11 comments

  1. Independent, my ass. Sue Brannelly carries all the water for the Finch administration. She has too many relatives working for the city.
    Sue, how independent were you while you were on the B & A committee? You agreed this year NOT to review the mayors office budget request. You agreed to pass two budgets with a total of 85 ghost positions thus giving the administration over $10 million to spend wherever they liked. You were against not keeping city employees on the council just like Finch.
    Sue, let’s be honest. If Finch ever took a sharp right-hand turn while walking you would have a broken neck.
    Stafstrom will do what uncle John tells him to do.

    0
  2. Really? They are taking credit for what? The massage parlors were closed BEFORE Stafstrom got there. And the word on the street is Brannelly only showed up for photo ops.

    Everyone knows the Mayor overshot his tax increase proposal for political reasons.

    Black Rock School? Wasn’t that more of a Black Rock Mothers thing?

    I guess they put this piece together running on what they had to run on. Too bad they had very little to do with any of it.

    0
  3. *** How can these people sleep at night knowing they’re not part of the solutions anymore but have become part of the problems? Just how many voters are calling them and saying “good work” council members, we’ve been following some of your political work and ideas for Black Rock and the city overall and like the job you guys have been doing! (not) *** CHANGE ***

    0
  4. Sue and Steve,
    If you look at the statistical record of the past 2, 4 or 6 years in the few ways we can with public info provided regularly and commented upon by those we elect, there is no record. Six years ago the Mayor told us about how small an area Bridgeport is. That has not changed. But the amount of property owned by the City and/or not producing tax revenues is larger. That is not positive. Real economic development would be changing that more rapidly. (By the way, building new schools may represent economic development opportunity for general contractors, but when $500-600 Million of it is moving through the process, it is financially adding to City debt and taxpayer responsibility.)

    Why is not one Council candidate commenting on the public-safety union contracts signed within the past two years with the big opportunity for overtime credit towards pensions, and a big opportunity for the taxpayers to fall behind pension liabilities? No comments. Why not? Most of the police and fire officers live out of town and are not voters, but taxpayers are resident owners for the most part. Where is our good news when we are in our working years? When we go to retire and taxes continue to rise?

    Andy has asked good questions above so it is not necessary to repeat them. However, why no comments on stipends? Who gets them? What is such money spent upon? Why is this not public knowledge? And non-taxable stipend funds for travel to Boston, Washington and other US cities and attendance at meetings … what knowledge did 12 of 20 members learn? Why is it not written up and posted on the City Council section of the web site? Does it take feeding, transporting and providing hotel rooms for 60% of our Council members one or more times per year and for the public to hear nothing to believe we are being disadvantaged by these same folks? Is that integrity or does it seem smart for taxpayers to put up with that?
    Finally, if the only reason “public hearings” where the public speaks and the Council members sit mute in front of them is because those members are afraid to say what they know about the subject (and reveal what they do not know as they go about their “duties,” however, they define them), it is time for wholesale change. What “best governance practices” have become part of City Council activity in the past 2, 4, or 6 years? Can’t wait to hear your answers. Time will tell.

    0
  5. Turnover on the city council should result in a more accountable legislative body. The addition of Phil Blagys and Rick Torres will provide credibility that has been missing.
    The claims of Brannelly and Stafstrom are misleading. No significant cuts were made to the Mayor’s proposed budget. They simply added more to what was required in concessions from city employee unions. When Bridgeport was under State oversight, such measures were not allowed.

    0
  6. What a waste of “qualifications.” And that is the only one of the three items they hype. If they were a major league batter 1 for 3 is Hall of Fame quality. But they aren’t playing a game. This is serious and 1 for 3 stinks.
    Enuf with the nepotism and cronyism in Bridgeport.

    0
  7. I received a piece in the mail from Brannelly/Stafstrom. “Susan and Steve led the charge to get stalled neighborhood school construction projects back on track.”

    Don’t you think they are being less than candid, considering the fact they (Brannelly in particular) voted time and time again to flat-fund our schools? The flat funding is part of the reason the school construction projects were frozen on their tracks.

    “We aren’t just building schools, we’re building futures.”
    That future is a dark one when considering the flat-funding of our schools. When are Brannelly and Stafstrom going to send the $3 million of the (MBR) Minimum Budget Requirement to the BOE? I guess they will be sending the money sometime in this “future” they are building.

    0
  8. I could not believe the materials I have received from Sue and Steve’s campaign. It is full of false credit claims. They say they are independent?! Absurd. I noted they didn’t accept any responsibility for higher taxes, poor services and multiple contracting and other embarrassments. It’s time for real change. Vote for Rick and Phil.

    0

Leave a Reply