Retired FBI agent Ed Adams who managed the investigation more than a decade ago that toppled the mayoral administration of Joe Ganim submitted testimony Friday morning at a legislative hearing in Hartford in support of House Bill #5886 to enforce the Bridgeport City Charter barring city employees from serving on the City Council. The hearing before the Planning and Development Committee will take place 11 a.m. in Room 2B of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.
The bill introduced by State Rep. Jack Hennessy and State Senator Marilyn Moore has the backing of the majority of the city’s legislative delegation. A petition advanced by City Councilman Enrique Torres supporting the legislation has been signed by nearly 400 residents.
Hennessy is urging supporters of the bill to submit testimony to pdtestimony@cga.ct.gov.
The Bridgeport City Charter approved by city voters bars city employees from serving on the City Council to avoid conflicts of interest such as approving their own wages and benefits.
Bridgeport City Attorney Mark Anastasi cites a loophole in state law as a pretext to violating the City Charter. State law prohibits public employees from serving on municipal boards of finance. The Bridgeport City Council, however, serves as a board of finance. The bill proposed seeks simply to extend state law to prohibit municipal employees from serving on any government body that has budget authority.
Several city residents, including former City Councilman Tom White, will testify in support of the bill. Ed Adams has shared his testimony in advance with OIB:
I am a Connecticut Private Investigator, a New York Attorney and formally a Special Agent of the FBI for 26 years. As an FBI Special Agent during the late 1990s and early 2000s, I managed the FBI’s investigation of corruption in the City of Bridgeport which resulted in 11 convictions including Mayor Ganim.
I am here today to express my support for the passage of Bill No. 5886–Prohibiting Municipal Employees from Serving on Certain Municipal Legislative Bodies. I specifically wish to speak to the current practice of allowing City of Bridgeport employees to serve on the Bridgeport City Council.
It is commonly accepted that if an act or position taken by a public official can sufficiently affect his/her private economic interests, then his/her administration of duties for the public good will inevitably be influenced by the conflict between the obligation to the public and desire for personal interests.
An individual who is an employee of the City of Bridgeport and is paid by the City has a personal economic interest; and if he/she is sitting on the Bridgeport City Council their acts or positions taken will inevitably be influenced by this conflict of interest.
The acts or positions taken by a City employee as a City Council Member can affect his/her employment, the ability for advancements and or demotions should his/her action be in opposition to the wishes of supervisors, managers, department heads and even the Mayor’s Office. The City Council members are obligated to be fair and unbiased in the administration of duties for the public good. A City employee who is a City Council member will inevitably be influenced due to the conflict of interest.
Therefore, I submit that a vote for Bill 5886 is a vote for good government in Bridgeport and a vote against could enable the corruption of the past to continue.
Submitted my support via email. It is not too late for you to do the same! On a side note (credit to Auerbach), great to see Ed Gomes out in support at the Hector Diaz fundraiser tonight. I asked Ed if he was supporting Hector. His response was he supports people he knows, and he did not know Steve. Knew his uncle and he was fine, but did not know Steve. A lot of the Bridgeport old guard was out in force in support. It was an honor to shake their hands and hear their stories.
Jennifer Buchanan, I have early call, but I would be remiss not to thank you for stopping in and your kind words. It was a great night. Lennie, you missed a good one. Thank you John Marshall Lee for stopping by also, Wes Mathews enjoyed the lesson on tieing a proper bow tie, along with all of us. Steve Nelson, Sauda, Larayne, Michael and the many more who deserve mentioning, I will post tomorrow, I’ve a very early trip to Norwalk. For those who want to view the candidates for State Rep. in the 129th catch us on focus on CT with Tom Appleby. We are taping tomorrow morning.
Hector,
It was fun to be with you and your friends. Seeing Wes Matthews in a bow tie provided an occasion to celebrate those Bridgeport folks like David Carson, Scott Hughes, etc. who are well known for their sartorial splendor. Wes and I had fun with the brief training session (as did others around) and I will gift him with a colorful butterfly style gift in the near future.
I am happy to witness, support and celebrate most of the candidates in this specific race as a registered Democrat for the effort they are making to awaken the citizenry to our current situation. Two of the candidates are current members of the City Council and each in his own fashion has raised questions that remain unanswered or poorly dealt with on too many issues that affect our City property taxes.
The endorsed Democrat who served about eight months on the Council saw fit to ignore the numerous questions I raised about City fiscal operations and watchdogging of budget that has caused our property taxes to rise. He also personally participated in using $1,000 of taxpayer money (held in a City Council account for Other Services) to fund a charitable contribution to a neighborhood charity. Neither he nor any of the other 14 Council persons (who made a gift) ever addressed this seemingly minor amount that was accomplished personally and privately and very likely illegally. For if it were legal, then there would be notice of meeting, agenda, minutes, etc., wouldn’t there be? And it was revealed only because for the first time ever since the departure of the Financial Review Board the citizens of Bridgeport received a FINAL 12-month June financial report base on the external audit! First time and what do we see? $30,000 Council-approved charitable gifts requested through purchasing department at a time of primary and elections. Appearances of conflicts of interest? Illegality? Time will tell.
So John,
Have you gotten a copy of that package you made for the CT Post on this issue over to the Feds yet? As my grandmother was wont to say, either shit or get off the pot!
Can’t say I know your grandmother, or you either. I actually have been reading the 2014 CAFR and am finding errors repeated two years in a row, as well as some new ones. Perhaps you will be interested in the fact the most underfunded Pension Plan A facing the City earned slightly less in the 12 months between July 2013 and June 30 2014, yet someone (probably Mayor Finch who chairs that Pension A committee) has seen fit to increase the “discount rate” on that plan to 8%, while the Police and Fire Plan B actuaries are reducing their assumptions to 4.92%.
The City uses the increase in Pension A assumption to decrease the total pension liability by around 10% overall. Yet they still stand at nearly $300 Million and Pension A funding stands under 50%. Remember we borrowed $350 Million 15 years ago and are halfway through the repay period that hits police and fire budgets currently for about $30 Million per year. If the equity investments in our pension plans are overvalued as many have stated, and our positions begin to melt like the snow will come springtime, we still have to pay for the bonds, and the retiree income payments around $31 Million annually.
I happen to think the Feds may be interested in the entire Bridgeport picture. It’s not just bad management practices that have gotten us here. It is people who have been elected and/or appointed who have sought to benefit themselves at the expense of the public. Big picture, political and charitable contributions to the tune of $30,000 BY 75% of Council. Or bonding irregularities where Council members do not have a listing of what Council authorizations in the past have approved, nor is such a list present in the CAFR. And the details of bond issuance, purpose, etc. is not maintained in City Clerk office, but rather at the law firm of our bond counsel. Wonder when they will return my call? What package do you think is the most outrageous example of the failure of governance checks and balance in the City? $30,000 Council Other Services? $3 Million and more Overtime overages annually for public safety employees? A required restatement of 2013 CAFR to reduce over $5.5 Million of Bonding issuance costs as an asset? And if you want a larger disturbing number, let’s look at the Wheelabrator Case. the City has maintained the former CRRA plant had land and buildings valued at $445 Million that would be assessed at 70% or about $310 Million. Wheelabrator thought differently and the valuation reduces the Grand List by $130 Million. When was that announced? And the revaluation results for our homes and businesses reduces the Net Taxable Grand List by $1, 2 or 3 Billion? Any guesses? Time will tell.
John,
If you have met anyone like my grandmother, you clearly weren’t affected by the meeting. It was a simple question. You managed to write well over 400 words and not answer it.
The Feds have invited people to submit examples of government corruption. You have such data. I personally don’t care which issue they go after first, that’s their call. Perhaps you don’t know much about law enforcement, they generally go after specifics rather than try to make a generalized case. Al Capone murdered many people, but was brought down on a tax evasion beef.
So John, see if you can answer a direct question. Are you going to submit data (on anything) to the Feds? Or not? In your own words, “time will tell.”
Does Ed Gomes know there are claims he is supporting Diaz? I am sure it’s news to him. Not a chance this is the case. Case in point, there were Republicans at this meeting, too. Does that mean they are supporting Diaz? One would think they are supporting Torres, right?
Suggest you look for photos on Hector’s page and call Ed yourself and ask him if I misquoted him. Ed and Hector go way back to Hector’s father–no surprise he would support Hector because of their long-term relationship. This special election is a battle zone, this Republican was there because she knows there are people who cannot ever vote Republican–I have often supported honorable Democrats–and exchanging intel. All is fair in love and war. Important to support a candidate who knows the difference between recuse and abstain from voting, which according to city council minutes Stafstrom did not on a couple of key bonding votes.
Nah, I am fine with the information I have, thanks.
Nothing says Bridgeport like a well-informed voter.
Jennifer Buchanan, it’s time for you to become a Democrat and help make changes inside the system instead of being on the outside.
Hector, that was a great fundraiser you had last night, Joe Ganim gave an excellent speech.
Ed Gomes’ speech was very eloquent, and Ernie Newton’s speech gave us hope for the future.
Jennifer Buchanan was much better after her third cup of black coffee, even though she took a swing at me.
We managed to get her into cab after she screamed out the words Recuse this. Steve Stafstrom! With her middle finger pointing to the sky, as the cab pulled away like she was fired from Donald Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice Show. Only kidding, Jen.
It was nice meeting Wes Mathews, basketball star from the Boston Celtics, Lisa Miro and Tito Ayala. Hector, you have a lot of good friends, it was a great turnout!
Thanks for not posting the video of my departure!
Thank you Jim, for your presence and efforts. Wes actually played for a number of teams in his more than 10 years in the NBA, bringing home back-to-back Championship rings with the Los Angeles Lakers, he is credited with coming up with the term three-peat that Pat Riley then patented, but I don’t think he ever played for the Celtics. It was great having you and everyone who came out.
Mustang Salley, Ed Gomes and I are openly supporting each other. Together we will serve this City well, by the grace of God.
I will testify in person. Below is my prepared statement. I speak to just the facts of the amendment and the need for action at the State level.
February 13, 2015
Dear Members of the Planning and Development Committee.
My name is Thomas White. I reside at 446 Savoy Street in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
I ask that you support House Bill 5886, an amendment to CGS Sec. 7-421 entitled AN ACT PROHIBITING MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES FROM SERVING ON CERTAIN MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES.
CGS Sec. 7-421 includes a provision that allows municipal employees to serve on municipal legislative bodies in which the employee resides except land use boards and boards of finance.
In 1988, the City of Bridgeport revised its City Charter in a voter referendum. It included dissolving its Board of Apportionment and Taxation (Board of Finance) and moving those powers and duties to the Bridgeport City Council. As a result, the role of the Bridgeport City Council includes the role of a board of finance. CGS Sec 7-421(e) prohibits municipal employees from serving on the board of finance of the town where they reside.
HB 5886 is an amendment of this statute, extending this prohibition to situations where the municipality’s legislative body has the role of a board of finance. The Bridgeport City Charter prohibits Bridgeport city employees from serving on the Bridgeport City Council. This prohibition is not enforced because CGS Sec 7-421 allows municipal employees to serve on city legislative bodies.
While municipal employees are prohibited from serving on boards of finance in their Connecticut town, Bridgeport has been an exception, in that municipal employees serve on the City Council which has the powers and duties of a board of finance. This bill may be labeled incorrectly by some as a ‘Bridgeport bill.’ In reality, the bill’s intent is to make the rule that applies in all towns in Connecticut through State Statute, apply in Bridgeport as well. If an impacted town objects to this amendment, the statute currently includes options for them to consider.
I urge Planning and Development Committee members to support this bill and endorse this effort to address conflict of interest in all Connecticut towns as intended by CGS Sec 7-421(e). Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. White
Excellent Tom, thank you!
To the FBI, start investigating the State and Federal politicians!
It’s really too bad us working stiffs can’t go. A heartfelt thanks to all who do.
Here’s a link on who this FBI agent works for now:
www .adamsassocllc.com/clients.html
You will find he works for Tauck Tours and does the Transportation Tauck Tours of Norwalk CT. The owner of Tauck Tours is a friend of Jenn Buchanan. She has gone on many a free trip paid for by Tauck Tours. Just ask her. 🙂
Yes, and this of course shows how much Tauck invests in Bridgeport–image!
www .tauckfamilyfoundation.org/portfolio/yale-university-ruler-bridgeport-public-schools
And her friendship with the Taucks has what to do with HB 5886? Go find somewhere else to eat breakfast if you dislike us so.
James, are you suggesting the former FBI agent’s support of HB 5886 is part of a conspiracy to get Jennifer some free bus tickets? Absolutely diabolical!
The count is two trips, paid for by my former fiancé Peter Tauck. Pullman and Comely are also on their client list and from them I have received–tax hikes? Actually we all have from the 16 million dollars Harborpoint in Stamford they bonded.
The $16 million cost to taxpayers for the failed move of Bridgewater to Stamford, which Pullman bonded is how that should read.
Pullman and Comley didn’t bond that deal, Connecticut did!
Then you might want to tell Pullman to remove this from their website.
www .pullcom.com/about-23.html
Enough with JB’s laundry list. I disapprove of HB 5886. Here’s why:
If it’s not a secret, it’s not a conflict of interest. The City Charter was revised accordingly in 1988 to reflect this. Bridgeport’s delegation should concentrate on Connecticut’s crumbling infrastructure and leave the city council’s infrastructure intact.
Conflicts of interest are fundamental to American politics and remain cornerstones of our Democracy. Without them, we’d all be communists.
In closing, my bake sale to defeat HB 5886 raised $7.25. If my cost basis is zero, that should be plenty. (wink)
Hey Lennie, Tom White, Rick, Pete Spain and anyone else who is in Hartford today:
For those of us who are not “tweeters,” will you please post comments and updates about HB-5886?
Thanks in advance!
Memo to Jennifer Buchanan:
There’s no need for Pullman and Comley to remove that web page. They’re showing their prowess in municipal finance. They are not a tax-exempt entity, Connecticut is.
Here’s the deal: you stop dispensing bad info and I’ll stop handing out free peanuts on non-stop flights to Phoenix, okay?
They are called Bond Counsel (not council).
They are supposed to counsel the state on projects.
Seems like they should have cautioned about how risky bonding for this might be.
But then again, they have an inherent conflict of interest because if they were to do that they would make no money.
But Local Eyes thinks this is good.
Will someone please let me know what Mayor Finch and Council President McCarthy have to say about the legislation?
Since they are so opposed to it I am sure they will provide very intelligent and insightful reasoning as to why this legislation is bad.
Can’t wait to hear it. I might even change my mind.
Thank you to the group of people speaking for this bill as an antidote to what has been passing in Bridgeport for too long as selfless public service by those on the City Council. What’s in it for me has been the rule of the day and has frustrated and diminished enthusiasm by those who appreciate the difference.
Contrary to Local Eyes’ gurgitations on the subject, we expect there to be conflicts in the public square between parties contending for notice, power, money, etc. However what we do not countenance are actual conflicts of interest (OR APPEARANCES OF) from those tasked with making PUBLIC DECISIONS. Public trust is lost when the public believes governance and decisions are slanted away from their direction to private and personal interests.
That is where we are today. The fact a fire of indignation has grown during the past several years is significant. Now if our current delegation will act as a delegation, we may see a positive change that may not be “bringing home the bacon” but allow our local bacon to get fried differently. One small step, perhaps. Time will tell.
Bob Walsh is so afraid of me, he is misreading my words in a vain attempt to discredit me. SRWDMT = stop ramming words down my throat.
And JML continues to overestimate the delegation’s ability to overthrow the status quo.
Reminder to fashionistas: reformers never wear pearl necklaces.
Flash to LE … OIB is not about you even though you usually can find a way to let everyone know it really is about you (wink) … and we are all dealing with the status quo in the State of CT, it’s about moving it together as a unit, even when Mayor Finch sends department heads to Hartford without communicating with the elected rep. How does that look in Hartford? Or feel to a delegation member? Overestimating may be a problem but underestimation has been part of the status quo, so what is there to lose with shooting higher? Time will tell.
Rich Paoletto,
Please forgive me for not addressing your departure with other than a wish for peace and health. For that is more than what you have provided in terms of serious consideration of the numerous comments I have made before you on the City Council during the past several years. The conflicts of interest you carried daily obviously made you incapable of hearing, even if you cared to respond. And so it goes.
It is ironic this announcement is served up while the State Legislature is dealing with the “conflict” hearing today in Hartford. However for those of us in Bridgeport, the Paoletto story of public sin and penance is hopefully complete and allows us to focus upon:
*** the Airport story where good judgement crashed terribly while the Mayor and Council President were aboard the commission flight, yet they walk away unscathed, and the taxpayer is presented with the bill.
*** the “revaluation rebellion” where a number of folks in this community are unjustly paying taxes too high relative to others, because of Mayor Finch’s high-handed actions enshrining the 2008 results that are highly overvalued as well as variable within the City boundaries
*** the net taxable grand list uses 2008 values in 2014, doesn’t it? And the Mayor claims the net taxable grand list has risen in the 2014 CAFR, doesn’t he? Is that an instance of public fraud? Aren’t valuation numbers the incumbent knows are inaccurate being used to continue a false impression that the Grand List for taxpaying purposes is growing? And the taxpayer has paid for the valuation not being used?
*** Are there other issues present in the CAFR that bear on the taxpayer? Call a meeting? Ask some questions? Any answers?
Time will tell.
Her video on how Jenn came up with her analysis of $13 million spent on the Stamford Bridgewater project.
www .youtube.com/watch?v=xkbQDEXJy2k
Never said $13 million–however this is perhaps the source–although next time I will try your method.
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Taxpayers-shoulder-16M-for-failed-hedge-fund-move-5594661.php