Led by freshman State Senator Marilyn Moore who promised to make it a priority on the campaign trail, the State Senate early Thursday morning unanimously approved legislation that would enforce the Bridgeport City Charter prohibiting city employees from serving on the City Council. The proposed legislation now goes to the State House where it faces uncertainty in the final days of the legislative session.
“This is another step to provide the people a responsible and transparent government,” says Moore who lobbied heavily for the bill’s passage. “You can’t serve two masters.” Moore found a breakthrough with some senators opposed to the bill by proposing a carve out that makes the bill Bridgeport specific. In its current form, it does not impact other municipalities. The Senate voted to approve about 1 a.m. Thursday.
The government reform bill was a key component of Moore’s Democratic primary win over incumbent Anthony Musto, who opposed it, last year. Moore did her part, but this is not a done deal in the House with the General Assembly ending session June 3. Organized labor leadership is not a fan of the legislation so its passage is still a question mark. Currently three of the 20-member City Council are on the public payroll including City Council President Tom McCarthy, deputy director of Labor Relations.
State Rep. Jack Hennessy proposed the legislation two years ago. Supporters maintain city employee councilors have conflicts of interests such as approving their own wages and benefits and not providing checks on the executive branch that appoints them to their paid position. State law prohibits municipal employees from serving on boards of finance, but the City Council serves a dual role as the legislative and budget-approving authority.
City Attorney Mark Anastasi has cited a loophole in state law that allowed city employee councilors to serve in violation of the City Charter.
If the bill passes it will not strip city employee councilors of their job. It would simply require them to make a choice: the elected council seat or their job.
Brilliant!!!
So the delegation is together on this? The Senatorial impediment from last session was corrected at the ballot box? And the bill itself has been made Bridgeport-specific so as not to upset other communities who may not have been under the spell we have of massive conflicts of interest by too many City Council members?
We must wait to see, but it should not be long to wait. Bridgeport citizens are waiting for a chance to clean up one part of City governance gone astray. We are not asking the State for money, just a fair shake for the voter and for the City Council member who is looked to for an independent assessment of the issues requiring his/her vote on the Council. Will it be harder for them to vote for good governance, the type the Feds insist on when the Council votes on HUD CDBG? Time will tell.
Great, let this be the springboard for open, honest and transparent government for Bridgeport!!!
Wow this is huge, and great job Senator Moore. But this is not yet a done deal. Bridgeport residents need to organize and start making phone calls/emails to House Reps and to the leadership. And phone calls to Moore, Gomes and the Senate thanking them and encouraging their continued work until this is complete.
When the first brand of democracy didn’t work for fans of HB5886, leave it to State Senator Marilyn Moore to “carve out” a second kind that does. Critics think she’s a Bridgeport-only legislator.
But there’s risk here: failure means transparent political ineptitude and victory would an anti-climactic end to a meaningless story.
Failure at this point puts the lie to several past excuses for City workers on the City Council as a primary conflict of interest or if you will a divided interest and which Council person who is also a City employee will routinely remind himself or herself they are representing the entire City (and to seek out and know clearly that interest in contrast with the current administration’s interest)? Does not happen. You are correct. But Fed voting by CC on HUD CDBG it happens or we don’t get those funds. It is more than a crock. So let’s see whether the hatchet-faced State rep who represents unions primarily, and that is Bridgeport unions as well, more than she does the rest of the citizenry. And that keeps Bridgeport down, and the expenses of supporting Bridgeport go up as long as there is money … and then what do people say or do? Time will tell.
Critics also thought Musto was a Trumbull-only legislator. Do you agree with that, LE?
Musto never initiated a piece of Trumbull-only legislation; Marilyn Moore deliberately did. I see a GAP in your thinking.
A meaningless story? Try being fleeced out of $400 thousand of taxpayers’ money plus legal fees by your president of the city council/employee, who also sits on the Airport committee, while the city attorney office waltzed it through various boards and commissions just to pay back a Bill Finch political contributor, who happens to live in Stratford. This city council has been corrupt for years with suck-ups like Susan Brannelly, Mike Marella, and President Tom McCarthy, while city council member/employee whose sexual behavior was overlooked by council president McCarthy and Mayor Finch for years until Rick Torres pushed it back in their face while speaking before a house committee in Hartford on HB 5886, and only then did Mayor Finch and Tom McCarthy remove this city council member/employee on that same day, but by this time a second victim was violated!
This is about city council members employees voting their paychecks while doing the Mayor’s bidding at the taxpayers’ expense, voting budget after budget not once questioning the seven years of taxation by this administration, never once trying to hold the line on taxes!
Letting Bill Finch spend money like a drunken sailor on projects with no or very little return on investment!
That’s something Joe Ganim would never do!
Maybe this would be a meaningless story in Trumbull, but some people in this city are tired of being screwed by suck-ups and city council member/employees!
Jim, it was my statement to the council with reference to Walsh’s case that brought said case to the fore. Sorry.
Let’s keep our fingers crossed on this one!
Thank you Rep. Hennessy, Sen. Moore, Sen. Gomes, Rep. Stafstrom and our entire delegation.
The CT Post is reporting Chris Rosario is going to oppose this bill as currently written and only impacts Bridgeport. Jack Hennessy is quoted as saying he is willing to grandfather existing city employees to continue to serve on the City Council. Say it isn’t so, Jack. Chris Rosario is reporting he will support this bill if this grandfather clause is inserted.
That would be incredibly disappointing.
Brett Broesder, spokesman for Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, said the mayor “remains opposed to this legislation.”
Up On Bridgeport, I think you meant to write the mayor “remains unopposed to this legislation,” not opposed. Although I must say, this is the first time I have heard Mayor Finch is “unopposed” to this legislation.
Good Job, Senator Moore. Let’s hope you cross the finish line. This will be a milestone for you and a great foundation for future endeavors.
Thank you Rep. Hennessy, Sen. Moore, Sen. Gomes, Rep. Stafstrom and our entire delegation.
ANDY, you might want to wait for the house vote before congratulating.
Hector A. Diaz, you could be right, the House is different than the Senate in voting. If the Bridgeport delegation is not in lockstep with each other then the other cities might say why should they support a bill if all the Bridgeport delegation is not supporting the bill.
Let’s not forget it was Jack Hennessy who introduced the legislation last year and had no support in the Bridgeport delegation. Having Marilyn Moore and Ed Gomes in the Senate has made a big difference.
It appears the only Bridgeport delegate in the House not supporting HB5886 is Chris Rosario. I am disappointed in Chris but he is in an awkward position of being beholden to the Finch administration for his city job.
There are others to thank when the bill passes in the house and it moves on to become law.
The influence of government employee unions on Democrat party members of the legislature has become obvious and disturbing. I hope enough members of the House have the wisdom and commitment to transparency in government Ed Gomes has demonstrated.
Tom White, I agree with you. You said, “It appears the only Bridgeport delegate in the House not supporting HB5886 is Chris Rosario. I am disappointed in Chris but he is in an awkward position of being beholden to the Finch administration for his city job.” Well, Paul Timpanelli could hook up Chris with a job so he could vote for the bill and to look good in doing it. City Attorney Hamilton Burger is giving the Bridgeport delegation some information.
It’s actually Senate Bill 880 now.
HB5886 did not make it out of committee. Senator Moore is the lead at this point and she does deserve congratulations for being able to accomplish what no one else has thus far.
No one is forgetting Jack, he is unprecedented in his efforts to champion this cause. It’s a TEAM effort by those willing to do whatever it takes to keep campaign promises, but more importantly to set Bridgeport on the path to better government. Those who came before (senate) were willing to keep the status quo because it served them.
Thank you, Marilyn. You done good.
Kind of reminds me of the Kennedy quote.
Some men see things as they are and ask why.
Others see them as they should be and ask why not.
Keep on asking, Senator Moore.
Tom White,
If Chris Rosario is in an awkward position, it is only because he put himself there.
Watch how quickly Chris might change his mind if Finch loses.
Then again, Chris might not be in a awkward position then. He might just be out of work.
How is Rosario’s time away from his city job accounted for? Does he take personal leave or leave of absence to serve or is he simply allowed to phone it in from Hartford and keep his regular paycheck?
Cannot answer how Bridgeport does it, but in asking other municipal employees who are also state reps or senators, their pay is reduced by the number of days they sit in session.
It depends on who is keeping track of the time, if you know what I mean. Watch when Finch loses and all his cronies are forced to leave. You’ll see all kinds of accumulated sick, personal, vacation and comp time buy-outs because no one ever recorded their days off. Finch will sign off, Labor Relations won’t question it (‘cuz they’ll be leaving too) and the hefty checks will be cut.
Thank you, Senator Moore. It’s quite refreshing to have a senator who demonstrates honesty, integrity and a conviction to core values.
Somewhere in the Morton center, Finch, McCarthy and Anastasi are huddled in a room, poring over the charter looking for a loophole in case this gets passed, lol. McCarthy would be crushed if he couldn’t be council president.
Jack Hennessy has been the lead on this. A huge pat on the back and thank you to him, and a big thanks to Senators Moore and Gomes for keeping their campaign pledge to push this bill through.
This is great news. Let’s hope this makes it out of the House of Representatives.
I wonder if Kathy Osten is working behind the scenes to kill it again.
Senator Osten supported the current version of the bill.
WOW! Thanks for the update, Lennie.
Hey Bob, who’s YOUR leader?
Marilyn Moore. Who else?
Say what you will, a STRONG delegation would never have allowed this to be Bridgeport specific. No, you guys do as you will, we only want this for Bridgeport?
Hector A. Diaz, there was no problem when the casino bill was Bridgeport specific.
It was a problem and that’s why it didn’t happen. They then lumped us all into a three-way project that included New Haven’s Mall (that was blocked by the Milford delegation) and ADRIEN’S LANDING (completed successfully) and Harbor Point (Bridgeport?). There is a pattern if you follow it and it continues today.
Hector,
The senate approved it unanimously. I do not know what you mean when you say a strong delegation would not support a Bridgeport-only compromise. Your comment only makes sense if you are in reality opposed to the bill’s passage.
The Senate is not the lead chamber in the General Assembly if the Gov. and Lt Gov. became incapacitated, it would be the SPEAKER who governed. What I’m saying Bob is many, many bills have passed the Senate only to get KILLED in the house. What I’m saying about being Bridgeport specific is “be careful what doors you open, ’cause they can be used against you in the future.” Was I misinformed when they told me they wanted my unconditional support on this with no amendments?
Hector,
Are you forgetting the fallback position previously had been to grandfather any current Council/City employees and leave them in place? Now that might be looked at as a weaker position, but a City-specific bill works for us, doesn’t it? Is there any other City in the State with our configuration of no Finance Board, no special talent or expertise on the City Council to monitor finances, the elimination of an internal auditor (with no mention in years of who handles that governmental function i.e. with responsibility under Ordinance for Purchase Department reporting and audit every third year, for instance), and no meaningful reporting of balance sheet and bonding balances at any time other than the CAFR seven months after a year closes with no public hearing. Put those in your pipe Hector, and inhale. Quite a strong brew to keep taxpayers away from oversight on what is happening to their money.
I recall Bill Finch in his first year as Mayor talking about our 17-square-mile land area as well as the City Fund Balance when Joe Ganim took over from the Review Board. Memory tells me it was around $55 Million but had reduced to about $17 Million by the time Bill took over. It is less today. According to our budget planning if the Fund Balance were equal to 8% of our Operating Budget that would be good. Do the math and 8% of $530 Million is over $42 Million. We are closer to 2% which is perilously poor and has been part of the reason for Tax Anticipation Notes in recent years. What magic will be employed this year, with no decrease in the budget, no increase in taxes and more abatements and tax deals than ever before? Time will tell.
JML, we’ve had accountants, lawyers, teachers, engineers, and business owners serve on the council, council president, and as mayors. How has that worked? When I left the council in 2001 there was $51 million in the CFB. I think it was January of 2003 when Joe stepped down and the CFB was at $52 million. Note: The CFB would have been higher or lower bonding debt had MJF and her partners not interfered with the proposal from the investment group who wanted to build and pay for the construction of the baseball stadium themselves. I was puzzled as to why the city would do a 360 on such a deal. Dennis Murphy tried to sell me the argument that if we built it, we can collect rent and have control. What if the venture fails and they can’t pay the rent? I asked. They’ll do well. JML, can you share what you know regarding the stadium rent/lease? The real thievery and mismanagement of the city’s funds started with mayor Fabrizi and Council President Andres Ayala, by the time they were done and Finch took over, only $9 million was left in the CFB. I don’t know the real current figures, JML, but I’m positive we are in DEEEEEEP shit and your shovel is not going to be enough to hit the bottom of the pit.
The city fund balance CFB gets shown to the public once a year, six months after the close of City business for a fiscal year and after the external auditor does its work looking over operating budgets, capital budgets, grants budgets, etc.
I have no specific idea what the specific deal between City and Facility Manager is or was. It is one of many “deals,” agreements, contracts and/or Memorandums of Understanding that serve to hide what is going on, who is getting paid, what work they have to complete and by when, and whether any oversight exists.
The City Council needs representatives who will strengthen its role in oversight in each area where the Council is called upon for approvals. If there has been thievery Joel, report it to the US Attorney. They are the current “sheriff” although we have no way of knowing at the moment “how much breathing it takes to fog their mirror.” Public corruption is not the same as mismanagement, but enough mismanagement, including inadequate reporting and elimination of governance positions and structures, creates a healthy field for thievery.
The City Finance department does not show the CC data on Grants in a comprehensive, organized and regular manner for the City side of the operating budget. Why not? Much of the hoopla about the City getting better every day is done with funds from grants. Did you think it was magic? Everything has a cost or is an expense, and the taxpayer should have a right to the data. What do you think? Time will tell.
Excellent news!
Aside from the many congratulatory comments made already, I believe the bill’s unanimous passage speaks highly of the fantastic job Senator Moore did. She quickly learned the legislative process, applied the rules and advice she obtained from others and then quietly lined up support for its approval.
Not only does this speak well for the city’s future, I believe it speaks volumes for Senator Moore’s future also.
Maybe unanimous passage means everyone was too tired to object. Ultimately, she did what she was told by her handlers who confuse midnight voting with innovation. History is made at night but its impact is sometimes erased by the light of day.
Today’s ironic moment: rarely is a good word said about Bridgeport here but everyone wants to be its mayor.
Bob, I admit I’ve posted comments that were lies here on OIB. On several occasions I posted, “OIB, never biased, always fair.” Having made such a difficult admission, I apologized to any OIB reader who I may have deceived with my OIB lies. Have you or anyone else ever clicked the “submit” button after finishing your OIB post and received the “your comment is awaiting moderation” message? What does this mean? That depends on whom you ask of course. What it means is the owner of the blog–Lennie–can reject any post for any reason or motive. Click on OIB Site Use Policy above. There is no way for anyone (except for Lennie and his Moderator) to know for sure if there were more or any non-congratulatory comments rejected by OIB. OIB, never biased, always fair. OOOPS! Sorry for that lie.
Joel, I prefer “OIB: always biased, always fair.”
Ha. I never thought they’d buy the carve-out solution. During the public hearing in February, they said the reason for their reluctance was it would hurt small towns who needed all the limited human resources they had. I suggested a carve-out when they asked me for a suggestion on how to remedy this. Very gratifying! and proud I worked for Marilyn Moore. She is great!
Bob, you know “she is great.” You just don’t know her first despite having worked for her and having her name spelled correctly in prior posts. She is a fake.
Danny Roach is bigger than me, wow, life must be good for him. I like Danny, when I was on the DTC in the 130th district and he was the district leader, he was honest and a nice guy.
The charter passed by Bridgeport voters was written by a utopia-seeking, socialist-leaning Mayor at the height of Bridgeport’s industrial might. Today, its enforcement is a crutch used by dreamers and supporters alike.
Passage is not about transparency, accountability or moral high ground. It’s about spite and a delegation with little money to spend and an ax to grind.
Conversely, defeat is a victory for the time-honored tradition of conflict of interest, because politics without conflicts is like religion without sin.
Lennie, why hasn’t my ‘juicy’ post on Moore hasn’t been posted yet? The two comments posted after the missing one didn’t have to wait for moderation. Here we have a topic regarding legislation that will prohibit only Bridgeport City Employees such as myself from exercising their right to run for the office of their choice and vote for whomever they like regardless of whom he or she works for. Let’s see if this post goes into moderation automatically or it’s set off when certain key words are detected by your system.
*** Bpt voters need to remember to take notesand make those POLs who either don’t vote or vote against this bill, “accountable” election time! ***
Mojo, your post comes close to an important point. His conflict of interest bill is pointless. Let’s say I was on the city council and working for the city. The bill as it is currently passes. I have to decide between my job or my elected position. I decide resign my city job and keep the seat. A month latter the city hires my wife, my son and my mistress–shhhhhhhhh. That wouldn’t be a conflict of interest? At some point I’d have to vote on their pay. There is only one real and to some extent, fair solution–let the voters decide. This election cycle and the next one–Democratic Town Committee presents a double opportunity for the voters to decide. If the DTC of each district fails to reject obviously conflicted and rubber-stamping candidates, the voters may have another opportunity next year to set some people straight. You get who you elect. For the record, I did not vote for Marilyn Moore. In fact, I’d like my $35 contribution back. Mojo, call me at (203)360-6094. If Lennie doesn’t post my comment aimed at your senators, this will be my final OIB post.
Who was the first Mayor who decided to look for a loophole in the State Statute so City Employees could run for Council? Anyone?
Wicca, show us the section of the city charter stating City Employees cannot serve on the council. A loophole is what cousins Ed Gomes and Marilyn Moore fabricated to keep their pet project alive.
I posted here looking for information. Someone answered. I don’t have the charter. I don’t know why you would ask me to show you the charter. Ask John Lee, he likely has a copy of the Charter.
Maybe I should have asked: “Under which Mayor was the first effort to look for a loophole that would allow City employees to run for City Council launched?” Is that better?
I am also completely aware the City Attorney would be the one to locate the loophole. Ultimately the Mayor says yea or nay, right?
By the way Wicca, who said it was a mayor who did it? Try City Attorney.
My guess, Joe Ganim or Sam Tedesco.
Are we playing guessing games? That’s my favorite! Who was the first person convicted for selling cocaine to a Bridgeport mayor?
Lennie, while I hope this bill passes I think it would be counterproductive if a grandfather clause were included. However if that happens, do you know if the present conflicted council people can serve for as long as they wish? No one I ask seems to know the answer.
Lisa, at this point no one knows the answer because several options are being considered in the House version of the bill. If it passes the House–big if–it may have to go back to the Senate so it’s not a done deal. The Senate provision, if passed, would start July 1 so under that scenario those current council members impacted could not run. But I do not see that happening because of some opposition in the House. There’s been discussion about a grandfather provision as well as narrowing the scope of the bill to at-will employees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor. Under that scenario members of collective bargaining units could serve but discretionary appointees could not. That consideration would satisfy organized labor leadership opposed to the bill.
Thanks, Lennie!
Lennie, thanks for reminding me collective bargaining rights are an excuse for those who lack individual bargaining abilities.
Thank you, Senator Moore. The fact it passed unanimously in the Senate demonstrates the merit of this good government and home rule bill. It needs to get a vote in the House. The only way it won’t pass is if the House does not vote on it. Let’s do all we can to help ensure it does. I will continue to do what I can and hopefully many will join the cause. Mayor Finch has failed to lead on this issue and he will pay a price if it does not pass.
The law is supposed to be a bulwark of common sense. Anyone can see it is simple common sense people should not be paid to argue with their employer. That is the role of the council, to argue with the city on behalf of the people, not to be paid by the city what naturally becomes hush money … yessah.
There is no way existing Council Members should be grandfathered. That would be a cop-out and totally contrary to good government and home rule. If a compromise is necessary, it should involve delaying the effective date until elections and appointments that occur on or after January 1, 2016. NO GRANDFATHERING!!!!!!!!!