Commentary: Why Bridgeport’s “Anti-Ethics” Faction Is Winning – City Council Members Called Out For Blocking Appointments

The three pending nominees would greatly bolster the capacities of the Ethics Commission by bringing decades of relevant expertise. Notably, none of my colleagues have attempted to block confirmation based on the qualifications or merit of the applicants, as doing so would obviously be a foolhardy exercise. The pending Ethics Commissioners are:Rosella Criss, who brings over 25 years of expertise in corporate investigations, ethics, and compliance at Pitney Bowes, the American Cancer Society, and the School for Ethical Education

Kristen Mennillo, who is a Connecticut Bar certified lawyer helping to represent residents of Success Village

Faith Sweeney, who is the former Chair of the Charter Revision Commission with deep knowledge of Bridgeport’s ethics framework and brings over 30+ years of public school teaching experience

Efforts to Sow Mistrust in the Process

Given the inability to discredit the actual applicants, the anti-ethics faction has resorted to amplifying efforts to generate confusion about their eligibility and sowing mistrust in the fairness of the confirmation process as tactics for whipping votes.

Unfortunately, their efforts have been effective. In a climate of poor internal communication amongst the Council, where members do not caucus and regular committee meetings are often cancelled, it is easy for misinformation and mistrust to creep in. The fact that these Ethics Commission nominees followed the process as legally mandated by Bridgeport’s Charter – submitted a notarized application to the Mayor; passed a criminal background check; got approved (unanimously) by the current Ethics Commission; got approved by the Council’s Miscellaneous Matters Committee – cannot overcome the vague suggestion by Leadership that the process has been secretly “muddied” or “politicized”.

Sadly, only 6 of 20 members were at City Hall for the Committee meeting where Councilmembers had the opportunity to interview these nominees (2 joined online). Council members had months to review these applications and inform themselves about the qualifications of the nominees, which were referred to us by the Mayor’s Office as a matter of public record. The issue was not the process. The issue is too few members engaged in the process or attended the meetings.

A Pattern of Opposing Council Independence

Efforts to oppose, slow-roll, and ignore good governance reforms by the anti-ethics faction are nothing new. Taken as a whole, these actions paint a picture of general ambivalence in moving forward voter-approved reforms geared at improving government responsiveness and accountability. For instance, in the last year alone the anti-ethics faction has:

• September – Opposed the work of the Charter Revision Commission, by voting NO on their Final Report

• December – Failed to prioritize moving forward any ordinances needed to implement updates to the new Charter after the new Council President was elected

• January – Declined a request by the City Attorney for Council collaboration on updating the Code of Ethics ordinance at a public meeting

• March – Made no effort to ensure appointment of all 7 Ethics Commissioners, as mandated by the Charter (the Commission currently has only 3 active members)

• April – Quietly tried to underfund the Director of the Office of Municipal Ethics and the Office of Legislative Services, key aspects of the new Charter, without informing the rest of the Council. Thankfully the Budget Committee voted to reverse their efforts and funded those positions (although there is no progress toward hiring those vacancies)

• May – June – Led efforts to defeat confirmation of 3 nominees

These on-the-record efforts are a clear pattern for the public to see. And the absence of any alternative plan speaks volumes.

A Missed Opportunity for Genuine Reform?

Despite years of scandal and political stagnation, the adoption of an updated City Charter for the first time in 33 years brought a rare opportunity to set a fairer course for Bridgeport’s government. Alas, three years of effort to make these changes are seemingly being undone by six months of inaction.

At stake is more than just a (now) very public fight over the fate of these nominees, it is the character of how we want our City government to look moving forward. Will quality volunteers continue to step up to serve our community if they are shot down for political reasons? Will quality representatives serve on City Council if their legislative efforts are met with gossip and mistrust rather than informed discussion and debate?

So, rather than spreading mistruths and stonewalling the public, maybe Council Leadership should do as Councilman Aikeem Boyd suggested and just say publicly that they oppose ethics reform.

Otherwise, their actions (or lack, thereof) are screaming their opposition.