UPDATE: Fearing his state legislative bill to prohibit city employees from serving on the City Council is dying the gooey death, State Rep. Jack Hennessy lashed out at municipal and state unions for betraying him, as well as questioning the courage of most members of the city’s legislative delegation.
“I’ve always had a 100% union voting record. I have always been there for them,” Hennessy wrote in the commentary section of OIB. “They pat me on the back and say thanks. Then they turn around and screw me.”
In particular he pointed out Anna Montalvo, president of AFSCME Local 1522, a huge supporter of Mayor Bill Finch and City Council President Tom McCarthy, the deputy director of Labor Relations who negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of the city.
Lori Pelletier, the Secretary-Treasurer of the Connecticut AFL-CIO and Montalvo are actively lobbying the Democratic-controlled state legislature to kill Hennessy’s reform bill that seeks to close a loophole in state law that allows municipal workers to sit on the City Council even though it’s prohibited by the City Charter. State law trumps local law. The City Council approves union contracts. Hennessy’s bill is currently before the legislature’s Planning and Development Committee. His bill is supported by committee member State Rep. Auden Grogins but no one else in the city’s eight-member legislative delegation, with close ties to Finch’s administration, who also rely on union support for election campaigns.
“The P & D Chairs want a majority of the Bpt delegation to be in support of the bill to pass it out of their committee,” Hennessy, a Democrat, wrote. “That ain’t happening. My Bpt colleagues are either waffling or actively working to kill the bill. Please turn up the heat.”
“I’ve been told, ‘Relax Jack, it’s only a bill. Bills die.’ I disagree. This is not just a bill. This is the future of Bridgeport. The fact that unions are fighting to kill this bill has me furious–Anna Montalvo.”
Hennessy says city employees serving on the City Council creates too many conflicts of interest such as approving their own wages and benefits. Currently six of the 20-member City Council are on the public payroll. They argue there’s no inherent conflict and any conflict issues can be resolved by recusing themselves. Hennessy says they rarely recuse. McCarthy, for one, recused himself last year when the council voted to modernize city salaries of management positions.
Hennessy’s bill has public support, including a coalition of neighborhood activists urging their representatives to support his bill. His bill is currently on public life support with the oxygen running out. Unions have a lot of sway with Democratic legislators.
Anna Montalvo and Lori Pelletier, feel free to respond to Hennessy’s assertions.
The city’s legislative delegation, State House: Auden Grogins, Jack Hennessy, Ezequiel Santiago, Christina Ayala, Charlie Stallworth, Don Clemons; State Senate: Anthony Musto, Andres Ayala. Contact info here.
Statement from Republican Town Chair John Slater:
Republican Town Chairman John Slater today said that, continuing its past policy, the Republican Town Committee will not select city employees as candidates for the Bridgeport City Council.
“Bridgeport voters long ago recognized that there is an inherent conflict when someone both works for the city and sits its legislative body, which oversees city agencies and approves the city budget, salaries and union contracts,” Slater said. “Even when there is no actual conflict there is an appearance of conflict, which undermines public confidence in the Council and in city government.”
Slater noted that the current City Charter prohibits city employees from serving on the Council. However, state law preempts that charter provision. Legislation to repeal that state override of the charter is currently pending.
“We believe that the legislature was wrong to substitute its judgment for that of Bridgeport voters. Going forward we intend to follow the letter and intent of the City Charter and will not be nominating city employees for the City Council.”
Double Whammy: when JH voted for the unions he screwed me and I don’t even live in his district.
Do you actually live in Bridgeport or do you just come here to go slumming?
THIS BLOG is for highbrows. I’m only “slumming it” when I respond to The Bridgeport Kid.
Anna and Rich must be busy fighting this bill! They sure don’t represent their members in 1522. The WPCA shit canned them because they did nothing for them but blow smoke up their ass! They have no-show jobs in their Dept., which is questionably legal. The city holds this over their heads as leverage to get what they want from them and screw their members. I remember months ago when Rich Dietz was going to go back on his route on a recycle truck because the City did not agree with his union practices. But he never went back on the truck. He sold his members out to protect his own ass. The chief steward resigned along with three other shop stewards. No effort has been made to fill these positions! I wonder why. When a member wants to file a grievance they have to do it over the phone with one of these jerks. Member do not even get a copy of a grievance! Is this legal? NO! But they do it. IF you can even get them on the phone. It is just a matter of time before the members of 1522 file a lawsuit for no representation. Then these two will get what they deserve. Members then will get some justice!
Wimps, cowards, suck-ups. Blech!
What can one say other than this is totally disgusting! Who are the other six members of the State Bridgeport Delegation? Ezequiel Santiago, Christina Ayala, Don Clemons, Andres Ayala, Anthony Musto? Who did I miss? SHAME on ALL of THEM!
It is time for a public meeting with all the State Reps and Senators to invite an open dialog with their voters to hear what we have to say about this bill.
Shake Down the Thunder, Jennifer! Call it. Name a time and place.
Anna is looking for a key spot in the new aristocracy that will come after the BOE privatizes all the members’ positions. Cushy supervisor jobs to watch over the new non-union employees and kickbacks for everybody. I have wiped things off my shoe that are smarter than her. The city has her in their pocket. It will funny when they kick Anna to the curb after she disassembles her union.
*** These so-called union reps in reality work for city or state government and drink plenty of the government “kool-aid” yet continue to be voted in apparently by union voting members. They’re the last ones to get laid off and usually have a cushy type job. The City Council president sits on and has influence on these labor boards these union reps deal with so it’s obvious which way they’re going to throw their support! Therefore voting union members are also to blame for the weak union representation they have because they do not vote these two-way scabs out when the time comes. Like any union, if you don’t go to meetings or keep in touch with what’s going on in your local and only show up to a meeting during contract time or when you personally have a grievance then your union is weak. Unions are only as strong as their entire “active” membership not just their reps! City registered voters need to be kept in the light about all city and state legislators do’s and don’ts concerning their support or lack of on important issues that affect our city and state. Maybe by organized active residents in all 10 districts, in order to push towards some type of democratic awareness towards change in Bpt. *** HERE WE GO! ***
We are responsible for voting these six idiots back in office year after year. They have done nothing over the years to help Bridgeport. For Don Clemons how is the ferry to Pleasure Beach going? E Santiago can’t wipe his butt without checking with Mitch Robles. The rest of these jerks just take up space. Is anyone surprised by either of the Ayalas?
Pure and simple these six suck.
And why is the Robles family registered to vote at an office and storefront on State Street? I bet they don’t even really live there.
I just sent an email requesting a public meeting–here are the reps’ emails who are not in support–the more people request this the more likely it is to happen.
Christina.Ayala@cga.ct.gov
Charles.D.Clemons@cga.ct.gov
Ezequiel.Santiago@cga.ct.gov
Anyone have the Senators’ email addresses?
I also copied Jack and Auden on the request.
This meeting needs to take place ASAP.
*** Two out of the three are ex-city council members and/or employees of the city of Bpt. No wonder they’ve chosen to remain silent on HB-5724. *** Out of Hand! ***
Here’s what I sent last night:
To the members of the Bridgeport Legislative Delegation,
I’m writing you to ask you to support Jack Hennessy and to show the same political courage Auden has. For too long the Bridgeport Delegation has been perceived as weak and not united. This perception has hurt our city and reinforced the perception that Bridgeport is a corrupt city consumed with petty political rivalries and little or no vision. A united front, in support of Hennessey’s bill will go a long way in correcting this not all together accurate, but real, perception of our city and its representatives in Hartford.
I know many of you, and I consider you to be decent people. I believe if you have the courage to put petty political considerations aside you will recognize that Jack and the people of Bridgeport deserve your support.
Failing that, I think you should all attend a public forum and explain to the citizens of Bridgeport why you believe Jack’s bill does not merit your support. This forum could be held at a public site such as City Hall or a Bridgeport Public Library location. Both sides of this issue should be represented and the press should also be invited. Let’s hear arguments from both sides and the input of the public. After that I trust each of you will vote your conscience when you return to Hartford.
Respectfully,
John D. Soltis
This legislation is all about good government. Federal and state employees are not allowed to serve on their legislative bodies and city employees should not be able to either. This is Good Governance 101. The City Charter, which was ratified by the city’s voters, also precludes employees from serving on the City Council. Therefore, good governance and the will of the people of Bridgeport should prevail. This is a “no brainer” and this legislation should be enacted into law. Connecticut elected officials can either vote for the public interest or cave to special interests (e.g., the local DTC and the unions). Hopefully, they will do the right thing. If not, they should be held accountable.
I agree. Accountability is important. But it was during Dave Walker’s tenure as Comptroller General of The United States that America’s debt exploded. He was silent on national economics then but he’s vocal about local politics now.
Local Eyes, you need to do your homework and get the facts straight. I was the person who spoke out early and loudly against Bush (43)’s fiscally irresponsible policies. My job was effectively to serve as the nation’s auditor general and de facto chief accountability officer. I’m proud of my record at GAO and was fortunate to win many international and national awards for my service as CGOTUS.
But you didn’t make as much noise as I did, even with your advantageous position. Some people understood the Bush ’43 tax cuts were a fantastic substitute for ultra-low interest rates. In effect, multi-millionaires were getting pre-911 returns thanks to their tax cut. That made them happy while the deficit climbed. Because interest rates have remained low, these tax cuts have survived for over 10 years.
The P&D committee chairs want the Bridgeport delegation to support Hennessy’s bill. Hmmm. Where does the Bridgeport delegation work? Grogins is an attorney with a private law firm and supports the bill. What about the rest? Santiago is a city employee and works for the City Administration. Ayala is a city employee working for the Board of Ed and former city councilperson. Stallworth is of the religious community. Does he have another job too? What about the rest?
These six do-nothings are the result of voter apathy. In other words, we get what we have because no one will run against them and when someone has tried the Democratic machine overwhelms them.
Other than Grogins and Hennessy because it’s his bill we have the quietest and dumbest delegation in Hartford. Has Senator Ayala ever taken a stand on a Bridgeport issue? Not really. Where was he on the BOE issues? Nowhere to be found. The other Ayala is taking defensive driving classes. Santiago is waiting for Robles to tell him what to do. Clemons is working on building a ferry for Pleasure Beach and lo and behold Stallworth is having a prayer meeting. Lest I forget Musto is busy doing nothing but kissing ass and seeing who else he could screw like he did Ed Gomes. Great people we elect.
This is more than a Bridgeport problem. Every taxpayer in the state of Connecticut has a vested interest that his tax dollars are spent in the proper manner. The state sends millions of dollars to Bridgeport every year. The fact Bridgeport and other Connecticut cities have no Board of Finance means elected officials who work for the city are voting for their own salaries and benefits. This is an inherent conflict of interest. Every taxpayer in the state should be concerned about this.
CG,
Thank you for raising the most important reason for all legislators to support this bill. In FY2011-12 the State of CT sent over $270 Million of taxpayer funds into the City of Bridgeport per the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report made public within the past thirty days. Local property taxpayers provided another $274 Million. The Feds sent in $50 Million. Plus some fees and other revenues. That’s it.
State taxpayers in every district are going to ask why there is no oversight in Bridgeport, why our Internal Auditor can be eliminated and controls are compromised, why we don’t follow clear Charter language regarding financial revenue, expense and variance reports or about public hearings on our capital budget, and why we don’t have any effective discussion about money, when almost half of it is courtesy of State taxpayers. Good questions, all. And why doesn’t the Mayor address financial issues at regular intervals throughout the year? And why the media and the CT Post do not focus on money? Initially the State will cut Bridgeport despite readily demonstrable needs because Bridgeport administration will have to share the pain. Then when the cuts must go deeper the justification will be we cannot govern ourselves adequately. Let us obey our own City Charter whose language would prevent the six employee Council persons! Let us ignore the faulty State legal proscription with its damaging loophole for 6-7 towns without Finance Boards! Hennessy’s bill would be a gain for the people of Bridgeport. Perhaps there must be more pain before we get to gain? Time will tell.
It’s worth noting the state constitution expressly prohibits state employees from being members of the General Assembly. But the legislature feels free to tell cities and towns they must allow local employees to serve on their legislative bodies.
The legislature should pass the bill, without the grandfather, and let Bridgeport go back to following the Charter its voters adopted.
Nobody should be surprised the unions support allowing city employees to serve on the Council. Obviously there is less chance the Council will turn down a fat labor contract if some of its members benefit, directly or indirectly, from that contract.
This is shameful. People need to rise up and start blasting the delegation for their lack of support for this bill. See how a few of them reconsider so as to fend off the masses. Wishful thinking? Maybe but the current situation cannot continue!
This just goes to demonstrate Calamarian control in Bridgeport is pervasive. The question will be if the Calamarian controlled representatives can influence the vote of the entire state legislature. Am I correct that Bridgeport is the only municipality in the state that allows city players to serve on the city council? If I am correct, my next question is simply, why?
I believe the statute applies to all cities and towns.
Want to help?
ACTION–
Please send an email now to the two state senators asking them to support this bill and to your district representative asking them to support the bill. Forward this to everyone you know in your district and ask them to send an email and forward to their email list.
Representatives
Christina.Ayala@cga.ct.gov – district 128
Charles.D.Clemons – district 124
Ezequiel.Santiago@cga.ct.gov – district 130
Charlie.Stallworth@cga.ct.gov – district 126
Senators
Anthony.Musto@cga.ct.gov – district 22
Andres.Ayala@cga.ct.gov – district 23
The state statute prohibits city employees from serving on municipal boards of finance. There are only five cities out of 21 that do not have a separate board of finance. Therefore those five city councils perform the board of finance responsibilities such as vote on budget, union contracts and mil rates. Bridgeport, New Britain, Hartford, Derby and Danbury are the five cities. Bridgeport’s City Charter prohibits city employees from serving on the city council. This language was voted on by the voters several years ago.
Here’s what I don’t get. The state constitution prohibits state employees from serving in the state legislature. Period. No wiggle room. Same should apply to city employees on city councils when they are responsible for board of finance matters. Send an email to your legislative delegation no matter where you live. This effects everyone in the state. Support bill HB 5724.
The statute provides that. Sec. 7-421a states: “Notwithstanding any general statute, special act or local law, ordinance or charter to the contrary, the provisions of section 7-421 shall apply to all municipal employees in the classified service.” It applies to all municipalities.
Phil,
The Towns with Representative Town Meeting structures are not included, right? There was a lot of confusion and it needs to be clear this bill is only affecting those consolidated town/cities where there is not a separate board of finance AND the local charter prohibits city employees from serving on the City Council. There are only 21 of the 169 municipalities that are consolidated town/city structures. Of that group of 21, sixteen have separate boards of finance. So this bill will only impact the five cities, Hartford, Bridgeport, Danbury, New Britain and Derby.
No. By its express terms the law provides that: “Any municipal employee shall have the right to serve on any governmental body of the town in which such employee resides except any body which has responsibility for direct supervision of such employee.” It applies to all communities.
There are two classes of offices which are exempted from this broad provision. One is various land use boards. The other is municipal Boards of Finance.
However, contrary to what appears to be a widespread belief, creation of a Board of Finance does not eliminate many of the conflicts (and the appearance of conflict) which result from city employees serving on the Council.
For example, under the Municipal Employee Relations Act, the Council, not the Board of Finance, would continue to be responsible for acting on union contracts and related matters.
Finally, even if those powers could be shifted to a Board of Finance, there would still be a myriad of potential conflicts of interests resulting from city employees serving on the Council.
In the final analysis there is one way, and only one way, to deal with this issue and it is the repeal of the state law.
Hey Local Eyes–I think your knowledge about Mr. Walker is a bit off base. Forbes article 11-5-06:
www .forbes.com/2006/11/05/walker-gao-concord-face-cx_rs_1103autofacescan04.html
Part of article about David Walker:
Jennifer Buchanan, I think you’re off base. Here’s why: The Comptroller General of The United States is a watchdog agency that didn’t fulfill its mission. Bow-wow, arf arf …
David Walker didn’t start barking until he received backing from Peter G. Peterson, the former Commerce Secretary under President Nixon, who became a billionaire after borrowing millions. Debt is in David Walker’s DNA. Politics is just a diversionary tactic.
You are embarrassing yourself. Try to do some homework before you make outrageous statements and engage in personal attacks.
I appreciate your advice. However, what you call outrageous statements and personal attacks have been fact-checked within the boundaries of blogging. Debt is a major topic of your books and lectures. You have plenty of fans and I’ll admit to putting a little mustard on my commentary. We pontificate here but I’m not inventing falsehoods to make my point. I bend the curve but I don’t break it. We should get along. Here’s why: my favorite topic is growth without debt.
I am a very busy person but I will provide you a few facts. I testified in Congress in early 2001 about the need for caution and prudence in connection with tax and spending policies. I blew the whistle on President Bush and Congress about debt financed tax cuts, SW Asia military spending, and Medicare prescription drug benefits in 2003. I held a national fiscal responsibility forum at GAO in 2004. I hit the road on a national Fiscal Wake-up Tour starting in 2005. I spoke out in a 60 Minutes segment in 2007. I was filmed for I.O.U.S.A. in 2007 and it was released at the Sundance Film Festival in 2008. All of this occurred while I was CGOTUS. These are all facts.
Local Eyes,
Don’t get distracted from the issue at hand. Bridgeport needs 20 council votes on every item of importance. Budget votes, labor contract votes and the like require all 20 to vote. Having six city employees abstain from voting due to the appearance of a conflict is just wrong. Having six city employees participating in all of the discussions leading up to those votes is not good either. The state statute should respect Bridgeport’s charter language. The loophole needs to be eliminated. HB 5724 is important. Don’t get off on a tangent.
It is a mistake to describe the state law as a loophole. It was a well-planned, intentional effort to override local charters. That alone is reason to repeal it.
Phil,
Point well taken.
Wow! With so much collective brainpower represented in this post I am embarrassed to admit I am still back there trying to figure out what a “gooey death” is …
Zena, when you figure it out please let me know.
No one remembers Billy Sol Hargis, speaking from the First Church of the Gooey Death and Discount House of Worship in Del Rio, Texas?
Ray,
‘Hanging up there with a pair of fuzzy dice’ unless my memory is playing tricks again.
Really, I was wondering what Local Eyes is doing with the double-barreled list of facts Dave Walker fired off. Perhaps readjusting the aluminum helmet? As a taxpaying and concerned citizen, with lots of experience and contacts at all levels of government and business, we are fortunate to have him engaged in our Bridgeport struggle to redirect our City priorities and reform our governance structures. Perhaps he will be in time to assist in prescribing the necessary medicine for healing the City. And perhaps the patient will take it to get healthy. And if not? Time will tell.
That’s right, JML. We’re both tireless crusaders, not toothless tigers. We complain about injustice but don’t benefit from its aftermath.
BTW, aluminum foil helmets with Local Eyes written on them have become a fashion statement at trendy offices.
Local Eyes, Buchanan, Lee and Walker; they bark a lot but have no bite; they couldn’t get elected to any city office even if they were the only candidate running; just a lot of hot air. Blah Blah Blah, just a lot of talk.