OIB correspondent John Gilmore, who served as political reporter for the Bridgeport Post, predecessor of the Connecticut Post, shares this insight about the genesis of publishing a list of the city’s top wage earners.
Oh yes, the annual Top Wage Earner story! It’s one of the best-read stories in the newspaper.
Just from a historical (or maybe hysterical, take your pick) point of view, the origin of this journalistic endeavor started back in the days of Former Mayor John C. Mandanici, a bellicose, hard-charging individual who left many strong memories in his wake.
Mandy-–as known to one and all–-was complaining about the high cost of salaries among the top ranks of the Board of Education. “You should see what those guys make!” he’d scream, pointing to the third floor where the board was headquartered from his second floor office in City Hall on Lyon terrace. “They’re killing this city,” he’d rant. “You wouldn’t believe it!” Part of Mandy’s displeasure with the Board of Education stemmed from the fact they had a huge chunk of the budget and he had limited control over it.
So in the spirit of good journalism, I asked. “How much do they make? Can we see the list of the Top 100 wage earners in the city? It might be interesting.”
“Sure,” the mayor answered seeing an opportunity to skewer the board. With the wave of a hand he ordered then-City Comptroller John G. Norko to get the list of the Top 100 Wage Earners and release it. So far it sounds simple. But we waited, asked again, and waited some more and some more.
It wasn’t long before we recognized Mandy was stalling us. Now the story was starting to morph into a headline that might have read “Mayor reneges on pledge to release salary data!” (Not a good political scenario in anyone’s book.)
So Michael Daly (now Post Editorial Page Editor) and I had another sit-down with the mayor to press the issue to get him to agree to his promise to give us the data. It was during that meeting the mayor admitted that much to his chagrin Board of Education employees, superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals and the such (while represented on the list) weren’t at the very top of the list.
The top wage-earners were cops and firemen; specifically cops earning outside overtime, those lucrative jobs where they guard holes in the ground being dug by utility crews. The jobs are assigned to off-duty cops and paid for by the contractors as a form of enhanced overtime. In fact, one cop made more money guarding holes in the ground than doing actual police work! Years later former Mayor Leonard S. Paoletta also questioned the practice saying the overworking of a cop had to leave him tired at some point and was the city or the utility getting his services when he was exhausted?
The problem was clear to Mandy. He was in no mood to aggravate the uniformed services of the city. Most of them were still required at this point to live in the city. Extrapolating their number by including spouses, children over 18 years old and extended family members, neighbors and friends made them a potent voting block. Say what you want about the former A&P manager, he knew how to count votes.
But he also knew he promised delivery of the list before witnesses. Say what you will about the former mayor, in the end, Mandy manned up, stood by his word, release the list and watched the ensuing political storm unfold.
The real story here wasn’t and isn’t that a single cop topped the list that year or the identity of the top wage. The real story lies in the growth of municipal salaries and a look-see to determine if taxpayers are getting good bang for their buck.
John Gilmore,
Thanks for the journey down memory lane to the days of Mayor “Price and Pride” Mandanici.
Do you have any memory of one or more instances in the past 30-40 years where any person within or without the governance structure took a stab at discovering “what bang for their buck” taxpayers might be receiving? Beyond suggesting management or forensic audits? Did former Board of Taxation and Apportionment provide any effort towards that goal? Time will tell.
If memory serves the last (or almost last) chairman of the Board of Apportionment and Taxation was a Mandanici appointee named Mario Testa.
I think it fair to say it wasn’t a bastion of taxpayer protection. Long on political mischief (especially when there was a Republican Mayor) and short on real oversight.
Thanks Phil for the history lesson. Another “appointed” entity a Mayor can fill with handpicked ‘go alongs’ and after a few years ignore the fact terms expire yet people still serve. Then as pointed out on another subject today, the Mayor can call folks into his office, one by one, to have a conversation. Political considerations (that will not see the light of day in public relations handouts) will be shared, and perhaps people will forget their ethical direction, their fiduciary responsibility (if they were trained in the duty originally) and move in the direction they are being guided? Maybe? Any part of this sound reasonable to those who have watched decisions in this community?
Notes for the future: The City needs a Finance group that is bi-partisan, elected for staggered terms equal to the Mayor’s term at least, have qualifications that include financial expertise, have a budget to fund deeper research than any the City Council has pursued in years, and all the authority and powers the City Council enjoys from the Charter today as a minimum, but the Council does not use in terms of accessing all records and info from City departments. They also will be directed to schedule public sessions where the public can attend, ask questions, receive responses and be treated with respect, on all of the City fiscal work including CAFR, Capital budgets, progress towards departmental goals, etc. That is a direction for a credible Charter Reform commission to pursue. Time will tell.
Many of the points JML made in this OIB posting and in his dissertations to the City Council were issues addressed, although not necessarily resolved, by the State-appointed Financial Review Board.
They put processes and procedures in place which have not been continued. Some of what they recommended was adopted in charter revision in 1993. One of their concerns was lack of information for the city council which by this time was responsible for approval and oversight of the city budget. Tools provided by charter revision were the requirement for a monthly budget report and the authority to have their own office and staff to research and assist them in their oversight role.
Unfortunately, the city council is a partisan political body of people with no relevant skills or academic credentials.
JML has beat the drum about the lack of monthly reports and the city council’s inability to review it. They are not embarrassed or apologetic.
In the early years of budget oversight by the city council, it was led in that role by a practicing attorney with an accounting degree and a bank officer with an MBA. The last few years those roles have been changed to a retired prison guard and a bodega clerk.
JML keeps trying to appeal to their sense of duty to the citizens of Bridgeport. It is quite clear though, the current mayoral administration completely controls the city council through the council president (city employee) and the current members do not have the skills or independence to do the job.
Median household income in Bridgeport is about $35,000/yr. I wonder what it is for City workers?
*** How many of these 100 large wage earners are minorities and Bpt residents I wonder? *** JUST SAYING! ***