The agenda for Tuesday’s City Council meeting includes a resolution presented by three council members for a “proposed request regarding Residency Reporting for all Municipal Elected Officials, as well as Board and Commission Members.” The measure will be referred to the Ordinance Committee.
Councilors Kate Bukovsky, Scott Burns and Michelle Lyons are backing the resolution. Residency validation was raised recently by government watchdog John Marshall Lee.
The resolution calls for “all municipal elected officials including the Mayor, City Council members, as well as Board and commission members appointed by the Bridgeport Mayor provide their current residence street address of record to the Town Clerk’s office by January 31, 2017. In the future, notice of such current residence address shall be provided to the Town Clerk’s office within 30 days of such change or at least affirmed or changed annually before the end of January while such public service is pursued.”
The council meeting will take place Tuesday night at 7, instead of the customary third Monday of the month, due to Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
Council member Milta Feliciano is also proposing a resolution requesting that “on-street parking bans along the portion of Bank Street between Main Street and Broad Street (Downtown) be removed with the posting of appropriate signage or the installation of meters along Bank Street in order to create more onstreet parking spaces.” The resolution will be referred to the Board of Police Commissioners.
Full council agenda here.
Council addendum here.
I would suggest the City Council go one step further and include in its resolution that all City of Bridgeport department heads have six months from the date of appointment to be domiciled in Bridgeport. Hartford has this mandate included in its city government laws because they know and understand if you are taking their money then you should live within city limits. Hartford never has a problem filling the positions of Department Heads and neither will Bridgeport should it adopted this change.
Don, I was writing my reply just as you were writing your response and I didn’t see yours until now, sorry.
Residency Reporting for all Municipal Elected Officials, as well as Board and Commission Members is just the start, now it needs to apply to department and their deputies. Finally, the City Council needs to pass a resolution just like Hartford has to require ALL persons taking a tested Civil Service position MUST be a resident of Bridgeport at least one year prior to exam being announce and to be able to prove such residency just like all Municipal Elected Officials, as well as Board and Commission Members.
Kudos to you and Donald!
As some of you know, I have been addressing the City Council at their semi-monthly meetings almost without interruption for several years now. My goal has been to inform from a different perspective, that of an interested citizen taxpayer, on oversight of matters affecting all citizens. As a watchdog, particularly on fiscal matters, I have offered many questions and opinions. I have also commented frequently on governance issues.
On January 3, 2017 I offered a specific resolution for the first time and this concept was apparently well-received by some members of the Council. It is a start as others comment above. It is also evidence that some Council members are listening and can see practical reasons why a statement of residence address as recorded on your CT driver’s license, observed by the Town Clerk (or such) and recorded for public record that can be affirmed annually thereafter (or at time of change of address) is simple and necessary. It avoids the chatter, doubt, rumor and suspicion that someone is playing outside the rules meant for everyone. It provides a “sheriff” so to speak as a checkpoint. And to the extent desired may have some enforcement behind it. Who would disagree with such an Ordinance? Time will tell.
Here is a link to the talk to the CC on Tuesday January 3, 2017.
watchdogsct.com/index.php/discussions/leadership-and-administration/76-2016-ganim2-b-grade-or-possible-failure
I offered it to OIB last week as always. I defer to OIB’s decision not to run offerings for OIB’s own reasons.
I waved to the Mayor this morning at the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual breakfast, but I still have no reliable info as to where he actually lives. As a US citizen he is free to live where he wishes, clearly. As a Bridgeport Mayor, his choice is narrower.
I believe the community needs to know where their elected leader and other public representatives, elected or appointed, reside and know that comports to requirements for office. How say you? Time will tell.
Okay. Do we know what a resolution is? It is a communication. It does not make or change a law. Has the city council researched the residency requirements for elected officials? I rather doubt it. It was JML who suggested a reporting requirement. In the olden days, the CT Post reporter would be knocking on doors to verify elected officials live where stated. Have they done this research and identified changes needed to an ordinance or charter?
Or will it be another ‘All in favor? Aye’ followed by nothing?
Tom White, thanks. What Hartford has is a City Ordinance.
This is all well and good to go through the motions, but the fact is we as a city need to find the best candidates available for each dept head opening, whether they live in the city or not. Why narrow our options by making it a must to reside here? Now as far as ELECTED officials, yes, I agree those people should live here.
Harvey,
The specific subject covered in the resolution were elected officials like the Mayor and City Council members; also covered would be Mayoral appointees of all kinds but certainly including Boards and Commissions; as well as those whose confirmation by the City Council is required and that would include the Library Board inasmuch as they seem to have a different method of endorsement in practice though they do require approval by the Council.
If such an Ordinance is discussed and ultimately approved based on the concept and resolution I presented it would be a specific improvement in City process, once implemented with the Town Clerk office, for example.
Whether such residence reporting or in-City residence requirement needs to be extended further is yet another step to be reviewed and discussed and perhaps covered in a resolution that contemplates a way of enforcement, or not? Time will tell.
JML and Tom White are absolutely correct. It appears CC members are doing what we did 10-plus years ago. We listened to the concerns of the public, and acted accordingly when possible. This is an election year for those members interested in reelection. I’m sure they realize they must begin to perform or they will be fired. As I mentioned before, there are no coattails to save the deadbeats; in addition, there is a serious movement involving intelligent, willing individuals ready to challenge most of the sitting members. Their records will be scrutinized and made public so the voters can make informed choices. I applaud the three council members for their attempt to bring transparency involving candidates running for office, but as Tom and JML indicated, it must go further.
Are you kidding me, these two fuck-ups from the 130th are trying to blow smoke up our asses, they alone with “Hold the line on taxes” Ganim gave us the highest tax bill in Bridgeport’s history and especially in Black Rock!!!
Oops I forgot; you’re right, Jim!