Before City Attorney Mark Anastasi turns over documents to Connecticut Post scribe Brian Lockhart regarding how City Council members spend their $9,000 annual stipends, the city’s chief lawyer is asking members of the legislative body to review their spending habits just so it can all be explained. How convenient. Lockart issued a freedom of information request for documents. As Lockhart writes, “City Attorney Mark Anastasi has kindly offered members the opportunity to double-check the records before we at Hearst get our curious hands on them. Anastasi letter:
Kindly be advised that Mr. Brian Lockhart of The Connecticut Post has submitted an FOIA request to the City’s Finance Dept. requesting to review all City records related to stipend payments made during the calendar year 2013 to each Bridgeport City Council member.
The City’s Finance Dept. has researched its files and prepared responsive records for the period from December 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013 for all twenty (20) Council members and intends to make such records available to Mr. Lockhart as requested for review, and to purchase copies of such documents as he selects at $.50 per page.
The City Attorney’s Office is unaware of any exemptions to disclosure under the CT FOIA and does not oppose the release of this data. This office will be notifying Mr. Lockhart that he can schedule a review of the records for on or after Wednesday May 28th.
We would like to afford individual Council members the opportunity to review the responsive documents pertaining to their individual stipend usage to ensure its accuracy and completeness prior to its public release. Kindly contact Paralegal Margo Litz to advise her that you desire to review your individual stipend records, or to notify her that you are waiving your opportunity to do so. Margo will e-mail you your data upon request, or if you prefer you can schedule an appointment to come to our office. Please do so ASAP, in view of the May 28th scheduled release date.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
What’s so earth-shattering about this? JML published the list of council people and the dollar amount more than a week ago. JML has all the documentation the CT Post will get. The Post could have had this information long ago but they don’t want information from the public. This is old information and the council has kept quiet when they were called out on this at a public-speaking session of the council meeting. The CT Post reporters could not find a boob in a bra even if they tried.
The CT Post has cast an eye at City Council Stipends every few years. That is helpful to the public. Andy Fardy and I have encouraged them to be more proactive but they have such a large coverage area and so few people to do the work. (Curiously this is the reverse of the Mayor’s line about Bridgeport area being so small and so many residents requiring services.)
The biggest issue at the moment, disclosed in full detail last Monday at the City Council meeting is the Stipend system currently set up by the City fails to relate to the nature of the Ordinance, which calls it a REIMBURSEMENT system. Pre-loaded debit cards are not reimbursements. They are on-the-spot payments.
The previous system required the completion of paperwork that showed the Council person purpose of the expenditure in line with their duties. The debit card system does not require that.
The previous system, with legal opinion sought and provided, indicated certain funds were not taxable to Council persons and others were. They were called accountable, so the Council person could file the expense and reimbursement with their tax return and these would wash.
It appears according to the heading on the debit card monthly reports, there is no such thing as an “accountable” or “taxable” stipend amount. Why not? Can it be true entire Cablevision, Walgreen, Dunkin Donuts or Stop&Shop expenses paid but not explained pertain to duties? Or is this an example of converting taxpayer funds into tax-free income?
I asked the Council last Monday whether anyone cares. No responses to that question have made their way back to me.
Of course, the above comments relate to half the appropriated Stipend budget, because only $89,000 or so is being spent the past two years. That would leave an opportunity to cut the overall budget account by 25%-40% but that has not happened. It is Council’s GIFT to the administration to let them spend where they will. And overruns of public safety overtime have been considerable in the same time periods. The “extra” funds have given the administration more time before they have to MAN UP and manage expenditures.
Finally, the use of Legislative budget money by Council persons last year to the tune of $30,000 is not a Stipend issue. Totally separate. To the extent any of the 15 Council persons took advantage of an opportunity to make a $2,000 gift after signing up for a debit card, reading the five pages of instructions and agreeing to the prohibition on using funds for POLITICAL or CHARITABLE purposes, we are looking at illegal behavior by those elected representatives. They certainly knew there would be no OTHER SERVICES performed, and they also knew they could not use the formerly flexible and secret Stipend system. What were they thinking? Time will tell.
John, the people on the council knew what they were doing. That’s why these bills were submitted in June when the budget year was nearing its end (July). Who was going to check these expenditures?
Where was McCarthy when expenses were showing up for Walgreens, Stop&Shop and Cablevision? Maybe McCarthy was busy making everyone happy because he nearly lost the last election for president of the council. His opposition had the votes to win the presidency but dropped out after his wife was given a secretary’s job with the city.
So who’s wife was given a secretary’s job with the City?
Ask your council person who had the votes to beat McCarthy and you will have your answer.
Can someone clarify for me why there would be an opportunity for a review for accuracy on a debit card system? It would seem to me in this case the debit cards wold maintain very accurate and traceable transactions.
Would we know if our council people dispute a transaction? Would those in dispute not be passed on until resolved? (Used to stall the release of the info.)
Also, one thing I am not certain of, is this the same system used to pay for all travel expenses (conferences, business travel, dining expenses) or is that a different process? How is that system monitored? Are people watching to see if spouses and family members’ travel expenses are being paid for by the council members? It must be nice to have a family vacation or dinner out on the taxpayers.
Sorry if this had been covered before but I am confused between the system the council has used for donations to the charities, to pay personal bills and those travel expenses (and any other expenses that might seem questionable). If someone could clarify for me I would appreciate it.
I will try. The debit card is probably looked at by Tom Sherwood and maybe Tom McCarthy. McCarthy and Brannelly engineered the firing of Tom White, the legislative liaison who used to monitor debit expenses and the like. Brannelly and McCarthy did not like the close scrutiny thus Tom White had to go.
The other monies for shopping and bills and cablevision came from the legislative budget. Why they have any type of budget is beyond me, their personal expenses are covered by their stipends.
Remember, this is the first year we could get any information on this type of spending. My guess is family member bills for meals and drinks are hidden in these debit expenses.
Here is one more, happy hour bills and lunches at a local restaurant are added to meals that are catered at city hall events. Paperwork for this is not available but the food bill is high.
Prior to the Finch/McCarthy administration, all stipend documents were kept in an open file tub so anyone who wished to review the documents could do so. The CT Post writers would periodically review the file in search of a story.
Now, the CT Post submits written requests to see documents. As Andy Fardy said, these will likely be the same documents JML procured. The City is not obliged to provide an explanation of the documents. Will the CT Post do something called ‘investigative reporting’ or simply get statements from McCarthy, Sherwood and others?
Will the CT Post be provided the same documents JML was provided?
Will the CT Post request to see the stipend guidelines that are followed and are those guidelines those supported by IRS guidelines cited by a tax attorney in 2003? Or are these documents from a new, unauthorized set of guidelines by an unidentified author with no citing of IRS guidelines?
Has the CT Post requested copies of 1099s issued to city council members for payments made to them for stipend reimbursement?
Will the CT Post insist on explanations from individual council members who used their stipends (via debit cards) to make purchases at a supermarket and pay for their cable service?
Will the CT Post request documents related to payments of city funds from the ‘other services’ line in the Legislative Services Department budget on behalf of council members?
Was my termination (under the guise of an economic layoff) retaliation for my expressing concern with conflict of interest and misuse of the stipend system and other city funds? The CT Post need not be concerned with this. A judge and jury will work on it.
“… A judge and jury will work on it …”
So are you saying you will not accept a settlement? Doing so will require you to abstain from discussing the matter publicly and keep the settlement details confidential. You will have to agree the city did nothing wrong.
Like everything else with this admin, things have to be “sorted out and hidden” before any information is released to the public. I still want to know where the Feds are to help us. Finch and his cronies are running rampant now, we need help and we need it NOW.
The miscreants now have a long holiday weekend to “find” any missing receipts or records they might need to make the books balance.
We have the receipts so they can’t use that excuse. They need an excuse as to why they spent our money even though they all knew it was illegal. There were five council people who did not participate. Holloway, Baker, DePara, Silva and I believe the fifth person was Holloway’s running mate.
Andy, I think you are referring to the payout of about $30,000 in June 2013 from the Other Services line item of the Legislative Department (City Council) budget. There were five people I found no requested payout to a charity for: Holloway, Austin, DePara, Silva, and Manuel Ayala. Whether they were aware of the offer, absent from such a meeting, or heard it and knew it was the wrong way to go with taxpayer funds, we don’t know at this time. Perhaps … time will tell.
JML and Andy, next time you guys go to speak to the City Council, tell them they don’t have to spend their stipend money on food. Let them know they can work for the Andres Ayala camp where they can feast all they want. Here are the numbers for just food from Andres Ayala 2012:
Coquito 6/11/2012 $64.25 Jerry's Pizza 8/11/2012 $560.00 " " $100.00 " " $940.00 John Stafstrom (food Reim.) 8/15 $175.82 Pilar Gonzalez (food Reim.) 8/15 $537.98 Catering by Greystone 8/15 $240.35 Red Rooster Deli 8/15 $1017.60 Red Rooster Deli 11/01 $2226.00 Dunkin Donuts 11/05 $719.99 Murphy's Law 11/07 $2624.00 Catering by Greystone 12/16 $229.72Follow the Food!
Duck and Cover will be on the menu!
For decades the city has desperately searched for economic development activities to restore economic health to Bridgeport. Someday, City Attorney Mark Anastasi will be remembered as the catalyst to the flowering of the literary arts in the community. Under his direction the 20 city council members will flower as the most creative colony of New England writers since Hawthorne, Longfellow, Thoreau and the rest.
I, like the rest, look forward to the creative descriptions these literary giants will apply to their expense accounts.
Imagine the Melville-like account of a councilman approaching his Bridgeport expense account from the deck of the SS Finch proclaiming to the world with harpoon in his hand: “Behold! The White Whale!”
I can only hope the exposition of their stipend spending will cause the offending council members to hear the words of P. T. Barnum: “This way to the egress.”
Another New England writer who comes to mind as appropriate to the elected and appointed lawbreakers is Stephen King. Operating in a dimension often removed from that which we inhabit, his characters and those who provoke are most interesting in their nature and resources.
Perhaps King will deign to write a “fictional” version of what passes for representative government locally. Perhaps one or more of you can suggest a title along the lines of “Creeping Parks and the Green Death.”
Capt Dave questions accuracy on the debit system. The major defects of the debit system as I review it at the moment (though the City Council has failed to update the existing Ordinance to reflect new City practices, a most significant defect itself):
** While date, vendor payee, dollar amount are provided, there is no room on the debit report for the purpose of the expenditure as it relates to Council work.
** The report carries a tax ID number (06–730246K) that relates to listed expenses though, as above, the business purpose is not stated, and the categories already reviewed cast doubt as to business purpose.
** There is room on the report for “Receipts Received” (Other) that might relate to travel to Conferences, but in one case observed it seems the card was used in Philadelphia, Washington DC and Miami with no hotel, airline, or registration charges listed in “Receipts Received.”
** One annual report shows a Carryover (shortage) of $152.76 from a prior annual period. How can you have an overpayment to a Council person in a reimbursement system if someone is monitoring the system honestly?
** The same report includes a form dated January 11, 2013 titled CHARGES TO COUNCIL STIPENDS sent by Mike Boyer, Legislative Liaison to Anne Kelly-Lenz, Finance Director. The sum of $1020 is indicated for the CCM dinner at the NLC Congress of Cities Conference in Boston MA on 11-30-12. Of specific note is four of the Council persons present had a guest including Brannelly, Taylor-Moye, Paoletto and Silva each charged an extra $60 to their Stipend account, contrary to rules put out by City finance to guide the program.
Guest meals provided by Council persons on a junket for which they provide no reports of valuable lessons learned to apply in Bridgeport and paid for by TAX EXEMPT Stipends contrary to their own rules … Only In Bridgeport? Time will tell.
From all I have read, Taylor-Moye seems to think she is entitled to spend city funds as she pleases and the laws be damned.
From the documents I have see, both Taylor-Moye and Banta have some serious explaining to do regarding their city debit card spending statements–Cablevision every month in varying amounts, Stop&Shop every week, Walgreens are a few I can recall.
Taylor-Moye believes she earned her food by working to pass the Seaside Landfill Solar Project. Keep an eye on her account and don’t be surprised if one day you find a payment for a solar barbecue grill.
Every best-selling book needs a good title. Perhaps OIB can help the City Council come up with one for their fictionpalooza (edited by Mark Anastasi).
People in Bridgeport have been talking about Ganim and Newton for years. Now maybe these two guys will get a rest and people will concentrate on members of the council who are illegally spending our money like drunken sailors. What’s the difference between a free suit and free Cablevision? I know, one you watch and one you go to jail for. Do we need to do all the work for the Feds?
*** If used correctly, the council person stipend can be very helpful in keeping in touch with your district residents, business and local state politicians, as well as staying in touch with other cities and towns that had the same concerns and positive turnarounds that could help the city of Bpt as well. Used right with public transparency and good intentions towards doing a better city public servant’s job, the council stipend can be a blessing! It costs money for gas to get to meetings, training, mailings, phone calls, trips, stipend taxes, independent legal advice, etc. *** Besides there’s far more city budget fat to be found than the city council stipends line item! *** TRANSPARENCY IS THE BEST WAY! ***