Unburdened by two state senators who blocked a government reform bill, State Rep. Jack Hennessy will once again submit legislation to enforce the Bridgeport City Charter that prohibits city employees from serving on the City Council. The two state senators who opposed it to protect the political establishment, Anthony Musto, defeated in an August Democratic primary and Andres Ayala, who’s expected to become commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles, will not take seats when the General Assembly convenes Jan. 7.
Musto was defeated by Marilyn Moore who supports the government reform bill. Among the city’s eight-member legislative delegation, it appears just one, incoming freshman State Rep. Chris Rosario, a city employee, would oppose not enforcing the City Charter.
Supporters of the charter provision approved by city voters assert it prevents conflicts of interests such as city employee councilors approving their own wages and benefits. City Attorney Mark Anastasi, however, has rationalized a loophole in state law allows city employees to serve on the legislative body.
State law prohibits municipal employees from sitting on boards of finance. But the Bridgeport City Council serves as both a legislative and budget-making body. Hennessy’s bill would simply extend state law to include all municipal bodies that function as boards of finance.
Four of 20 current members of the City Council could be impacted by the government reform bill’s passage: City Council President Tom McCarthy, Milta Feliciano, James Holloway and Richard Paoletto who’s on leave with pay from his city position pending review of a sexual harassment claim against him. This is an election year for the City Council.
In an effort to quell opposition to the bill, Hennessy had attached a grandfather provision to hold harmless current city employees serving on the council. He says he will introduce the bill in the upcoming session of the General Assembly without a grandfather clause. The grandfather clause was successful in bringing some legislators on board, but not Musto or Ayala, the two biggest opponents.
Musto’s opposition to the bill hurt him among some of his Bridgeport constituency in Black Rock, Brooklawn and North End neighborhoods.
The bill will be submitted to the Planning and Development Committee that was chaired by State Rep. Auden Grogins who had co-sponsored a previous version of the bill. The bill appears to have broad support in the State House. Governor Dan Malloy announced on Friday he will nominate Grogins to the Superior Court.
Ayala becoming the new DMV chief would create a vacancy and scheduling of a special election presumably in late February. Ed Gomes, who occupied the seat until he was defeated by Ayala in an August 2012 primary, has announced his candidacy for the special election. Gomes supports the government reform bill.
Several other potential candidates may join the special election.
The Charter has said NO. But State Law is not so definitive in this case so Bridgeporters have been able to observe the “Anastasi straddle.” By the way, this straddle is not strictly speaking a legal process, but rather one that is very healthy for keeping your job, and keeping the secrets of years past.
It’s a position he assumes to support the sitting Mayor, and he is also there when someone wishes to call on FOI procedure. Folks from out of town can never see the shades of grey that are apparent to him from “straddling” positions assumed in the past.
While Banner scribe Rob Sullivan presented us with quite a book in 2014 on Bridgeport political history, it is the story Mark can spin for us as another work of more recent municipal history that will make for more fevered reading and discussions at some date. Time will tell.
Jack is doing the right thing by eliminating any grandfathering. The legislation should be effective the next municipal election. Individuals can be a City employee or a City Council person but not both. They can decide and honor our City Charter.
Nice to have you back, Dave.
Perhaps we should also look into the fibbing or spinning of one’s military background such as claiming to be a Navy Seal, Green Beret, or Army Ranger when not qualified to be one. Being assigned to, say, an Army Ranger unit does not make one an Army Ranger. Isn’t that correct, Jack?
There is a Federal Law concerning “Stolen Valor” that includes lying about one’s military experience as stated below:
The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 amends the federal criminal code to rewrite provisions relating to fraudulent claims about military service to subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both an individual who, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds himself or herself out to be a recipient of:
I believe this to be a great step toward reforming Bridgeport politics. 🙂