The bizarre ending to the General Assembly left some legislative casualties such as the Bridgeport government reform bill, Governor Dan Malloy’s Second Chance initiative and body cameras required for municipal police officers. Looks like the legislature is headed for a special session to address the latter two issues. The reform bill must wait until next year, if it comes up at all, victim of organized labor leadership opposed to the bill.
Efforts to enforce the Bridgeport City Charter prohibiting city employees from serving on the City Council to avoid conflicts of interest looked like it had life when it passed the State Senate at the urging of Bridgeport State Senators Marilyn Moore and Ed Gomes. The State House is a different animal, especially when the House Majority Leader Joe Aresimowicz–AKA A to Z–is the Education Coordinator for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 4. Unions that provide financial and organizational support to Democratic candidates have juice with Democratic leadership. They opposed the reform bill.
It would be illegal for Aresimowicz to serve at the pleasure of the governor in his elected capacity, but he apparently sees no conflict in the likewise situation with the head of the legislative branch in Bridgeport serving at the pleasure of the mayor in violation of the City Charter. But so it goes in the unique world of politics where pols rationalize just about anything to suit their union marching orders.
State law prohibits municipal employees from serving on boards of finance. The Bridgeport City Council, however, serves a dual role as legislative and budget authority just the like Connecticut General Assembly.
Decades ago Bridgeport had something called a Board of Apportionment and Taxation that approved the budget. City voters decided nearly 30 years ago to dissolve the Board of Apportionment and Taxation to transfer budget authority to the City Council.
Bridgeport had a bunch of city employees serving on the City Council in violation of the City Charter. City Attorney Mark Anastasi, to protect some political sacred cows, crafted a legal opinion–some argue dubiously–that a loophole in state law allows them to serve. The legislation that was rejected by the union leadership simply sought to bring in line all municipal bodies that have budget authority. Moore offered a carve out to her peers in the Senate to make the legislation specific to Bridgeport, and no other municipality. It satisfied Senate members opposed to the bill and passed unanimously. It did not satisfy union activists in the State House, a body that is four times larger.
Union leadership torpedoed the legislation in part because they want a cozy relationship with City Council President Tom McCarthy, deputy director of Labor Relations, who negotiates city labor contracts as a city employee. McCarthy argues that even though he works at the pleasure of the mayor it provide no conflict in his supposed role to provide a check, as legislative leader, on the executive branch. McCarthy became a city employee and then was elected to the City Council during the Joe Ganim mayoral years. He was elected City Council President by his council peers shortly after Bill Finch was elected mayor in 2007.
Trying to salvage the bill Bridgeport State Rep. Jack Hennessy, an architect of the reform legislation, amended the language to grandfather in the three city employees on the council as well limiting the scope of city employees to those who serve at the pleasure of the mayor. Opponents to the amendment argue that the conflicts cut both ways. It’s just not a question of a chief executive holding economic power over city employee councilors, but also works in reverse where councilors will stick up the mayor for raises–whether for themselves or for a bargaining unit–in exchange for a crucial vote.
In the end unions were not satisfied with the amendment asserting if they give an inch no telling where it would lead. The bill did not come up for a vote in the House.
There has been some talk, including from former United States Comptroller General David Walker, a city resident, that legal action should be commenced to enforce the City Charter if the legislature failed to act.
The unions are nothing but bloodsuckers. The leaders of the unions get paid big bucks and their members get the crumbs. It’s terrible they were able to castrate the entire legislative body. As far as I am concerned, Hennessy can shove this watered-down version where the sun don’t shine.
ANDY, they can say what they want, they had the perfect opportunity to leverage a vote, if not support for the legislation through the Governor’s office (they voted for the budget anyway). To use the unions as an excuse doesn’t make sense for two reasons. First, who’s more UNION loyal than Senator Gomes and second THE UNIONS DON’T HAVE A VOTE. Those of you who believe this was Bridgeport’s or your district’s biggest legislation (aside from the budget) loss, your chance during the election for State Rep 138, there were two of us who would seen this legislation made it to the floor of the house. I would have guaranteed passage. I would have given my word.
I CAN.
Membership in unions is a right in many workplaces and is a respected right because of the treatment of workers by business owners in the days before unions. To the extent unions and management can respectfully meet, consider relative positions, and negotiate packages that can be considered as WIN-WIN or alternatively LOSE-LOSE (for those who wish their glass to be full all the time) by viewers, things work.
However, one place of significant growth but poor functioning for the “owners” (the taxpayers), consider governmental unions. There are no “owner managers” with significant skin in the game. So there is little or no pushback in too many cases.
And discussion on OIB often comes to accusations about union busting. With grandfather, uncles, mother and wife with union representation, I can never be against unions as I can never be 100% pro business owners. However, that leaves a lot of room for the way government employment has fertilized union strength and when you have power, what good is it if you don’t use it?
The power shown by the union forces in Hartford State sessions this year belie the past stories on why the bill failed. It had definite Senate support. It had support of the delegation. It did not have the Mayor’s support. If the unions cannot respect a level playing field for Bridgeport taxpayers and voters, clearing away political corruption (Airport?) and fiscal secrecy (revaluation shredding?), with genuine checks and balance operating, then perhaps it is appropriate to look to the courts. Isn’t this especially true because the elephants in Hartford could not even find a way to approve grandfathering or a limitation of the language to Bridgeport?
The status quo is not serving Bridgeport’s public very well and that costs the State of CT taxpayers as well. Hug a union member today, but before you release them tell them how this hurts plain folks in Bridgeport, why don’t you? It’s time for some non-violent persistence. Time will tell.
With Rep Hennessy’s relative seniority, his utter commitment to this bill, and his apparent compliance with House leadership’s wishes to support the controversial budget bill, it’s ugly and unbelievable after this bill had sailed unanimously through the Senate–thanks to Senators Moore and Gomes–it had to be weakened by Hennessy and then didn’t even get to a vote in the lower chamber.
Shame on the Bridgeport state reps for being completely ineffective in using their collective leverage to gain passage of HB 5886. And if any of you state reps tries to distance yourself from this failure as “we just ran out of time,” you’re fooling no one. Shame on you.
Which rep’s Pete Spain–specifically?
GREAT JOB DEMS
GE looks at leaving Connecticut in response to higher taxes
Updated 1:46 pm, Thursday, June 4, 2015
FAIRFIELD, Conn. (AP) — The chief executive officer of General Electric Co. has told employees the company has begun looking at the possibility of relocating its Fairfield headquarters in response to the Connecticut legislature’s adoption of a two-year budget that again raises business taxes.
CEO Jeffrey Immelt said in an email obtained by The Associated Press that he has assembled an “exploratory team” to review the company’s options to relocate to another state with a “more pro-business environment.”
He cited “significant and retroactive tax increases for businesses” passed Wednesday night despite lobbying by GE.
Immelt says the conglomerate that manufactures appliances, aircraft engines, wind turbines and other large industrial products buys $14 billion in goods and services from Connecticut companies.
The state budget debate included unusual public lobbying by several companies.
The following five state reps who had a chance to lead on this extremely important issue for our city, but did not, evidently because they found it impossible to overcome the challenges to get this bill to a vote in the House:
Andre Baker Jr.
House District 124
Charlie Stallworth
House District 126
Jack Hennessy
House District 127
Steven Stafstrom
House District 129
Ezequiel Santiago
House District 130
There’s one rep I left out because he’s consistently been against HB 5886, Mayor Finch’s friend and city employee, Chris Rosario.
Representatives Hennessy and Stafstrom should not be on this list. They were very proactive and lobbying other legislators for their votes. The deadwood was Baker, Stallworth and Santiago.
That is why you have to build relationships and have bipartisan support on your most important issues.
Did our delegation get any meaningful legislation passed this session or did they do their usual job of walking around the capitol looking like they have terminal dumb ass?
Now didn’t Stafstrom look you in the eye and say he would support this?
Yes.
This Bill was killed by House Leaders. The last time it came up it was also killed by House Leaders. They are in the pockets of the unions and can decide whether to call it for a vote. They killed the Anti Conflict Bill.
Hennessy did what he had to do to give the Bill any chance for consideration. It can and would have been tweaked down the road. All or nothing mentality creates filibusters, as was depicted by the fiasco that permeated the Senate and House last night.
If our delegation would have tried to get it passed in the form it was originally written, it would have been dead even sooner. My thanks go to Moore, Hennessy, Gomes and Stafstrom for doing everything in their power to get this piece of legislation through the House. Not one of our other delegates did any work even if they were in agreement with it. Baker, Santiago and Stallworth all played deaf and dumb.
Wicca, please share your sources on who did what up in Hartford.
It’s not all or nothing to put your foot down for something so important to your city. It’s called leadership.
So you are suggesting our delegation should have stomped their collective foot? That action equals even less cooperation.
These are human beings in the House and Senate who experience all kinds of human emotions that manifest because of being dictated to by another colleague. Everything must be bartered for, or couched in a convincing but non-condescending way up there.
Rest assured, the information I received is first hand, Mr. Spain.
“These are human beings in the House and Senate who experience all kinds of human emotions that manifest because of being dictated to by another colleague. Everything must be bartered for, or couched in a convincing but non condescending way up there.”
First and foremost, they are our representatives, no?
And this legislation is widely supported by Bridgeporters and by those who already voted on and approved the charter, which is not being upheld, right?
Even aside from your Dr. Phil-type insights, I’m not sure they were “convincing” to leadership. Right? Not as convincing as unelected union lobbyists, evidently.
Also please, I’m not sure what you’re talking about though where you write:
“thanks go to Moore, Hennessy, Gomes and Stafstrom for doing everything in their power to get this piece of legislation through the House.”
Yes, some tried, but the state rep(s) DID NOT get the legislation through the House. When he does or they do, I will thank him or them.
I spoke with two state representatives this weekend re HB 5886–one by phone.
I think we need to value our position in the state more and represent our key interests more seriously, even if it means standing up to leadership who may have assisted a current state rep or two in recent elections in Bridgeport. Even if it means standing up for our constituents ahead of the powers-that-be, whether those powers are clients or friends.
But it’s hard for some to do that who have other interests that may erode their ability to stand up against the leadership at times.
Suit yourself, Mr. Spain. I feel differently.
No Wicca, not “suit yourself,” how about a new framework … suit our city?
Mr. Spain, I wish this had a like button. I learned early the legislature is about building relationships. I believe for a bill that is Bridgeport specific and with bipartisan support, there’s no way this legislation wouldn’t have made it to the floor. It really shows how weak a delegation we have.
Pete, I was the only Bridgeport resident who was not an elected official or lobbyist who was at the Capitol for 15-1/2 hours on Monday and 10-1/2 hours on Tuesday. I sat in the gallery watching our representatives for hours, I spoke with both lobbyists and legislators. I repeatedly heard the same thing. The Bridgeport delegation, especially our state reps, are weak and ineffective.
Malloy and his henchmen could not bring the budget to the house floor for over 50 hours because they could not get the required votes. If even just two members of our delegation said we won’t vote for this budget unless the Conflict of Interest Bill is brought to the floor for a vote, Dr. Perry’s Charter School is defunded, and the BPS is given a permanent increase of $5 million in its ECS allocation; what do you think would have happened?
If Moore and Gomes had voted against this budget it would have failed in the senate. It passed 19 to 17.
Our delegation is weak and has absolutely no backbone.
if the HOUSE LEADERSHIP is in the Union’s pocket, who is in the pockets of Leadership? In this equation it would be those you mentioned.
No whining, we’ll vote the same people in again in two years anyway!
Quentin, why not get to working with non-Dems to build a legitimate alternative in this city?
I learned as a 16-year-old visiting relatives in Ireland, to keep your bull fit in pasture you must keep a bullocks (a castrated young bull) in the same fields. That way, the bull believes there’s competition and runs around to protect his herd from the competitor. Good for the flow and health of things. Long time overdue for your GOPers in this city to provide a bullocks for natural competition. Right now, you guys are not even a graffiti bullocks on the side of a barn.
Lennie, thank you for consistently well summarized and timely reporting on this issue.
There is no doubt as to what is preventing this legislation, Democrat party leaders in the legislature and the government employee unions that control them.
In past postings, Lennie has also detailed the relationship (some would say direct involvement) of McCarthy in the process of killing this good-government initiative.
Who elected the public sector union leaders to run our state? This is shameful. At a minimum, our legislative delegation could have leveraged their budget vote. Now they have voted for an irresponsible budget that includes the second-largest tax increase in history and violates the state Constitution’s spending cap. And they did not get anything meaningful for doing so. That will be a problem for all of them in 2016, especially if this legislation does not become law before then. We may ultimately have to challenge the City Attorney’s related legal opinion in Court. He is not the final legal authority and he has his own conflict problem that needs to be addressed.