Last night the Council President was absent at the time schedueled for Public Speaking. Council member Newton in her place provided instruction to citizens but did not have a Council timer. Council member Ortiz took up that role for the eight speakers listed on the Agenda and the additional folks signed up the day of the meeting. I presented the comments below, but had only finished two paragraphs when I was told TIME IS UP,
I left the lectern, disputing that I had not received three minutes, but not disrespecting the members and public present for the process.
City Council Comments-October 5, 2026
A writer for the Economist magazine declared: “But there is one remaining island of political functionality, where Americans can and should have grounds for optimism: City Hall. Alexander Heffner goes on to say, “even more Americans appear to see mayors as the last public servants who still solve tangible problems.” I placed copies of the October 3, article on your desk.
You may remember that more than 30 years separate us from a successful Charter review and indifference, ignorance, disregard, or disapproval were at root. The Charter process included hearings, discussions, research, to improve the directions of the Charter in line with Statutes and concepts from the citizens of the community. The document to the Council added further hearings to make certain that many governance voices were heard. The Council then voted to approve the Charter revision in two parts, a governance section relating to ethics, civil service and boards and commission changes, and a second section dealing with “political matters” such as the part-time positions funded for City Clerk and Town Clerk as well as so-called “city sheriffs.” The question(s) became more complicated for voters to become informed. Where did the separation request originate publicly? Only the City Clerk appeared at one hearing and one sheriff appeared. Who lobbied for the Question to become divided?
You remember the result. Question 1 on the Charter received YES approval from 75% of those voting. Question 2 received only 77 votes more than NO votes, barely 50% of the 5,700 folks voting (only 10% of total registered voters). Why, how, and when did that decision to vote separately on governance and politics? Who was responsible? Where were secret directions to sabotage the work of the new Charter opposed and for what purpose? Almost one year ago I sought District results from each polling place. They were not forthcoming from Registrar or Secretary of State as specifically requested, but now we are reviewing these to determine what happened and where. Time will tell.
At the next CC session, the overall voting patterns will be revealed, the districts where absentee ballots were predominant, and the districts where the voters were provided advice that Charter Question 2 was unfavorable for them, and they voted accordingly. Yes, the research into these voting results is to share with the citizens of Bridgeport what happens when they register to vote and yet, fail to vote. See the results from 2025 and consider your message to neighbors this year on voting every chance you get. Also look at yourbridgeportvote.com for the next Casual Civics Conversations in coming weeks. Time will tell.
Last night the Council President was absent at the time schedueled for Public Speaking. Council member Newton in her place provided instruction to citizens but did not have a Council timer. Council member Ortiz took up that role for the eight speakers listed on the Agenda and the additional folks signed up the day of the meeting. I presented the comments below, but had only finished two paragraphs when I was told TIME IS UP,
I left the lectern, disputing that I had not received three minutes, but not disrespecting the members and public present for the process.
City Council Comments-October 5, 2026
A writer for the Economist magazine declared: “But there is one remaining island of political functionality, where Americans can and should have grounds for optimism: City Hall. Alexander Heffner goes on to say, “even more Americans appear to see mayors as the last public servants who still solve tangible problems.” I placed copies of the October 3, article on your desk.
You may remember that more than 30 years separate us from a successful Charter review and indifference, ignorance, disregard, or disapproval were at root. The Charter process included hearings, discussions, research, to improve the directions of the Charter in line with Statutes and concepts from the citizens of the community. The document to the Council added further hearings to make certain that many governance voices were heard. The Council then voted to approve the Charter revision in two parts, a governance section relating to ethics, civil service and boards and commission changes, and a second section dealing with “political matters” such as the part-time positions funded for City Clerk and Town Clerk as well as so-called “city sheriffs.” The question(s) became more complicated for voters to become informed. Where did the separation request originate publicly? Only the City Clerk appeared at one hearing and one sheriff appeared. Who lobbied for the Question to become divided?
You remember the result. Question 1 on the Charter received YES approval from 75% of those voting. Question 2 received only 77 votes more than NO votes, barely 50% of the 5,700 folks voting (only 10% of total registered voters). Why, how, and when did that decision to vote separately on governance and politics? Who was responsible? Where were secret directions to sabotage the work of the new Charter opposed and for what purpose? Almost one year ago I sought District results from each polling place. They were not forthcoming from Registrar or Secretary of State as specifically requested, but now we are reviewing these to determine what happened and where. Time will tell.
At the next CC session, the overall voting patterns will be revealed, the districts where absentee ballots were predominant, and the districts where the voters were provided advice that Charter Question 2 was unfavorable for them, and they voted accordingly. Yes, the research into these voting results is to share with the citizens of Bridgeport what happens when they register to vote and yet, fail to vote. See the results from 2025 and consider your message to neighbors this year on voting every chance you get. Also look at yourbridgeportvote.com for the next Casual Civics Conversations in coming weeks. Time will tell.