Mayor Bill Finch says he’ll have a decision soon about appointing a permanent police chief. Joe Gaudett has served in the acting role for about two years following Bryan Norwood’s abrupt departure for the top cop spot in Richmond Virginia.
The mayor has taken his time appointing a permanent chief in a city that has more acting jobs than Broadway. The mayor has been in no rush because of what appears to be a strong working relationship with Gaudett who’s endured a no-confidence vote from the city police union, a spike in violent crime and midnight walks with the mayor in city neighborhoods to restore public safety confidence. Being city chief is no walk in the park.
When it comes to appointing a chief Bridgeport has a rule of three following the Civil Service testing process. One from the final three who make the cut via testing and a review committee interview will be chosen by the mayor for one five-year term with a mayoral option for one more five-year term. The chief’s term of service was approved some 20 years ago in a charter revision by a vote of city voters.
Finch wants someone he can rely on in an election year. On top of budget woes the last thing Finch wants is crime chaos as he asks voters for four more years. Community confidence in a chief can take a lot of heat off a mayor. And in the latest OIB poll a few months ago crime has reemerged as a key issue. Is it better to stay with Gaudett or bring in someone completely new from the outside such as the other two finalists Joel Fitzgerald, police chief of Missouri City Texas and Rick Gregory, acting Public Safety Director of New Castle County Delaware?
Better the chief you know? Why would Finch walk away from Gaudett?
*** It’s a no-brainer that even the winner already knows, right in time for Xmas. *** SOS ***
“Acting” will soon be erased. Congratulations to Chief Gaudett and best wishes for a successful term of office.
AC Gaudett was completing his college degree in order to be eligible to take the test.
Why would Gaudett get a five-year appointment? Any time he has served as “acting” should be deducted from the five years.
His provisional appointment (although the city doesn’t use that term anymore since it is tightly controlled under existing Civil Service rules) has given him a leg up on the competition by familiarity with the position, it has given him a leg up on qualifying because he lacked the command level experience until now it has allowed him to continue to accrue benefits available to bargaining unit members that would otherwise not be available to a chief, so given all of these benefits that he has gained why should he get another two years in the job?
The appointment is for 5 years and any time acting should be deducted from those five.
Well stated Bob, but … who’s gonna listen to you, even though you speak a language of fairness and reason?
Also … “tightly controlled under Civil Service rules” is a term that is no longer in vogue. The new term is “whatever David Dunn wants to do!”
Civil Service is being changed, one idea at a time!
When the five-year term for police chief was adopted, I do not think the Charter Revision Commission considered, to my recollection, the “acting” wrinkle that Bob Walsh describes here.
The Bridgeport Light called for a “J. Edgar Hoover Rule,” meaning one 10-year term and then out, the way the U.S. reformed management of the FBI after long-time director Hoover died. (I, as editor, wrote it; Lennie, as publisher, approved and edited it.)
The charter commission came up with a five-year appointment, with a provision for an approval by Common Council vote for a second five-year term, and then out. This was based on suggested policies from a think tank on police issues.
Someone should dig up charter commission members from that time, or the commission report to see if they considered the “acting” issue.
I covered the meetings. I do not remember it coming up. I am inclined to think that Alderman Walsh’s post reflects what the reform commission wanted.
I do not know.
Gaudett is the best bet. What’s the sense of spending 15 or more years with a company and when the top spot is vacated, someone new to the company is picked for the job? Finch should make his selection now and forget about having press conferences for major appointments he plans to make in an election year. Gaudett and others waiting for a selection deserve to be given the thumbs up–or down–so they can move on with their careers. Let’s not blame job applicants or hold them accountable for mistakes–intentional or not–made by past charter commissions or administrations. Go Gaudett!
Joel, it’s pretty transparent that the same thing you’ve been criticizing Lennie and the Post for you’ve just done.