CC Comments- September 2, 2025
Thank you for appointing me as a member of the 2025 Charter Commission reworking the base of the “ rule of law” in Bridgeport. The current City Charter is our municipal foundational governance document. Many found it woefully inadequate in the 21st century when multiple issues face our current status quo and impede progress:
• Using simple or plain language can save City taxpayers expensive or unnecessary settlements relating to future Civil Service grievances.
• By creating an Office of Legislative Services to assist Council members and provide support for and authority to establish future Boards or Commissions through added appointment authority to City Council in order to meet constituent needs and to improve “check and balance” action.
• Inadequate and open civic engagement with the public taxpayer regarding actual service opportunities and expectations by service on Boards and Commissions can be changed to communicate the vacant positions that force extended current terms, and an opportunity to prepare citizens for volunteer and welcomed public service.
• Finally, a major strengthening of what constitutes municipal ethical behavior, training to respond to allegations from the community, and power to counter illegal or corrupt practices in the City by encouraging CIVICS.
I wish to join with Charter Commission members and share appreciation to City Council members who participated in open discussions focused on CC issues, as well as at Public Hearing sessions. We must also thank City Department employees, in Civil Service and City Attorney offices, especially, for the work they advanced to simplify and make clear the practical distinctions that will cover future administrative challenges.
I ask you to trust in the document facing you tonight. If you understand that our existing governance foundation is weak or inadequate in certain areas, too complicated in other areas, and often ignored by leadership in other areas for years, please vote tonight to put the Charter before the public as a question on the November ballot. Encourage folks in each District to vote on improving our governance foundation as you seek your ‘political office.’
Time will tell.
I await the official count, but there were only 18 Council members present within sight, with McCarthy and Lyons names called, but no responses. I heard Nays cast by 131 Cruz and Taylor-Moye, 133 Herron,135 Ortiz, 136 Castillo, and 138 Perreira. 135 Lee appeared ready to pass on her vote, and as the roll continued to be called, perhaps they forgot to return to her? I do not know.
But 130 Burns, 132 Spell and Smith, 133 Boyd, 134 Vizzo-Paniccia, 136 Hodges, 137 Valle and Nieves, 138 Suliman, and 139 Martinez and Newton voted in the affirmative giving a result of the majority voted in favor of the question involving the Charter which will be put before voters on November 4.
For all the work by 13 Charter Commissioners over six months since March, at numerous committee meetings, public hearings, and sessions set by the City Council in the six week period after mid-June delivery of the revised Charter was made, as well as the most recent two weeks, many folks have not followed the emails, texts, videa documentary prepared for the hours of item by item review, questions, additional research sought, helpful dialogue, and yes, occasionally pointed or heated disagreements (followed by apologies usually) but the public does not understand how the current status quo of the old document fails the public in multiple ways, especially around clarifying modern Civil Service provisions, stronger Ethics authority, more efficient legislative authority to secure public members, prepared and trained to serve Boards and Commissions, plus better contents organization , a Preamble with purpose and a welcome to all.
Now it is time in 60 days or so, for voters to respond to the document with a mandate for the future, isn’t it? And time will tell.
The Phone thing seemed a bit childish, but what do you expect from the Port politics. 🙂
(Full disclosure: I have no idea what’s in the first charter or this one.)
But that’s not going to stop me or falling off from trolling, I mean voicing my opinion on how “disingenuous” Port politics is.
Take WEEP’s words, perhaps coded actions.
“It was very disappointing to see the Mayor and his administration staff in the back room discussing the charter revision amendments without all council members present. As some council members always say that we are a co-equal branch of government and yet they allow mayor Joe Ganim and his Chief Administrative Officer to dictate what amendments should be made in the chambers. I voted ABSOLUTELY NO because of the tremendous influence by the administration. This charter revision vote was destined to fail until the power players and cronies went on full steam ahead to persuade other council members to vote yes and throw their integrity and credibility out the window. The charter revision will be on the ballot for November and I will be asking our voters to VOTE NO ON THE BALLOT AND KILL THIS DISGRACEFUL CHARTER REVISION BECAUSE THERES NOT MUCH CHANGE IN IT AND KEEPS THE STATUS QUO IN TACT. VOTE NO”
He’s disappointed in the back room discussions and action that got this charter passed. Ok,
Yet, it was destined to fail without that back room “discussion” and still you voted no.
Notwithstanding, that not much changed in the new charter and keeps the status quo intact, according to WEEP. But if it was destiny to fail without the intervention of the administration that would mean no change would take place as it pertains to the “status quo” No?
Since WEEP is advocating no vote and who voted absolutely no have it voted be the people, Is it fair to say WEEP is calling on absolutely zero change to the “status quo? 🙂
I know I get shit for using my words, particularly “disingenuous” But is it just me or does WEEP’s words seem ‘disingenuous” to say the least. 🤣
To be fair to WEEP he did emphasize that position with capitalization. It could be a coded WEEP thing, people.
John L. Does your Yale Liberal “coded” decipherabilities, any “disingenuousness” in WEEP’s position and words on their face value? 🙃
On my level, with my Little Orphan Annie decoder pin. I am here trying to figure out why WEEP is yelling at me. 🤣
Jesus, people, I don’t know. I know there’s a lot of shit floating around out there. Based on that picture and the video of John L praising the charter revision passage someone got to be off in Port’s “disingenuous” political family. No?
CC Comments- September 2, 2025
Thank you for appointing me as a member of the 2025 Charter Commission reworking the base of the “ rule of law” in Bridgeport. The current City Charter is our municipal foundational governance document. Many found it woefully inadequate in the 21st century when multiple issues face our current status quo and impede progress:
• Using simple or plain language can save City taxpayers expensive or unnecessary settlements relating to future Civil Service grievances.
• By creating an Office of Legislative Services to assist Council members and provide support for and authority to establish future Boards or Commissions through added appointment authority to City Council in order to meet constituent needs and to improve “check and balance” action.
• Inadequate and open civic engagement with the public taxpayer regarding actual service opportunities and expectations by service on Boards and Commissions can be changed to communicate the vacant positions that force extended current terms, and an opportunity to prepare citizens for volunteer and welcomed public service.
• Finally, a major strengthening of what constitutes municipal ethical behavior, training to respond to allegations from the community, and power to counter illegal or corrupt practices in the City by encouraging CIVICS.
I wish to join with Charter Commission members and share appreciation to City Council members who participated in open discussions focused on CC issues, as well as at Public Hearing sessions. We must also thank City Department employees, in Civil Service and City Attorney offices, especially, for the work they advanced to simplify and make clear the practical distinctions that will cover future administrative challenges.
I ask you to trust in the document facing you tonight. If you understand that our existing governance foundation is weak or inadequate in certain areas, too complicated in other areas, and often ignored by leadership in other areas for years, please vote tonight to put the Charter before the public as a question on the November ballot. Encourage folks in each District to vote on improving our governance foundation as you seek your ‘political office.’
Time will tell.
I await the official count, but there were only 18 Council members present within sight, with McCarthy and Lyons names called, but no responses. I heard Nays cast by 131 Cruz and Taylor-Moye, 133 Herron,135 Ortiz, 136 Castillo, and 138 Perreira. 135 Lee appeared ready to pass on her vote, and as the roll continued to be called, perhaps they forgot to return to her? I do not know.
But 130 Burns, 132 Spell and Smith, 133 Boyd, 134 Vizzo-Paniccia, 136 Hodges, 137 Valle and Nieves, 138 Suliman, and 139 Martinez and Newton voted in the affirmative giving a result of the majority voted in favor of the question involving the Charter which will be put before voters on November 4.
For all the work by 13 Charter Commissioners over six months since March, at numerous committee meetings, public hearings, and sessions set by the City Council in the six week period after mid-June delivery of the revised Charter was made, as well as the most recent two weeks, many folks have not followed the emails, texts, videa documentary prepared for the hours of item by item review, questions, additional research sought, helpful dialogue, and yes, occasionally pointed or heated disagreements (followed by apologies usually) but the public does not understand how the current status quo of the old document fails the public in multiple ways, especially around clarifying modern Civil Service provisions, stronger Ethics authority, more efficient legislative authority to secure public members, prepared and trained to serve Boards and Commissions, plus better contents organization , a Preamble with purpose and a welcome to all.
Now it is time in 60 days or so, for voters to respond to the document with a mandate for the future, isn’t it? And time will tell.
The Phone thing seemed a bit childish, but what do you expect from the Port politics. 🙂
(Full disclosure: I have no idea what’s in the first charter or this one.)
But that’s not going to stop me or falling off from trolling, I mean voicing my opinion on how “disingenuous” Port politics is.
Take WEEP’s words, perhaps coded actions.
“It was very disappointing to see the Mayor and his administration staff in the back room discussing the charter revision amendments without all council members present. As some council members always say that we are a co-equal branch of government and yet they allow mayor Joe Ganim and his Chief Administrative Officer to dictate what amendments should be made in the chambers. I voted ABSOLUTELY NO because of the tremendous influence by the administration. This charter revision vote was destined to fail until the power players and cronies went on full steam ahead to persuade other council members to vote yes and throw their integrity and credibility out the window. The charter revision will be on the ballot for November and I will be asking our voters to VOTE NO ON THE BALLOT AND KILL THIS DISGRACEFUL CHARTER REVISION BECAUSE THERES NOT MUCH CHANGE IN IT AND KEEPS THE STATUS QUO IN TACT. VOTE NO”
He’s disappointed in the back room discussions and action that got this charter passed. Ok,
Yet, it was destined to fail without that back room “discussion” and still you voted no.
Notwithstanding, that not much changed in the new charter and keeps the status quo intact, according to WEEP. But if it was destiny to fail without the intervention of the administration that would mean no change would take place as it pertains to the “status quo” No?
Since WEEP is advocating no vote and who voted absolutely no have it voted be the people, Is it fair to say WEEP is calling on absolutely zero change to the “status quo? 🙂
I know I get shit for using my words, particularly “disingenuous” But is it just me or does WEEP’s words seem ‘disingenuous” to say the least. 🤣
To be fair to WEEP he did emphasize that position with capitalization. It could be a coded WEEP thing, people.
John L. Does your Yale Liberal “coded” decipherabilities, any “disingenuousness” in WEEP’s position and words on their face value? 🙃
On my level, with my Little Orphan Annie decoder pin. I am here trying to figure out why WEEP is yelling at me. 🤣
Jesus, people, I don’t know. I know there’s a lot of shit floating around out there. Based on that picture and the video of John L praising the charter revision passage someone got to be off in Port’s “disingenuous” political family. No?
Brian for Mayor.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=871566790906221
My bad,
Billboards Brian, Billboards. 🤣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5huH3kFVX8
WEEP, just playing, Though, I felt your pain, I hated white people too, Then I found out in America Porkchops are identified white. 🤣
Try to play nice Port pols. Peace out, Port/OIB, I am off to find and bang some green Aliens, for the community. 🙂
Pivot Port, Pivot, good luck people!
P.S Beijing don’t forget about those cuddly Pandas, 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQlIhraqL7o&list=RDlQlIhraqL7o&start_radio=1
The Prophet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQUvH2z1iEU&list=RDIQUvH2z1iEU&start_radio=1