It’s probably been 12 years since Joe Ganim sat through a 90-minute, city-government-related hearing of any sort. Monday night the former mayor was there suited and seated as a spectator in the Bridgeport Public Library Downtown watching and listening to a steady stream of voices share opinions about a state government reform bill to enforce the City Charter prohibiting city employees from serving on the City Council. Although not mentioning Ganim by name, some of those voices raised the ghost of the city’s past that forced a popular mayor from power to prison. Ganim sat through it like a training session undeterred by the voices. Perhaps it’s good training for what’s to come. His next effort will require a thick skin.
As politicians go, Ganim has a thick hide. He has a way of stepping outside himself when criticism comes his way. He knows how to sidestep and counterpunch. He’ll need to do that a lot as he prepares for what appears to be a run for his old job. The political operation of Mayor Bill Finch, with a boatload of cash to unload, will remind voters of Ganim’s baggage at the appropriate time.
How Ganim rolls with the thunder this summer will be key in his effort to do something no other former occupant of the office has done before: voter redemption.
Ganim has been working the Democratic political system with some results. By most insider accounts he has at least one-third support of the 90-member Democratic Town Committee across 10 districts with the party endorsement session on the horizon in July. Some of Ganim’s quiet supporters maintain ambitiously he has the backing of 40 town committee members. The party endorsement requires 46 votes. The last six are likely the hardest to secure. Although they’re not ready to announce public support until Ganim officially announces, 5 of 10 District leaders say they’re poised to support Ganim.
How could Ganim have this much support against a seven-year incumbent? A combination of nostalgia, personal history with pols and pols who’ve had a falling-out with Mayor Bill Finch. Ironically when Joe was mayor he was not popular with the pols, he was popular with the people. He didn’t always give pols what they wanted. Ganim needed the pols more when he got in trouble losing public support.
Finch, more than seven years years into the job, has challenges with pols. It’s hard to meet the demands of the political structure. Not as many jobs to go around.
The mayor’s political operation will do what it must to maintain the endorsement for Finch, but there’s an independent streak in Finch screaming inside to tell the political apparatus to stick it: go endorse Joe Ganim, see you in the general election where I’ll have $500,000 to spend to reach a broader electorate unchained by the political apparatus. It’s a tempting, but unlikely scenario.
Finch has already raised more than $300,000, with another fundraiser scheduled Thursday night. He has power of incumbency to make things happen with development projects to tout.
Ganim has no money in the bank but commitments once he announces. And it appears he will announce perhaps in April as he tightens up political support and money commitments. Ganim will not have as much as Finch. The question is, can he raise enough to be competitive?
Meanwhile, Finch’s 2011 Democratic primary opponent Mary-Jane Foster has a decision to make: in or out. Her window to be a viable alternative is closing. Ganim has poached some of her former supporters. Her supporters want to hear from her, and very soon.
Five of 10 district leaders?
Yes, that could be anything from 5 to 45 votes. If only the district leaders vote for Joe Ganim that’s 5 votes. In order for Joe to reach 45, each district leader must deliver all 9 votes. I can’t see that happening unless someone can assure me none of the TC members and 5 district leaders don’t work for the city or have family members working for the city. I haven’t seen or heard of any TC member or district leaders working for the city with the cojones of Joel Gonzalez. Let me talk to some of them and I assure you they’ll grow a set. I get the sense Lennie is lying, exaggerating, being misled or mistaken on the number. Now if Lennie said the 45 votes are spread around 10 districts, that’s more believable.
Lennie, I understand the power of incumbency. There is also the power of name recognition which Joe Ganim has without having to spend a penny. In many ways, Joe Ganim has power of former incumbency combined with the power of nostalgia. One important advantage Joe Ganim has over MJF and BF is the Judge Paul Ganim factor. How could you, being a smart man, have left these out? Give us your take.
It seems to me Ganim missed a real opportunity to speak on HB 5886 at the library on Monday night.
If as mayor Ganim either directed or permitted City attorney Anastasi to find a way to defy the charter through a state loophole that HB 5886 would close, then Ganim might do well to explain this plainly and perhaps with contrition, then clearly state where he stands now, and share with the public how his stance has evolved beyond political opportunism.
And yet it seems Ganim didn’t miss the chance to talk to the CT Post about it on Monday night:
www .ctpost.com/printpromotion/article/Ganim-backs-conflict-of-interest-bill-6126723.php
Individuals who been convicted of public corruption should be banned from serving in any public office. It doesn’t matter who the person is or how much name recognition they have. Electing such a person would make the national news and would bring more embarrassment to Bridgeport and the State of Connecticut. At the same time, unfortunately, Mayor Finch has not demonstrated the commitment and leadership ability to honor the City Charter and grow the tax base faster than the budget. We need a Mayor who has integrity and will address these key issues. Otherwise, Bridgeport could end up being green and bankrupt.
David, what about murderers and rapists, should they be allowed to serve in public office?
Lennie,
If we are to hate the sin but love the sinner, or if we are to believe a crime of passion is different from that dispassionately made against the broad body politic, or some such other splitting of hair, perhaps we let them in public office.
To support a person who has disgraced public office previously with financial offenses against those he represents takes a genuine leap of faith in the cold light of dawn. Humble and regular acknowledgement of the past failures plus strict safeguards constructed and controlled independently so that going forward the public is only too aware of all fiscal matters would be two basic requirements in my book.
I respect those who say public office, once abused, should be out of bounds. However, I am old enough to have watched more than a few “life crashes” where others were not considered at all, and subsequent course corrections with radical self-knowledge and a growing care about others that might sway me.
The point is Bridgeport is very unprotected from rogues and those who are selfish today anyway. They are about secrets, close control of decision making, and love to work with those who have no sense of the responsibility of public service as a subject area.
Time will tell.
Lennie, on your blog David Walker was accused and assaulted regularly and was called a carpetbagger. Does Joe Ganim live in Bridgeport? Would he be called a carpetbagger? Why would you ask Walker if murderers and rapists should be allowed to serve in public office? I am certain he would say no as would I. You? Joe Ganim may have a thick skin but the city will be a laughingstock, good luck raising money and Mr. Ganim’s family will suffer gross, unnecessary humiliation.
Steve, I raised the question with David because I’m curious about where folks draw the line on this stuff. Does David want to prohibit all individuals with felony records from public office? Does he want to pick and choose? This decision is decided state by state regarding voting privileges. Some states maintain more rigid standards regarding offenses. In the state of Connecticut residents with felony records are allowed to vote, thus run for public office, provided they are not incarcerated at the time of the vote and have satisfied all court-ordered fines and restitution. David ran a credible race for lieutenant governor and is pondering a challenge of Richard Blumenthal for United States Senate. I’m interested if he wants to pick and choose on this subject or does he desire blanket provision barring all felons. Because it’s a fallacy to me to suggest a Joe Ganim or Ernie Newton should be barred from public office while believing it’s okay for murderers, rapists and child molesters to run. It gets a little tricky picking and choosing. Will David Walker lobby the Connecticut General Assembly to pass a law prohibiting public corruption offenders from running? If so, does he support the law moving forward or making it retroactive? As for Ganim living in Bridgeport, I have not had a conversation with Ganim on this but from a pure smart strategic level he’d be wise to move his butt into the city soon. Last I checked he was still in Easton.
Lennie,
Not if they are convicted. My point is I believe in redemption but some felonies are so serious the person should never be put in a position of public trust where taxpayer funds are paying their salary.
David, where do you draw line on “some felonies?” Please share an example of believing in redemption.
Lennie,
Possession of a controlled substance is a felony but not the same or as serious as the felonies I outlined. Mayor Barry in DC was convicted of possession but not public corruption.
Lennie,
Possession of a controlled substance is a felony but not as serious as the felonies I outlined. Mayor Barry in DC was convicted of possession but not public corruption.
How many times have I read of people with clean records embezzling companies to the point of bankruptcy? We should not allow people with or without criminal records to run for office.
Let’s say I got convicted 25 years ago and I’ve turned my life around. I decide to start a business (Grocery Store) in the East Side. I’ve gotten robbed twice in two years and in one an employee was killed. I try to get a gun permit and guess what I’m told? Don’t I have the right to earn a living and defend myself and protect my life? Oh, and what else am I told? “You should have thought about that before you committed a crime.”
David Walker, every time you go to Washington and talk to the elected wonks down there you are talking to people who more probably than not are lawbreakers.
The people by their vote can choose who they want to represent them and if it’s Ganim. so be it. The people have spoken. There are very few people in politics who have not sold their souls and their beliefs to get elected so let’s cut the sanctimonious bullshit. Mr. Walker, here is a bit of advise, you will not win elected office here in Conn. I suggest you move down south where Republicans get elected. Just don’t get a black panther tattoo on your arm.
Andrew C Fardy, I agree with you 100%.
Andy,
Not all politicians are crooked and some are even competent. I know plenty in this category with different political affiliations.
Maybe not all, but 99% are crooked or compromised their beliefs to get elected.
Andy Fardy, perhaps Dave Walker can tell us what kind of deal he made to run for Lt. Governor.
Lennie,
I already submitted testimony to the state legislature recommending certain types of convicted felons be barred from holding public office, including people who are convicted of public corruption.
Dave Walker,
The Fourteenth amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, as disfranchisement due to conviction of a criminal offense, usually restricted to the more serious class of crimes, felonies. Jurisdictions vary in whether they make such disfranchisement permanent, or restore suffrage after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. Affected individuals suffer “collateral consequences” including loss of access to jobs, housing, and other facilities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The first twenty-eight states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment were:
Connecticut – June 30, 1866
New Hampshire – July 6, 1866
Tennessee – July 18, 1866
New Jersey – September 11, 1866 (Rescinded ratification – February 20, 1868/March 24, 1868; re-ratified – April 23, 2003)
Oregon – September 19, 1866 (Rescinded ratification – October 16, 1868; re-ratified – April 25, 1973)
Vermont – October 30, 1866
New York – January 10, 1867
Ohio – January 11, 1867 (Rescinded ratification – January 13, 1868; re-ratified – March 12, 2003)
Illinois – January 15, 1867
West Virginia – January 16, 1867
Michigan – January 16, 1867
Minnesota – January 16, 1867
Kansas – January 17, 1867
Maine – January 19, 1867
Nevada – January 22, 1867
Indiana – January 23, 1867
Missouri – January 25, 1867
Pennsylvania – February 6, 1867
Rhode Island – February 7, 1867
Wisconsin – February 13, 1867
Massachusetts – March 20, 1867
Nebraska – June 15, 1867
Iowa – March 16, 1868
Arkansas – April 6, 1868
Florida – June 9, 1868
North Carolina – July 4, 1868 (After rejection – December 14, 1866)
Louisiana – July 9, 1868 (After rejection – February 6, 1867)
South Carolina – July 9, 1868 (After rejection – December 20, 1866)
The 14th Amendment does not grant convicted felons who engaged in public corruption the right to hold public office. It’s a state matter in the case of our Mayor. The right answer is clear although this is “Corrupticut.”
Ratification by the states
Ratified amendment pre-certification, 1866–1868
Ratified amendment pre-certification after first rejecting it, 1868
Ratified amendment post-certification after first rejecting it, 1869–1976
Ratified amendment post-certification, 1959
Ratified amendment, withdrew ratification (rescission), then re-ratified
Territories of the United States in 1868, not yet states
Ratification of the amendment was bitterly contested. State legislatures in every formerly Confederate state, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify it. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. It also prompted Congress to pass a law on March 2, 1867, requiring that a former Confederate state must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before “said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress”.
The first twenty-eight states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment were:
Connecticut – June 30, 1866
Ends after parole.
In four states, disenfranchisement ends after incarceration and parole (if any) is complete: California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York.
When Ganim was mayor the issue of City employees being on the City Council was not an issue, in fact I ran for the City Council in 1997 with another firefighter and the issue was never even mentioned. America is about second chances, we are a God-fearing nation that forgives.
Ron, we forgive those who have asked for forgiveness. I don’t see where Joe Ganim has. He is unrepentant about his thefts of service to Bridgeport and violated his oath of office. Those two factors alone should deny him any privilege to represent Bridgeport. Why take an oath if you are going to not live up to it?
I just heard Ganim on the morning show on WPNR and they took several callers. All four callers were supportive and three openly told him to run and they would vote for him. No one was rude or negative. Interesting.
I cannot imagine anyone being outright rude to Mr. Ganim. A lot of people like him. A lot of people hope he will run. If there is no law in place to prevent this I cannot see a reason for him not to run if that is his personal bliss. I totally understand Joe going after his dream. I do not understand the loathing of Finch that would make people support Ganim. If he has the backing and people are willing to bankroll Joseph Ganim then let the games begin.
The Democratic town committee will appoint the next mayor. Joe Ganim is a shrewd, focused politician. It matters not that he is an unrepentant felon who violated the public trust (as the Connecticut Bar concluded), but whether he has enough votes in the Dtc.
Bring back Joe Ganim and rehire Mike Freimuth!!! What a great team.
MAGOO, I agree wholeheartedly.
Every contract for which Joe Ganim was convicted, was put on his desk by the City Council and sent to the council by members of the Contracts and Appointments Committee selected by the City Council President. Bill Finch was the chair of the Contracts and Fabrizi was the Council President. Joe Ganim was a good mayor who did have the best interest of the city at hand. Bridgeport wasn’t getting the funding from Hartford that it deserved after Gov. Weicker. Ganim was talked into running for Gov. five years before the election and he became a target. At the time the Citizens Election Program did not exist and money for a Gubernatorial run had to be raised the old fashioned way. Being young, naive in some ways, and ambitious, Joe Ganim fell between the cracks. When the feds came in his friends pushed him down–deep into the crack. He has endured a lot and has paid a tremendous price like few others have. If elected again and Joe Ganim carefully puts together the right people, he again will be unbeatable; not run for Governor; and never, ever do or allow others to do what took place in the past. That’s what a few folks are afraid of.
Ganim and his cronies got greedy and drew attention to themselves. There are at least two people from his administration who should have been in jail with him but instead are still in government but not Bridgeport.
Before anyone starts, their crimes were documented and given to the empty-suit FBI and nothing was done and the city lost millions.
I cannot believe Joe Ganim could be a serious contender for mayor. To paraphrase an old adage, “Never underestimate the stupidity of the Bridgeport voter.”
The voters of Bridgeport show it every election.
Lennie–Thanks for having me. I guess I’ll take a stab at shedding some light on why some, myself included, are opposed to HB 5886.
The Bridgeport Fire Department currently employs approx. 100 city residents. These men and women are some of the most courageous, hardworking, and honest people you will ever meet. Each time they show up for work, they do so not knowing if they will make it home. They have chosen to make Bridgeport their home are truly their brother’s keeper. HB 5886 strips these brave men and women of a fundamental right to run for and hold public office. It does so on the premise that they will be ‘conflicted’ and unable to govern with honesty, integrity and transparency. This is offensive as it runs counter to how these men and women lead their personal and professional lives.
From the moment our members are hired, Local 834 urges each of them to pay attention to the political landscape (local, state and federal) and try to best determine which elected officials are supportive of our cause. If need be we encourage members to run for office to advocate on our behalf. Lately, with attacks on collective bargaining, pension and health benefits it seems we (organized labor) are under attack from every angle. It is more important now than it ever has been for our members to be engaged in the political process. This bill runs counter to that. It only serves to remove our members from the process.
I was present at the hearing on Monday evening and chose not to speak as I was still processing the facts surrounding it. I respect the opinions of those in support as I am sure they are as steadfast in their support as I am in opposition. Time will tell.
David Dobbs
Vice President
Bridgeport Firefighters IAFF Local 834
Mr. Dobbs,
Thank you for your service to our city.
You are a resident of Bridgeport, yes?
If the Bridgeport city charter is revised and approved by the voters so that then the revised charter will allow city employees to be on the city council, then your position will hold.
Until then, it doesn’t and you’re openly calling for the continued defiance of the current city charter that was approved by the voters.
How can that be acceptable?
Are we not a nation of laws?
Have you and your union considered taking the city to court for its voter-approved charter?
Have you and your union considered taking to court other municipalities or our state or federal governments, which prohibit–and uphold the prohibition of–public employees in the executive branch from serving in office in the legislative?
If not, why not?
Bridgeport firefighters are not allowed to go on strike like other union members, they cannot withhold their labor. The one thing union workers have is the ability when there is no agreement on their contract, they can withhold their labor and go on strike. Firefighters have no say on anything but they must show up to work and put their lives on the line. The state law on Binding Arbitration gives the City the power to reject their contract they won in arbitration, how is that fair? When are these injustices going to be addressed, all firefighters can do is to stay on the sidelines and watch and have no say or power in anything.
Ron, please with the tears for the BFD. They have binding arbitration which is binding on both sides. The firefighters and cops teamed up many years ago and we elected Nick Panuzio a Republican as mayor in return we received the 20-year pension and fully paid medical. We manned phone banks and I estimate we brought out over 6,000 votes. When the departments won out-of-town residency the city politician were ecstatic. A very large cohesive voting bloc just left the city. You want a raise, ask the mayor of Hamden. Ron, years ago we were. Do you want the citizens to roll over because the FD union wants something? If they keep busting political balls maybe some politician will look at how busy they are.
Andy, the state changed the binding arbitration law, if the union wins in arbitration the City has the right to reject that victory, therefore the City gets two bites at the apple. So why negotiate?
Andy Fardy, I’m not crying for the BFD, and I agree with the history you spoke about and I’ve always been thankful for those who came before me and their hard work for the benefits I’ve received. I’m not speaking against HB5886, I understand what it’s trying to do. I was speaking only about the new binding arbitration law; Andy, it’s not like the old binding arbitration law, that was the last best offer from both sides and the arbitrator would select the best offer and it’s binding on both sides. That was great, we won some and we lost some but now if the union wins the City can say they don’t like the arbitration decision and vote against it while the union can’t do anything. There is no good-faith negotiations with the City because they don’t have to and the firefighters can’t go on strike. Andy, you know we have worked when we got zero pay raises and we were professional because we agreed to the binding decision. The union has hurt itself by not living in Bridgeport, if they want to be in the game then they need to live here. Time will tell.
Ro, the FD union should be looking at ways to improve their numbers and learn how to market themselves. 150 structure fires a year, think about it. 150 structure fires in a year.
Ron Mackey and Dave Dobbs,
It is my understanding a Bridgeport firefighter who is a City resident, if he/she feels moved to run for public office, can run for the Board of Education for instance. The BOE is looking out for the real City legacy, the youth who will become responsible adults in our future community.
A firefighter can run for Mayor and take a leave of absence, I will guess.
The only prohibition would be the two Council positions in the District in which they live. Is that such a big sacrifice of freedoms or rights when taken in the balance of the Charter, of considerations of Home Rule, and certain knowledge such rules regarding legislature office are present at State and Federal Congressional levels? What’s the real problem? Time will tell.
Ron, what injustices? They are close to the top paid department in the state. I have had to use them twice for medical purposes and they were great and I thank them. They seem to get everything they want from the city, the only ones they screwed are the retirees and the people not yet on the job.
David,
With all due respect, there are plenty of good people in Bridgeport who do not have clear conflicts and can serve consistent with the City Charter and prevailing home rule/good government practices. A number of the labor leaders who testified do not even live in Bridgeport. My brother was a Fire Marshall and an undercover drug enforcement agent in Florida. He is a capable person but he could not hold office for the government entity he was employed by. It’s common sense. Nonetheless, thanks for your service.
“The Bridgeport Fire Department currently employs approx. 100 city residents. These men and women are some of the most courageous, hardworking, and honest people you will ever meet.”
I’m dying laughing. What happened when Fabrizi put those GPSs on the vehicles? One of the firefighters owned what like 75 houses and still ripped off the city. You forgot to add the word “some” somewhere in your posting.
David Dobbs,
Good to hear from you. Sorry I missed you Monday night. I got there late so I don’t know if you were still there when I spoke or not.
Aside from the negative manner in which city employees might be encouraged to vote one way or another, I had also mentioned there were positive ways in which a council person could be rewarded. I am aware of one city employee who had filed a grievance with the Labor Board and the City Labor Relations Department either failed to challenge the filing or ineffectively fought it but a council person received a non-negotiated pay raise other union members did not.
There was another council member who held a city job in an acting capacity for years because if he were promoted he would have had to have stepped down. So he kept his job, stayed on the council and got his cake and ate it too.
Another position was kept open by the city for over a year while it moved funds around to be sure he was not paid by federal block grant funds because then he would have fallen under the Hatch Act and would have had to quit his job or the council. I mentioned the other night there was a City Council member who had at one point I believe five family members holding down city jobs. All these circumstances, which I choose to call abuses, raise serious questions concerning where their true loyalties lie.
By your own words “if need be we encourage members to run for office to advocate on our behalf,” you are asking a city council member to place the 300 firefighters above the 14,000 residents who make up the average council district as far as financial consideration go. That truly is self-serving.
David, you know I have the utmost respect for all members of the Bridgeport Fire Department. And if we still had residency requirements I would concede we could not ban employees from the council.
But you are really talking about choices. Choose as to where to work, where to live, how best to serve your communities. You can have it all BUT when you also choose to place one’s self over the many then you are not talking about self governing but self service.
And that is wrong. And that is where I must draw the line.
The fire department can become politically active by holding meetings with candidates for office and supporting one of them in a primary or general election. You can run phone banks on election day. The problem is the vast majority of your members live out of town, which is fine and dandy per the contract. The other 100 can become politically active and still run for office but so far no one has done it. I don’t remember any firefighter running for the council. I do remember Don Clemons running and winning state Rep.
As I understand it more and more members have moved out of town. In fact didn’t the union negotiate new hours so the out-of-towners don’t have to come to the city so often? You and your members should be working on other things rather than doing the bidding of the Hartford Union Bosses.
Andrew C Fardy, in 1997 Ron Moales who was Local 834 Firefighter President and myself and I was a Executive Board member of Local 834, we both ran in the Democrat primary for the City Council in the 130th District. Another thing was we were the only black and Hispanic candidates running together which is something that is not done.
Mr. Dobbs, you claim HB 5886 “strips these brave men and women of a fundamental right to run for and hold public office.” The existing state statute, CGS 7-421, prohibits municipal employees from serving on their municipality’s board of finance. The reason? It is a conflict of interest. So, in the towns where most Bridgeport firefighters live, they cannot serve on their board of finance. HB 5886 simply extends the prohibition to any body that creates the municipal budget. In Bridgeport that body is the city council.
Mr White–Has consideration been given to creating a board of finance? Seems like that might be a better option. Rather than stripping citizens/taxpayers of a fundamental right to run for office based on their employment and an assumption of conflict, we look to create a board of finance.
I believe it was you who commented a week or so ago and indicated this bill was just a first step and after it passed there was a need to identify the best and the brightest to fill council seats. I agree we should be filling these seats with the best and the brightest but I’m not sure disqualifying a whole class of potential candidates is the best way to get there.
Make no mistake, although we may disagree on this particular issue, it is safe to say we both want what is best for the City of Bridgeport. A rising tide will lift all boats.
Mr. Dobbs, to refer to the passage of HB 5886 as an act of “stripping people of rights” is perplexing as well as a reach. The wording is clear in the Charter. They already don’t have the right. It’s not stripping anyone of anything. You are acting as if the right is already there and it’s not. It has not been for a long time. So as a union leader you feel keeping a charter violation in play to potentially benefit your union folks is the right thing to do? Who has been and continues to be “stripped” of rights? It looks like the Bridgeport voters to my eye.
Straightening this out is the right thing to do. Then, if folks want to start pushing for a Charter change to change the Home Rule stipulation to make City Employee eligible to run for city Council, we can vote on that issue too.
There are prohibitions in place for state employees running for office and there are federal laws stopping federal employees from running for federal office.
Mr. Dobbs, why the sudden interest in Bridgeport politics? I suggest you get your union members living in Bridgeport and I doubt it’s 100 and have them run for a town committee seat. I wonder what the interest is now.
Mr. Dobbs, do you live here in Bridgeport?
Bridgeport voters are not seeking to disqualify anyone. These folks are already NOT eligible. This bill is not about disqualifying people. It’s about enforcing a decision that has already been made. The violation is in letting them run and seeking ways to do so that circumvent the voters’ will.
I don’t see how that fact is ambiguous. I don’t see how arguing in favor of the continuance of a City Charter violation can be construed as a good governmental practice.
People are acting as if the violation lies in the enforcement of the Charter as ratified by the voters. Unbelievable. News flash, you have it backwards. The violation is going on now and our delegation is trying to stop it. It’s not personal. It’s a violation of the will of the voters, THAT is what is at issue.