resolution is by title and reference to a committee or by acceptance by the house of a printed list, distributed to the members, of the bills and resolutions with their numbers, sponsors, and titles, and the committees to that they have been referred. It is then recorded in the Journal by number and title, with a brief statement of purpose, and is sent to the other house for concurrent reference.

    The committee separates the proposed bills referred to it into subject categories and, after providing legislators with time to express their views on these proposed bills, prepares fully drafted bills on those subjects on which it feels bills should be drafted. These become “committee” bills drafted in formal statutory language. A committee may also choose to draft a bill on a wholly new subject. Such bills are called “raised” bills. Committee bills and raised bills are also sent to both houses for a first reading, and then referred to their original committee for consideration.

    Public Hearing

    The staff of the committee to which the bill is assigned sends notice of the date and place of a public hearing to the member who introduced any proposed bill upon which the committee bill that is being heard is based. Upon request, such notices are also provided to other interested persons. Hearing notices are also published in the Bulletin.

    Committee Action

    After the public hearing, the committee meets to decide upon its action on the bill. Notice of such meeting is published in the Bulletin and all meetings are open to the public. The committee has several options: (1) A “favorable” report which indicates that a majority of the committee favors the bill and recommends its passage; (2) a “favorable substitute,” that is a bill amended by the committee before it is favorably reported; (3) a vote to reject, or to “box,” the bill; (4) an “unfavorable” report, which indicates that a majority of the committee opposes the bill and recommends its rejection. A committee may also vote a “change of reference” or a “favorable change of reference” to another committee. As the General Assembly seldom accepts or rejects a bill contrary to a committee’s recommendation, it is important for any member interested in its passage or rejection to secure substantial backing and to present convincing arguments on the matter to the committee. The rules permit the members of a committee from each house to act separately in reporting bills to their respective houses. Such a provision may be necessary when the House is controlled by one party and the Senate by another.

    The Bill in the House and Senate

    Upon a favorable vote, the bill must be first reviewed by the Legislative Commissioners’ Office and approved by a Legislative Commissioner before being sent to the house in which it was introduced. The Legislative Commissioners then deliver the bill to the Clerk of the House or Senate, as the case may be, who, under the order of business, “Reports of Committees,” presents the report to the particular house. Without discussion, the bill is read the second time (by title only) and laid on the table. Each favorably reported bill is printed and receives a file number distinct from the original bill number. No further action on the bill can be taken until the second day succeeding the day on which it is placed in the files which are provided for the purpose on the desk of each member. Bills are placed on the Calendar by title, file number, and bill number in the order in which they are received from committee. Bills that are ready for action (that is, which have been in the files of the members for two days) are marked with an “XX” on the Calendar. They are taken up in the order in which they appear on the Calendar. The third and final reading of the bill is ordinarily by title only, but any member may request that it be read in full. Following the reading of the bill, a member of the committee that reported it explains the committee’s reasons for so doing, and a general debate on the bill is in order. There may be a consent calendar on which bills, designated by the majority and minority leaders of the house in which they are pending, may be placed and passed on motion without debate. Any member may move for removal of a bill from the consent calendar and, when so removed, the bill is considered on the regular calendar.

    Amendments must be in typewritten form and may be offered by members at any time prior to final passage. They are prepared in the Legislative Commissioners’ Office at the request of a member. If a bill is amended on third reading, other than to correct clerical errors or mistakes as to forms or dates, a Legislative Commissioner must approve the amendment. The bill, as amended, must be reprinted and returned in its new form to the members’ files before it can be passed.

    Passage and Engrossment

    After a bill has passed on the third reading, it is held for one day for a motion to reconsider, which can only be made by a member on the prevailing side of the vote. If not reconsidered, the bill is transmitted to the other house. If the other house amends the bill, it comes back to the first house for concurrence in the amendments. If the amendments are not concurred in, a conference committee may be appointed to resolve the differences. When passed by both houses, the bill is delivered to the Legislative Commissioners’ Office for engrossing and supervision of printing in its final form. A Legislative Commissioner, the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House then signs the engrossed bill, and the bill is transmitted by the Clerks to the Secretary of the State who presents it to the Governor for his approval or veto.

    Action by the Governor

    If the Governor receives the bill while the legislature is in session, he has five calendar days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, in which to sign it or return it to the house in which it originated with a statement of his objections. In the latter case, the bill may be reconsidered and, if passed by at least two-thirds of the members of each house of the General Assembly, it becomes law. If the Governor does not sign or veto the bill within five calendar days after the same has been presented to him, Sundays and holidays excepted, it automatically becomes law unless the General Assembly has adjourned the regular or special session.

    *** If the regular or special session has adjourned, the bill becomes law unless the Governor, within fifteen calendar days after it has been presented to him, transmits it to the Secretary of the State with his objections. In such case, the bill does not become law unless it is reconsidered and re-passed by the General Assembly by at least two-thirds of the members of each house of the General Assembly at the time of its reconvening, for its constitutionally mandated session, to reconsider such vetoes. Veto Session If the Governor vetoes any bill or bills after the General Assembly has adjourned, the Secretary of the State must reconvene the General Assembly on the second Monday after the last day on which the Governor is either authorized to transmit or has transmitted every bill to the Secretary with his objections (Section 15 of Article IV of the State Constitution), provided if such Monday falls on a legal holiday the General Assembly is reconvened on the next following day. The reconvened session is for the sole purpose of reconsidering and, if the General Assembly so desires, re-passing such bills. The General Assembly must adjourn sine die not later than three days following its reconvening. ***

    TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS

    A verbatim typewritten record is prepared of all debates on the floor of the Senate and House and of all testimony at public hearings. Transcripts of floor debate and public hearing testimony from previous sessions are available in the legislative reference section of the State Library.

    0
  12. Mojo,
    I will be very disappointed if the Governor signs the bill because I think it shouldn’t have gotten in the bill in the first place. But at least in my heart I know I took some action to request that she veto the bill. If you knew me, you would know that I want action. I want progress. Sitting back isn’t my strong suit.

    I am certainly not defending the action of the BPA staff or the lobbyist but I think I am facing reality. We have a deepwater port with a federally controlled channel. The State has always had an interest in the actions of all three ports. It is more than an interest actually. The DOT and DEP have final say over all kinds of permits involving the Port. The Feds and the Army Corps of Engineers are also involved. Look at all the complications over the Derecktor Shipyard location and expansions. Look at the three-year process just to get the dredging approved as the first step in the 60 Main Street mixed-use development in the South End. This may seem like a huge frontal attack on home rule but in reality we have been partners with the state since way before the Port Authority was established.

    I honestly don’t know enough about the impact on the City if the Port Authority is dissolved and that really bothers me. The Council needs to know before they act. The residents need to feel comfortable that they have thought it through. It will do absolutely no good to find out that this action will cause the City to be faced with a huge liability after the dissolution takes place. It’s like closing the barn door after the cow’s left. As a resident, I expect more from the deliberations of the City Council.

    0
  13. *** Last call on this sub. in my opinion I believe when it’s all said & done with the disbandment, it won’t make a difference because over all the State & Feds have the final say on the “real” important port matters! ***

    0
  14. Oh, it will matter. Right now city officials –on both sides of the issue — look like clowns who are more interested in power (and protecting their friends) than progress. And we wonder why the city gets no respect!

    And who was that that Councilman Bob was seen having lunch with…I bet he took the Ferry!

    0

Leave a Reply