From Mayor Finch:
Election panel to hold public meeting on Nov. 16
Seeks firsthand accounts from Bridgeport voters
The informal, bipartisan panel that Mayor Bill Finch has tasked with assessing election procedures and making recommendations for change will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 7 p.m., in City Hall Annex, to hear directly from the public about Election Day troubles in the Park City.
“We want to hear firsthand accounts of problems and issues faced by any Bridgeport voters who went to the polls to vote on Election Day, Nov. 2,” said Nicholas Panuzio, panel chairman and former Republican Mayor of Bridgeport. “The public’s input is valued and important to the process we are about to undertake.” Panuzio said the panel is interested in learning about any difficulties residents encountered, or that they observed others having during any part of the voting process.
Joining Panuzio on the panel are prominent local lawyer Richard Bieder, a partner in Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, PC, and Robert Trefry, former president and CEO of Bridgeport Hospital.
The day after the election, Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch asked all three to serve on this panel to assess Election Day procedures, and to make recommendations so the difficulties experienced by voters throughout the City does not happen again.
“I’ve asked them to take an impartial look at the management of our Registrars’ office and make recommendations for improvements,” said Mayor Finch.
Some of the points he has asked them to review include:
• Sufficiency and correctness of ballots;
• Plan for emergency situations;
• Standards of extending hours in emergency situations;
• Training of Registrar, Registrar office staff and Election Day workers;
• Layout of election locations and personnel on Election Day, and,
• Cost of, and process of ordering ballots
WHAT: Public Meeting of Election Day Review Panel
WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 16 at 7 p.m.
WHERE: City Hall Annex, 999 Broad St., Bridgeport CT. 06604
Waste of time and tax dollars.
Hector
Call out to every voter you know to go that evening, 7pm. If that is the game the Mayor wants to play, then we have plenty of time to practice. For me I would think we could drive home the point that every voter still has rights … even in Bridgeport.
Look at this as a gift Hector. I would guess that OIB readers might agree.
.
On Bridgeport Now, this past Tuesday night, I believe the subject of Nick Panuzio, former Bridgeport Republican Mayor, and subsequently a DC lobbyist for decades, came up. Does the City have a $50,000 contract for him or his firm under consideration or recently approved at one or more levels of City authorization process?
Can anyone comment on that with further info, please?
If any part of this is true, it would seem to me that the appearance of a conflict of interest is present and ripe. One does not bite the hand that feeds you, and we need watchdog comment at this moment that gets the City out of the doghouse in this regard rather than chained to bad process and ‘hack’ practice. If Panuzio has negotiated a good payday, isn’t he likely to be seen as performing a lapdog function? Let him decide whether he wants the compensated City work or the volunteer chairmanship regarding balloting process.
Are there any expenses expected or provided for the three “volunteers,” for time, staff, reporting, travel, etc.? Haven’t heard about that, but this readership usually has its eyes and ears engaged. So, what’s the story?
And as I asked last week, how come Mayor Finch can assemble a three-member panel to perform an important investigation and reporting function in a matter of hours, yet he has not in three years thought that citizen volunteer input on 20 listed City Boards and Commissions is important enough to select, recruit, and train members from the public to fully staff with current terms those same Boards and Commissions. Shows where misplaced priorities are.
The real reason there have been very few to no appointments to City Boards and Commissions over the past six to seven years or so is, given the dire economic state of City residents, most everyone who is capable and interested in volunteering their time cannot be appointed due to owing overdue, back taxes.
Valkyrie, I don’t know where you have been hanging out after flights, but within the past two years I have watched City property owners, therefore taxpayers, who have responsible full-time jobs volunteer to mentor in schools up to five hours per month, work at a new food pantry 3-4 hours per month, attend neighborhood meetings for 2-4 hours per month to represent their community and or learn more about the community. There are many who are in between jobs, semi-retired or fully retired who are capable, interested, and not afflicted by conflicts of interest or the appearance of same.
Are you part of the administration currently and providing their “in-house” story? And where does it say that owing overdue or back taxes disqualifies a citizen?
I believe it is easier to get your way through inertia (in City leadership) by having Boards staffed irregularly and haphazardly, by putting in those who owe someone in power for something they do not disclose rather than a willingness to serve the broad community interest. I notice you mention the past 6-7 years. What starts this bad practice in that time period, preceding John Fabrizi’s final bow???
And finally, what % of taxpayers are currently owing back taxes? How many people as a percentage of total homeowners, for instance, are not current for October 1, 2010 residence taxes? Anybody?
Sure Val! If another candidate beats Finch, all the Vacant Commissions and Boards will most likely be filled. Department heads named and contracted to 2- to 5-year terms, all within 9 months before and after the elections.
Beacon, Panuzio is a paid government lobbyist.
And, a Rhino!
The “h” is silent.
Pronounce it with the h, any difference?
*** Waste of money & just another political P/R gimmick that will open the door for these 3 reviewers to get some type of work in the future from the city. Besides the hearing complaints will be mostly from the Republicans who lost in CT. This city needs a local political enema, not more complaints! *** FORGETABOUTIT ***
This meeting is pure and utter bullshit. There are laws that govern the entire voting process. There is one thing that is not in these laws and that is incompetence. It is not rocket science to order the right amount of ballots.
BTW this is another expense the darlings of the state legislature passed on to the city and towns. Before this last election ballots were ordered and paid for by the state.
I intend to go to the public meeting and make my comments. I voted but I didn’t have confidence that my vote would be counted. I never want that to happen again. Bob Trefry is the former head of Bridgeport Hospital. He would not have agreed to serve if he thought the panel recommendations would be ignored or buried. If you have something to report or recommend then go to the meeting and speak. If you can’t go, write a letter. If not, would you please stop complaining. There were several parts of the election process that were screwed up, not just the shortage of printed ballots. Now is the time to put all of those issues on the table.
The Registrar cannot be recalled. If she doesn’t voluntarily resign the only process is impeachment through the state legislature. A very difficult hurdle I admit but the first step is to describe in detail what went wrong.
Has anyone got the actual voting tabulations by each polling place in Bridgeport that combine the scanned and auxiliary ballots? All I have been able to find is the information from the electronic scanners. I thought the CT Post would have printed that information by now.
If you voted then more than likely you voted for the current reg. of voters unless you voted Republican. These gentleman, while honorable and with good intentions, have no power to change anything.
What a waste of time. I’m sure all three of these men are great people but this BS is a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY, but that’s the way this mayor rolls.
@town committee said:
“BTW this is another expense the darlings of the state legislature passed on to the city and towns. Before this last election ballots were ordered and paid for by the state.”
Actually, the deal all along was that 5 elections (5 of the ROV’s choosing. not necessarily the first 5 chronologically) were paid for as part of the startup (federal funding, I believe, but it could have been part of deal with manufacturer). After that, all along towns have known that ballot costs were to revert to the towns.
*** Maybe a portion of the state elections money that a candidate qualifies for should go to the town or city’s ROVs they represent? After all that’s who’s running the polls, no? *** Back to Basics. ***