Sound the trumpets. Bang the drums. Toot the horns. The Bridgeport City Council that has been mired in conflicts of interest for years with city employee councilors approving their own wages and benefits actually tried following federal guidelines so needy organizations wouldn’t lose out on millions of dollars through the Community Development Block Grant Program. The feds expanded regulations for what is deemed a family-tie conflict. State Rep. Jack Hennessy writes, “Isn’t it funny that the city can take seriously the issue of conflicts of interest when the federal government is involved but ignore it at the local level.”
Brian Lockhart of the CT Post has more on this:
It’s said in government that it’s all about who you know.
And that was recently a problem for the Democrat-majority City Council which, before distributing nearly $3 million in federal grants, spent around $15,000 on an outside attorney to sort out conflicts of interest to avoid losing the money …
It’s not surprising in Bridgeport, where many who govern the city or work for it–and on the City Council, members can do both–are part of a web of connections that some say hinder and others say help the state’s largest municipality.
Full story here.
Statement from State Rep. Jack Hennessy:
“Bridgeport: City Council avoids ethics issues to get grants,” article written by Brian Lockhart, July 21, 2014. Isn’t it funny that the city can take seriously the issue of conflicts of interest when the federal government is involved but ignore it at the local level.
Half the City Council recused themselves from participating in the debate or voting on the measure due to the possibility they, or a relative, might benefit from the federal dollars.
I wish they had the same concern about conflicts of interest when spending city tax dollars as they do federal dollars.
But due to a loophole in state statute city officials can ignore their own city charter that expressly forbids city employees from serving on the city council.For the last two years I have been fighting in Hartford to close that loophole. But due to Bridgeport’s two state senators, Anthony Musto, and Andres Ayala, they have prevented it from passing in the senate. I have full support for my bill in the House.
The city of Bridgeport has a real conflict of interest issue that this article so aptly demonstrates. If anyone doubts there is a “Bridgeport Machine,” here’s a good example of it where city council members and their families benefit from their political connections while the rest of us are stuck paying the tab with ever rising property taxes.
I will continue to fight to close the loophole and bring some relief to beleaguered Bridgeport residents.
In the case of Uncle Shelton Mike and Richard Paoletto, one can understand why he doesn’t have a conflict of interest. His family tree grows straight up!
City employees voting on Federal (CDBG) funds, no conflict here! LOL.
Congratulations Rick Torres for looking at the big picture. You had the courage to go on record regarding the conflict of City employees serving on the City Council. The 130th district that you represent should appreciate your comments. Unfortunately, I’m stuck with two incompetents representing the 132nd district. They know who they are and so will the rest of the districts at the appropriate time. One has his head stuck in gardens, and the other one hasn’t left the “hippie” era.
As a matter of fact, one of the new Council members from the 132d sits on the Budget and Appropriations Committee. Last December she asked the Finance Director for a “FINAL” year-end June, 2013 monthly financial report. It was provided to the City Council in January, 2014.
That missing 12th month report was defended (as a continuing City practice) by Tom Sherwood regularly as not being part of the City reporting mechanism since the time of the Financial Review Board. Assuming that is true, then all Council members were ignoring (or unaware) of the Charter requirement to post reports monthly, each month, every month, and not just for eleven months.
Surely you remember Chapter 9, Section 7 (a) of the Current City Charter: “Not later than the fourth Friday of each month, the Mayor shall submit the City Council a report showing: (1) budgeted and actual revenues up to the last day of the prior month; (2) budgeted and actual expenditures for each budgeted agency of the city up to the last day of the prior month; and (3) the projected budget surplus or deficit for the fiscal year. Such report shall also be filed in the office of the City clerk and copies made available to the public.”
Why did Council members in your era allow this directive to fall into disuse? What is the public to think when a budget-minded Council person brings this Charter violation into accordance with the Charter for the first time in many years? What do you think, or hadn’t you noticed? Doesn’t the City need more people who live up to the Charter and Ordinances as well as avoid conflict of interests and other unethical behavior (at least to the rest of the Western world) here in Bridgeport?
Yes, Rick Torres is doing a good job raising questions that have not been asked often enough and for looking for good answers. But he needs help. You may have other reasons for disparaging your current representatives, but they helped reveal the real line item story of an annual budget for the first time in more than two decades.
How did the City Controller find $500,000 of cash after the 2013 fiscal year closed? Curious? I am too. Maybe you can get an answer? And I did track down the purchase orders for about $30,000 of Legislative expenditure on the OTHER SERVICES Line Item funds and found the Council president in a caucus with no agenda, minutes or notice to the public guided 15 of 20 Council members to request up to $2,000 per Council member of TAXPAYER funds to be directed to City charities in a year where many faced primaries and all faced November elections. Without the request for a FINAL REPORT we would not have learned this secret story of taxpayer funds used for POLITICAL PURPOSES!!! Time will tell.
Mr. Lee, although Trish Swain was fully aware it was illegal to count in-kind services and reduced payments to the Internal Service Fund towards the MBR for the BBOE, she voted and supported it anyway. In essence, she voted to deny 20,000 students the funding they are entitled to under state law. Many other council members did as well. I will be educating voters and parents on this very issue as I go door to door in Thomas Hooker and JFK. I will most definitely encourage my neighbors to hold Marella and Paoletto accountable, I hope others do the same.
This is an open letter to Lisa Parziale and to readers of Only in Bridgeport
Recently, Lisa Parziale, you made an allegation that my Council partner, Trish Swain and I voted to support a sexual predator for the Ethics Commission. Stating that you will spread the word widely to our constituents, I would advise you not to spread such slander.
I do, for the record have a big problem how candidates are chosen by the Mayor, for boards and commissions. There is not information as to what other, more qualified candidates have applied. There is also pretty much, a lack of pertinent information about each individual about what exactly qualifies them per their past experience or education as to why they should be sitting on a particular commission. I recently came across one such case where I found out there are much more qualified candidates and I believe that that is the main issue. Candidates are put in front of us who support the party line–period.
The information that was provided to us regarding this individual for the Ethics Commission did not include anything about his being a sexual predator. So …, Lisa, BACK OFF!
Lisa, your editorial continued in OIB today. I can only surmise that your vitriol comes from our decision to engage ourselves in the democratic process and run for office. We beat the pants off the candidates, the endorsed candidates, who you supported. As much as you may try to represent otherwise, you represent the old school of Bridgeport Democratic politics. This is inescapable and I owe NO ALLEGIANCE to you or your ilk! The times they are a-changin’.
We represent hope for the future.
Please check your attitude at the door
Councilman Robert Halstead 132
Bob, from the reports in the CT Post, it seems Mayor Finch did not provide the committee with the Texas Sex Offender Registry information, however, did you know Mr. Allen was repeatedly convicted for drug dealing cocaine and served time in prison on multiple occasions? If you did know, was appointing him to the Ethics Commission reasonable?
He made full disclosure and definitely has turned his life around. I am a Christian at heart and believe people can redeem themselves.
Sorry, Bob. I completely disagree with you on this one. Someone who has REPEATED drug-dealing offenses and REPEATEDLY served stretches of prison time should not be placed in a position where they are judging the ethics of others. There are other commissions or boards he may have been suited to serve on, the Ethics Commission is not one of them.
Can someone please explain to me how elected officials (Musto, Ayala and most of the City Council members) can take a position diametrically opposed to what the citizens voted for in a open and free election, and still consider themselves representatives of the people? This cast of characters would bring tears to the eyes of Madison, Mason, Adams, Jefferson and the many other great minds who crafted constitutions based upon political principles that were meant to be enduring and yet have come to be ignored by a bunch of self-serving politicians. Something has gone terribly wrong.
From the mayor’s flippant remarks to Lydia’s statement of her disappointment of the law and how she would have allocated the funds differently, I am not sure which made me more crazed. The pushback to spending our tax dollars according to the lowest standard of ethical behavior required by law would, I hope, cause people to pause and reconsider their position on the very real need to demand reform in our city’s loophole-seeking administration. Jack Hennessy deserves the lion’s share of credit for this new development, JML for his tireless work and public speaking on city financial practices, Auden Grogins for stepping up in support of Hennessy’s bill, and the voters for electing Torres, Halstead and Swain. Keep the pressure on and the spotlight shining on the problems. One small victory at a time.
I look forward to the City sharing the document stating the guidelines for the CDBG vote that states how to avoid conflict of interest.
What is significant is it is now established conflicts of interest exist on the city council.
Jack Hennessy should get a copy of the guidelines, advice or whatever was used, so his colleagues in the legislature can see HUD expressed a concern with conflict on the city council, just as Jack and Auden and now others are referring to.
I wonder if he will be forced to file an FOI complaint to get it.
Bob Halstead, for the record I like you as a person and I’ve always been aware your heart is in the right place. You’re not candidate material and never will be. If I sound frustrated over your lack of performance, it’s because I expected more of you. You have no voice on the City Council when it comes to representing me and the residents of the 132nd district. Now to change the subject for a minute, you and your partner did not win your council seats in the traditional sense. You were both the recipients of a once-in-a-lifetime political anomaly. The sentiment against the Mayor was so great, you road in on the discontent of voters. You’ll not see that happen again. You’re on your own now, so start doing your job. One more thing, this past March you and your running mates got your clock cleaned in the TC primary. What happened??? Could it be that the voters of the 132nd district took advantage of making the previous outcome the right one? You’re out of your league, so start working now if you like keeping a seat on the Council. Just saying!
Lisa. You can have your opinion about my performance. Just back off when it comes to slander. Slander is a pretty low thing when you are accusing us of promoting sexual predators to the Ethics Commission. I don’t like a person who slanders. I also don’t like general statements about competency. Be specific so I can answer your concerns. I am always there for constituents. What are you referring to?
As the Working Families Party was rather successful in the last election, it would follow the clowns and jugglers endorsed by ringmaster Mario Testa are feeling a little insecure about their job security. Being a part of a third-rate Tammany Hall-styled political organization is no longer a guarantee of tenure on the City Council. It is an elected office, remember. The machinations of the Democratic Town Committee have become more desperate over the past few election cycles. Lyda Martinez’s absentee ballot shenanigans will be more aggressive this year. Careful, dear: the EEC will be watching you like Sylvester looks at Tweetie Pie.
Lydia has paid a few election law violation fines in the past. I would hazard a guess, the fine is a small price for her to “pay” to keep her favorites in office.
Bob, I did not slander you or your council partner; you and Swain are on official record for voting for an individual who is on a sex offender list. It was your responsibility to ask this person if he had anything in his past that would reflect badly on his appointment to the Ethics Committee. I understand you and your council partner have no experience as elected officials, but you both had the opportunity to seek advice from experienced, past elected officials, including me. I more than reached out to your partner to offer my time, experience or just discuss situations. Needless to say, she never did. I know my former council partner, the esteemed Bob Walsh (and I mean that) supported your candidacy and I observed him give his contact numbers to Swain if she needed some advice or guidance. So stop hiding behind bad votes; you both had options and snubbed them.
Lisa, kind of ridiculous. Your making a statement on this blog that broadcasts out on the Internet Councilman Swain and I supported a sexual predator to the Ethics Commission is slander. Pure and simple. You are a grown-up woman and cannot be using whatever political power you may or may not have for abusing people.
Bob, you may not realize it now, but if you take heed to constructive criticism you will become a better representative. How many other former elected officials do you know who address the activity or inactivity of the people who represent them? I have taken you and your partner to task for casting an egregious vote. Maybe the Mayor did withhold information, I don’t know, but you and Swain should have pushed harder for information. This individual was working with children. He may have been better suited to serve in a more appropriate capacity; I believe in second chances, but there is a bottom line. While we’re at it, don’t you think these discussions we’re having on a public blog would be more beneficial if you had taken the time to reach out to experienced public officials for input? Doesn’t mean you forfeit your right to your own decisions, but none of us live in a vacuum, we all have taken that route and did become more effective public servants.
Lisa,
The City did not get to this point regarding Mayoral nominations to Boards and Commission overnight in my opinion. Is that what you think?
My own reviews of the “listed” Boards and Commissions at least once per year over the past 5 years indicated to me:
** Terms continued well beyond term limits in too many cases if you were perceived as a Mayoral supporter in your service, but you became one of the dearly departed on Ethics and Land Use if you showed signs of integrity.
** Vacancies persisted in certain bodies that put extra pressure on members to find quorums and delayed public service duties, with no reasonable explanation.
**T raining, education and orientation for Board work was the exception rather than the rule, so a sense of continuity about what is long term good for the City gets lost too often.
** If any “best practices” evaluation is done and suitable recognition regarding Board service was considered, it has never been claimed. Surely it would be a spot for a photo!
** The recent lessons we have learned from the BOE and Ethics background checks are they do not take much time in most cases; they may not be assisted by the forms filled out by candidates to the process in terms of full disclosure; and information harmful to a candidate may be cleaned from paperwork going to decision makers. All factors to keep in mind when the subject comes up again in a different situation.
Doubtless you have experience, some of which guided you to “go along to get along” more than once in your Council career? Or perhaps you guided newbies with those words? There are eight new Council persons learning as they go. Councils of recent years have not been supplied with basic timely info on very important issues (including the budget) but are still asked to vote. There is resistance to that. How did that fail before now? It was present when John Olson and Yvette Brantley were in place. And it still is. Just saying, without necessary reference to the people involved (as you are doing), but rather to the intransigence of the City administration and their pragmatic attempt to control all aspects of Council behavior, with carrots (for those who couldn’t identify a conflict if they found one in their lap) and sticks (for those who may ask questions and are relegated to Council committees where the curious will do less damage) and with food, stipends (outside ordinance language), the opportunity for charitable contributions in an election year without accountability to taxpayers, etc. Shall I go on? Where have you been recently? Are these subjects on which you have an opinion? Time will tell.