First, Mayor Joe Ganim’s so-called office of public integrity is put on hold and now funding for his second-chance initiative receives push-back from a City Council committee. Who’s doing the administration’s advance work with the City Council?
CT Post scribe Brian Lockhart has the latest:
Mayor Joe Ganim’s second-chance initiative needs to be given a first chance by the City Council.
That legislative body’s budget committee Tuesday unanimously tabled committing $50,000 for Ganim to help ex-felons like himself find employment.
Specifically, the money is supposed to help convince private employers to take a chance on hiring people with criminal records by helping companies pay their salaries.
Members complained that, despite the fact the mayor and business leaders announced the proposal a month ago, the administration has not provided enough details about the need–and the use–of the money to justify the expense. That has become a common complaint since Team Ganim took over City Hall in December.
Full story here.
If this keeps up I’m going to have to make a public apology to the members of the Council.
Four members of the B&A were present last evening along with several Mayoral cabinet advisors and two representatives of a firm active in Re-Entry work for years.
The motion on the Agenda was not voted upon because the source of money was to be from a “refund of premiums” from the insurance broker in the amount of $40,000 from a $569,000 premium total. (Details later. But good news all around as long as property coverage was not diminished in some way.)
But the Committee took exception to a one-sentence presentation handed to them last night with no chance for reflection and expectation of a vote. They found their own reasons to be independent and tabled the matter. Many good observations were raised and perhaps heard by counselors to the Mayor.
I was present to see if the Chairs of the B&A would let a member of the public speak. I raised my hand several times during the meeting and made eye contact with Scott Burns on several of those moments but I allowed committee business to proceed without interruption as courtesy would indicate.
Burns called for a motion to adjourn and looked to his right as he did so as to ignore my raised hand. I had a printed handout for their consideration (and based on last night a compliment for each of them for the energy and questions they had asked). However, more public is needed each time Committees meet or the status quo will continue.
Here is the Memo I prepared for the group last night so they might think about the future in the broadest possible manner. (See below.)
Questions to Bridgeport City Council Budget and Appropriations Committee at their July 11, 2016 meeting.
1. Will the chairs permit question and brief discussion with members of the public present? Will you share materials you study in meetings with one or more members of the public present as you identify them as exhibits? Do you realize the public has no simple way to find this information at this moment contemporaneous with your study and review at a meeting?
2. Are the members of the Committee on record and in agreement with seeking a (long overdue) FINAL report for June 2015 Monthly Fiscal report? If in favor, when will such be provided? If opposed, please explain why in face of Charter language.
3. The Police Department report contained in the budget document failed in accuracy, ease of understanding, honesty about employment totals and presentation, goals (Ex. 100 trainees cannot be processed in one year–actual number and budget?), and pension flows to the State of CT. Have you asked for a do-over to assist your Committee in oversight in the year ahead?
4. The State of CT was beneficiary of a review of their pension plans last year and the report was posted on the State site. Of particular interest to me was the significant underfunding that has occurred in past years. Of particular note is the recommendation to lower rates of return assumed by plans. Assumed rates of 8-8.5% annually are in our City plans but returns over long periods of time may be 300 basis points lower. What would our City obligations be if 5.5% returns become the norm and we do not increase our contributions? Data? Discussion?
5. Is there anything I can do to assist the committee as an interested taxpayer and budget observer?
My intent was to see if they were open to one minute of comments as I delivered this questionnaire to them, not to cover all of these issues. Too bad. Missed opportunity. Perhaps Tom McCarthy and the DTC have sent out instructions to ignore me when I show up. Is that part of OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE, TRANSPARENT and HONEST governance? Does that encourage participation by citizenry? Are they trying to discourage everyone? Will you be present at the August 1, 2016 City Council meeting? Time will tell.
JML. I don’t know Scott Burns, never even heard of him until he ran for the Council, but he sounds to me to be another casualty of poor example, disrespect to a citizen who knows more than he, and I suspect there’s some intimidation on his part, you are awesome and formidable. So for now let’s take the crumbs, it’s more than any Council serving with Finch has ever done. At least they’re attempting to be independent.
I think it is reprehensible there is a lack of communication at the subcommittee level and, in the long term, clearly needs to be changed. Whenever you go to CC meetings, everything is decided beforehand or they march off into secret party caucuses or executive session. I do realize there is adherence to Roberts Rules, but the lack of discussion is not GOOD GOVERNANCE.
Frank, the Chair of any committee is obligated to report the outcome of the meeting to the entire Council, in public. Discussion of committee meeting items should be discussed in public, questions and answers among the other council should take place, if there are any, and ultimately a vote is taken either by a show of hands or role call. This is another example of McCarthy making up rules as he chooses. The only decision that is decided at the subcommittee meeting is the vote of those present on agenda items relative to that committee. Rarely is a caucus called, and executive sessions are usually stated on the Council agenda.
Not the same rubber-stamp game Ol’ Joe is used to playing. The good old days of getting whatever you wanted are history, dude.
Bpt Kid, he started getting what he wanted when he inundated the City Council with City employees or members of their families. Before that, he worked for every request he presented. Kid, we had pros back in the day, the likes of Stafstrom, Walsh, Santiago, Caruso, Gomes, Guman, Bruce, Alvin Penn, just to mention a few. No conflicts, no games, smart people who understood their roles. When Ganim succeeded in getting the Charter to a four-year term for Mayor only, that’s when all hell broke loose. He wasn’t going to waste his time trying to convince committed members to pass his initiatives. He had no time, he was running for Governor when he completed his term, and that required money and connections. Hence the practice of conflicted council members began. As a good person left, a conflicted person replaced them. We are starting from square one, and it will take a little time to select dedicated, intelligent people to step up.
It’s refreshing to see some sign of life from the Council. The question is what will they do when Ganim pushes back.
Phil, without the threat of losing their jobs, he has no means of push-back. I believe there are still two members with City jobs, and the sister of his Chief Admin Officer. That leaves more than enough members left to do the right thing.
On the surface, the CT Post story suggests the council members (not councilors) are displaying independence. It is the usual ‘he said, she said’ account with no mention that 43% of the committee members were absent. The CT Post made no mention of an informed, knowledgeable resident (JML) who was ignored. Does the unanimous vote of the committee (four of seven members) represent independence? Not likely. Ganim will tolerate it for a short time until he has four votes.
I don’t think he’ll go there again, Tom. The eyes of the City residents are on him, more so because that was his MO the first time around.
Phil and Lisa,
I can remember the early years of G1 when he would call council members into his office to discuss plans and priorities. He would even go so far as to make sure he did not have a majority of a committee present so as not to violate FOIA regulations. And as you said Lisa, he would work to sell his ideas.
And if my memory is correct, this all started changing with the privatization of the operations of the WPCA.
As you said Lisa, once he found out how easy it was to buy council members off, an appointment of a family member to a board or commission, hiring family members (I believe one had four or five children in city jobs), hiring council members, giving perks to council members who were city employees, etc. the game changed and it has never been the same again.
No one knows better than you and me. I just don’t think lightning will strike again for him. He has to remember the prior council members didn’t support him, didn’t want to serve with him, so this may be why they’re trying to do it right. In addition, they all run for reelection in less than a year. As it stands right now, they’re getting as much bad publicity as he, they may want to change that. We’ll see!
This city council will go down in Bridgeport’s history as the dumbest council ever to hold office, they have crippled the taxpayers of this city for the next decade. B&A committee’s Co-Chair Mr. Burns has only lived in Bridgeport for less than a year!
It’s time to take this 29% tax increase Budget into Court ASAP.
Ganim’s budget does more harm than good!
Both Scott Burns and Katie Roach Bukovsky (130th) were misinformed about this budget and still voted for it!
Every single person on the City Council is a puppet. I don’t even think any single one is redeemable. I agree. This is the worst City Council in modern Bridgeport History. They all have to go. I don’t think any of the CC members knew what they were voting for, they just did as they were told.
And I don’t think Joe Ganim is redeemable. It’s going to be a bad 3-1/2 years more.
I do get the sense an increasing number of the council members feel they are being pressed to make politically difficult/unpopular decisions by a mayor who, unlike them, doesn’t have to run next year.
Phil, then that’s exactly what they should do, all in the name of saving taxpayers additional hardship. Going against the flow being put in front of them is the only way some could reverse their political demise.
What were the big initiatives and improvements that marched Bridgeport forward during Boss Ganim’s first go-’round? I moved to the city in 1996 and was not as politically aware. Recently the Bridgeport Library pasted on Facebook footage from the early ’70s of a local documentary/sales film promoting Bridgeport as a “city on the move.” Considering we are still waiting for Bridgeport to improve it strikes me he did nothing of lasting value.
You got that right, DC.
Ganim spent a lot of taxpayers’ money on cleaning up the city but for the most part he used bonding so it was spread out over 20 years.
That and the fact we had a financial review board that forced the city to save money and when they left town all hell broke loose.
The cracks are starting to show, little by little things are slowly being challenged and Ganim seems to be losing support from some who had his back before. What has caused this I don’t know, it could be a combination of things like the council could be starting to understand what JML has been telling them, lack of trust about $20 million of red ink, the tax increase, his support for Tom McCarthy against Senator Moore and Ganim’s support of Dennis Bradley, Mario’s puppet. Whatever it is, things have truly changed and with council starting to get a set of xxxxs it’s a new day and Ganim should watch his back because people are jumping off the Ganim boat.
Ron, it’s a little of all of the above!