City Council Approves $300K Restitution Settlement From Police Chief Test Scheme


The City Council Monday night by a 15-3 tally signed off on the restitution settlement. Maria Pereira, Samia Suliman and Matt McCarthy voted no. Alfredo Castillo and Eneida Martinez did not cast a vote during the Zoom meeting.

More from CT Post reporter Brian Lockhart:

The City Council Monday agreed to accept nearly $300,000 from Bridgeport’s former police chief and its ex-personnel director as restitution for their crime of rigging the 2018 search for a top cop.

After a nearly two-hour teleconference with attorneys that was closed to the public, members of the legislative body emerged and voted 15 to 3, with two absent, for the lump sum $299,407 payment. That represents a $150,000 increase over the $149,407 federal prosecutors had previously recommended and that Armando Perez and David Dunn have so far paid.

“The amount we are receiving is substantial when we speak about addressing what it cost the city taxpayers during this whole investigation,” Council President Aidee Nieves said in an interview Tuesday.

Full story here.

Original story: The City Council on Monday will consider a proposal from the City Attorney’s Office to settle a $300,000 financial restitution from former Police Chief AJ Perez and ex Personnel Director David Dunn for conniving the top cop test. For background see Bridgeport seeks nearly $300K from Perez, Dunn –



  1. Really!
    No comments from anybody and that means we don’t know sh*t what it really covers or not.
    Don’t vote on it until we know how this impacts the pension and get full details on every thing including the mayor’s role. Period.

  2. What’s the rush?
    Take your time.
    Don’t be in a hurry.
    The longer you take the more there is to gain.
    What do you think will be larger, settle now or settle on the judges terms?

    1. I don’t like it either, but the rush is to have an agreement in place before sentencing.
      The prosecutor should be asked to delay sentencing phase until all these questions are answered,
      I’d like them to forfeit all future benefits, pensions , etc and serve decades of hard time.
      But with the ex-felon as mayor don’t expect the city to push for much punishment

  3. Bob, that’s what I was waiting for, the details and breakdown of what is covered and is there going to be any action against the testing company who helped Dunn with the plan to cheat. Also what money will Perez and Dunn get from the city like pension, vacation days, holiday pay and sick pay because I believe that there will be a even break with what I they owe and what they will receive.

  4. No one wants to comment because everything is a secret in Bpt.But as the Council waits for Joe to tell them how he wants this handled,keep in mind,like the article mentions,this $299,407 restitution ONLY covers lawyer’s fees etc pertaining to the Perez-Dunn case..The legal fees Joe has been racking up defending himself&Shamas aren’tincluded in that amount,nor is the money that it will cost the taxpayers when Nardozzi & Porter settle their pending lawsuit once Perez is sentenced..The taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill that no doubt will reach well over a million dollars.All because Joe & Mario fixed a chief’s test because they need a chief they can control,it’s crucial to their “operation’ here in Bpt..And by the way,the Council has YET to question Joe about his mounting legal fees tab,afraid to anger him..

  5. The Bridgeport Police Department cost the taxpayers more than any other department by far most expensive for civil lawsuits file against the city and the BPD, there’s cost of the outside lawyers that the city must hire plus the payout to those citizens who filed the lawsuits. This financial restitution from former Police Chief AJ Perez is just another example that keeps adding up for the taxpayers. The mayor and the city council say nothing and do nothing to cut these outsde cost, there’s no new training or evaluation of the BPD,it’s just business as usual.

  6. Better Hold the City of Bridgeport Harmless first !
    The only way I would agree with this type of settlement is that James Nardozzi Bridgeport’s former assistant chief, and current Police Captain Roderick Porter both (hold the city Harmless First)!
    If the city counsel settle’s now with the defendants (Perez and Dunn) what’s stopping Nardozzi and Porter from coming after the City for restitution ?

  7. Maybe the Democrat Party American Rescue Plan will pay for all the attorney fees.
    Weren’t they related to the Covid – 19 pandemic?
    Don’t worry Bob, the geniuses on the city council have a handle on it.

  8. Let’s face facts here,Joe will instruct the council to approve this $244,000 restitution from Perez/Dunn.If he told the council not to approve it, it will look like he’s trying to help Perez&Dunn. History proves that when Joe’s “friends” get in any legal problems,he immediately try’s to cut all ties to them,there’s been so many examples of this, Ricci, Tiago,Pinto etc, etc….This time will be no different..Joe is your best friend, until you get indicted doing something he asked you to do, then he doesn’t know you anymore..

  9. I disagree with Ron. The office of the Mayor has cost the city more than any other office or department.
    You can blame most of this mess on the office of the Mayor.
    Use of excess force? Again the office of the Mayor for failure to name competent Police Chiefs and to order the Police Department to clean up once and for all.
    And let’s not forget the first criminal trial of Joseph P Ganim. The City Attorney told the council that rather than to go after Ganim they would go after Paul Pinto. But lo and behold the City Attorney did neither and that was millions!

  10. Is OIB the only current forum in the City for receiving comments and viewpoints regarding the financial details facing City decisionmakers at this time? We are presented with ONLY two former City officials, investigated, charged, retired and awaiting penalties including financial fines or fees, possible reduction or elimination of other funds from the City including pension percentages for the rest of their lives (and beneficiaries), and nothing to speak to the years of payments when Dunn failed to take his test to become more than ACTING as he let Bridgeport continue weak employee relations process, and the choice of employing less than the best new employees with little or no training to be sure that work product was worth the compensation + health benefits + cost of defined benefit retirement plan + other issues like OT management, longevity pay, etc. How about letting taxpayers see into that “human relations” of Labor and employment law and see what incompetence has cost us? And in the case of the Chief, was he so afraid of a test that he did no preparation for years to become qualified? If not why should he enjoy the dollars that went along with his wrongful occupying of a position which someone else should have filled?
    And has anyone assembled a list of City settlements (or cases moving towards settlement in the City currently) and made an estimate of the downstream cost to taxpayers which the actions (or inactions) of Dunn and Perez may yet cost us?
    What are the other expenses that the power and authority of Ganim2 has cost us, like legal defenders? When will he be open to comment on reasoning for Guidepost, etc.? Let’s not rush the Council as the details are too important to all of us. Time will tell or can tell. Perhaps with CC courage, time will tell.

  11. It will be a real travesty if JoeG chairs tonight’s Special CC Meeting to deal with this. The city has already spent over $200K in legal fees defending his actions.

    1. Marshall,the city has spent at least 3 times that defending Joe’s actions…And whether Joe chairs the meeting or not,it doesn’t matter,they all have their marching orders already,the meeting is just to go thru the motions,

  12. What is going on?
    No statement from the city?
    Is this the end of restitution or just the beginning?
    Joe, is this just another missing in action or are you to close to the fire 🔥 to comment?
    We need an independent response before this can be put to bed.

  13. This is sadly business as usual, you have City Council member Alfredo Castillo and Eneida Martinez not even casting a vote and failing to perform their duty to the taxpayers, the you have 15 council members who no problem in finding out the facts of what money will Perez and Dunn get from the city like pension, vacation days, holiday pay and sick pay because I believe that there will be a even break with what I they owe and what they will receive. Base on the lack of concern about this entire case like why was David Dunn in the position of Acting Personnel Director for over 12 years and Mayor Finch and Mayor Ganim NEVER called for a nationwide search or a new Personnel Director and how many other city eaxms has Dunn manipulated to put other people into a position and how other exams has the testing company, Frank and Associates, helped Dunn to hire people. Let me thank City Council members Maria Pereira, Samia Suliman and Matt McCarthy who voted no.

    1. Ron
      You cannot abstained from voting. Period By the rules of the City Council when taking of the ayes and nays you must vote. If you claim to abstain due to a conflict of interest, you must explain your conflict.
      If you do not then I would say you are voting no.
      You cannot pass because you don’t want to choose yea or nay.

      1. Bob, you are absolutely right, that’s why I said City Council member Alfredo Castillo and Eneida Martinez not even casting a vote and failing to perform their duty to the taxpayers.

        Bob, as you said, “you cannot abstained from voting” and that’s in Rober’s Rules of Order and I’m surprise that Maria Pereira didn’t make that point.

  14. The council approves the restituton amount,SHOCKING!..of course they did,Joe doesn’t want to give the appearance of helping his friends..errr, ex friends now(they were indicted,Joe doesn’t know them now).
    Here is a funny part of the article,Joe denying he had his hand in any of this.I mean does ANYONE believe that??,Dunn said he was instructed to make sure Perez was in the top 3 for god’s sakes. I guess,once again,everyone is lying but Joe..Laughable

    “And Ganim last year publicly denied any knowledge of the effort to ensure Perez became permanent chief.”

    1. Harvey, Dunn told the federals Ganim never influenced or approached him about placing Perez in the top three. Ganim certainly has buyer’s remorse for naming Perez chief, it was a self-inflicted faulty decision causing him a lot of grief, but that’s a significant difference from ordering or influencing Dunn in the process. Dunn can’t give the feds Ganim. Nor Perez. If they could they would.

      1. Lennie,in this article from Oct it says this..
        “According to the complaint, on an Oct. 17, 2018, phone call between Dunn and one of the interview panelists, “Dunn stated that the Mayor wanted Perez to be ‘in the top three.’ Panelist-1 understood Dunn to be asking Panelist-1 to score Perez higher and/or to influence other panelists to do the same.”

        1. Dunn stated, according to the panelist, “that the mayor wanted Perez listed ‘in the top three.’ The panelist did not report to federal authorities Dunn said the mayor told me he wanted Perez in the top three. That’s a different distinction. Dunn saying that to a panelist means nothing regarding Ganim’s culpability. Was Dunn freelancing the statement, if said, because that’s what he thought the mayor wanted? Flaccid unless Ganim told him directly and can be corroborated. Neither happened.

          I understand your cynicism when it comes to the mayor. How many OIB commenters wrote here after the scrap metal blow out that Ganim’s toast, stick a fork in him. Turns out Ganim will not be charged in connection with that controversy. In fact, so far, no one has been charged. When connivance of the police chief test surfaced publicly readers wrote he’s done, stick a fork in him. It’s not going to happen regarding that case.

          Now, is something else brewing we don’t know? Every day I receive emails, phone calls, texts that this is going down and that is going down, etc. A lot of it comes from inside the cop house where the rumors run rampant like a California brush fire.

          Some federal law enforcement officers would love to bag Ganim again, it charges straight to the top of their credentials. A federal prosecutor, however, will not stick out his or her neck out unless they know they can persuade a jury of the allegations. Not worth derailing their career path.

          1. I understand what you’re saying Lennie,but with Joe’s past history, no matter how Dunn phrased it or how the panelist explained it to the Fed’s,find me who doesn’t believe Joe gave the order to make sure Perez landed in the top 3 candidates?.. But I get the point that proving that isn’t easy, Joe is crafty now and covers his tracks, that’s what getting caught and doing time teaches you,don’t incriminate yourself.

  15. Lennie,
    Thanks for providing your opinion on what Ganim can or can’t do, or in past tense, did or didn’t do. However, he can release a great deal more financial info than has been shown already, right? In your opinion? Guidepost and outside attorneys consulted by the City (because they do not have the requisite skills even within our augmented City Attorney Office) would be a number that is possible to provide publicly. Also known by and possible for release are past and current totals for settlement requests for a variety of employment procedures and actions gone wrong. Where is such info?
    And what are plans to provide “full staffing” or reorganization of labor, civil service, human relations, etc. areas of City government? Are we searching nationally or rationally? Isn’t this a year when the City will be placing an offer for review by Police Department? Is leaving the multiple matters already raised in the hands of one ACTING department head not risking added miscues? Time will tell.

  16. Lennie, my post is inline with your post March 24, 2021 at 6:31 pm, because most readers on OIB are not aware of you post back on August 24, 2009 about David Dunn, Bill Finch and Joe Ganim and nothing has changed.

    “The Mayor’s Gravy Train, Plus: Bucci Says Jacobs’ Terminators Should Resign”
    August 24, 2009
    LennieGrimaldi City Council, City Politics, Civil Service,

    Ding, ding, ding.

    Ding, ding, ding.

    Ding, ding, ding.

    That sound you just heard was Mayor Bill Finch ringing the dinner bell for Democratic operatives. Yes sir. Line right up, boys and girls, step up to the Democratic Party special delivery buffet line. Breakfast, lunch and dinner. An entire candy store of delights. A gravy train bonanza. Yummy for the tummy.

    The Friday afternoon firing of Ralph Jacobs, former non-political personnel director for Bridgeport Civil Service, by the CC commission gives Finch the opportunity to place his own person in there. The firing is hugely significant. In fact, it’s Finch’s greatest political accomplishment since becoming mayor nearly two years ago.

    Note the emphasis on political accomplishment, not governmental. The governmental side of this firing could come back to bite Finch in the ass. The political win, however, is clear.

    Finch is not popular with the electorate. As a result, political support becomes crucial to his reelection. He must keep as many pols in line as possible to ensure his nomination in 2011. That means larding Democratic operatives and Democratic Town Committee members with jobs. Placing his own person in as civil service personnel director provides the entree for political mother’s milk, putting Democratic operatives in acting civil service positions. In fact, you may see more actors on the payroll than all thespians combined at The Downtown Cabaret Theater and Playhouse on the Green.

    The mayor doesn’t have nearly the discretionary appointments as in the old days. But civil service provides hundreds of opportunities in both competitive and non-competitive positions aided by a new personnel director working on an acting basis until a new test is given for a permanent director. Civil service commissioners could tell the mayor to punt and put in their own person but I don’t see that happening.

    Meanwhile some possible Jacobs replacements? Larry Osborne is the current director of labor relations, a long-time city employee and Democratic operative. Oz is a survivor in city politics and clearly knows his way around City Hall. I don’t think Oz will be the replacement for a couple of reasons. He doesn’t meet the job requirements of the personnel director job as described by the City Charter below. And if you move Oz out who replaces him? Does City Council President Tom McCarthy, who works in labor relations, want that job? I don’t think so. He’ll be too much in the line of fire while also serving as council president. Big Mac’s a pretty good juggler, but I don’t think he wants to stick out his jugular vein that far.

    Sec. 204. Personnel director

    (a) The civil service commission shall appoint a personnel director and such examiners, investigators, clerks and other assistants as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. Such persons, including the personnel director, shall be subject to the civil service laws. The personnel director shall be a person thoroughly in sympathy with the application of merit and sound business principles in the administration of personnel; shall be thoroughly familiar with the principles and methods of personnel administration and skilled therein and shall have had at least three years of successful experience as director or assistant director in the administration of an employment system involving at least five hundred positions or employees. He/she shall direct and supervise the administrative work of the personnel bureau and perform such other functions as may be required of him/her by the civil service commission.

    Other possibilities? Janet Finch, no blood relation to the mayor, has been directing the Grants Personnel payroll which falls outside the classified competitive civil service hires. Janet is a terrific public employee, smart, courteous, hard working. She served many years as administrative assistant to Mayor Joe Ganim. Janet could end up in civil service, perhaps in the short term, because of her knowledge and competence. She’s also not a lightning rod on the heels of a controversial termination.

    Another possibility is David Dunn, who served as labor relations director for Democratic mayors John Mandanici and Tom Bucci and continued as a labor negotiator for the city under Mayors Ganim, John Fabrizi and now Finch. Dunn’s private sector experience also satisfies requirements under the City Charter language.

    In his early days in government David’s mantra was work hard, play hard. He’s been clean and sober for 23 years, a remarkable achievement if you knew the David that I knew then. Dunn is smart, enjoys politics and would be a supporter of the mayor. David has his detractors too, especially from union representatives who’ve been on the other side of labor negotiations. But Dunn can do the job.

    The five civil service commissioners that voted unanimously in executive session to fire Jacobs are Eleanor Guedes, T. Walter Plummer, Richard P. Rodgers, Rosa J. Correa and Willie C. McBride, Jr. McBride is the city employee representative voted in by employees. The other positions are appointed by the mayor.

    Meanwhile Bucci, Jacobs’ lawyer, has his lawsuit poised to challenge Jacobs’ termination. Bucci, in a statement to OIB, calls the commission action gutless and spineless. I’ve placed a call to Civil Service Commission President Guedes for reaction. Bucci remarks below:

    It was plain and simple a political hatchet job – (Jacobs) did nothing wrong to justify his termination. The commission president was gutless, and the other commissioners, plain and simple, spineless.

    Their efforts to disassociate themselves from Jacob’s conduct after taking a vote in January, and never rescinding it to the present day, would make them just as culpable, if Jacobs had done something wrong. They went in executive session, to hide from public view, despite our protests, in violation of the FOIA, to carry out their execution.

    Obviously, they couldn’t discuss their reasons for firing Jacobs in the open because their own misconduct would be evident. This is simply wrong, HE DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG! I don’t fault the Mayor; I fault the cowardly commissioners who have taken an oath to defend the civil service system. After the charade they conducted on Friday in which they trampled on Jacobs’ rights and made a mockery of the core principles of the civil service system – judging an individual on merit, not politics, they should all resign in disgrace. They have truly disgraced good government.

    News release from Mayor Finch


Leave a Reply