Jacobs’ Ladder Enters Court, Termination Called Fabrication Plus: Dems Pass New Budget

What will the firing of Ralph Jacobs cost the city?

The ousted personnel director has filed a complaint against the Civil Service Commission in Superior Court seeking reinstatement, back pay, associated costs and anything else the court wants to throw in as a result of  his termination “solely because the plaintiff had resisted the concerted efforts of the mayor of the city of Bridgeport and his subordinates to circumvent the appointment provisions of the civil service provisions of the charter of the city of Bridgeport.”

Translation: Jacobs didn’t play ball with Bill Finch to hire the mayor’s political friends. If this gets to trial it will be a doozy. Jacobs’ lawyer former Mayor Tom Bucci who specializes in labor law and employment discrimination will be questioning a bunch of folks under oath about what they knew regarding Jacobs’ resistance to accommodate Finch regarding political hires. This, Bucci alleges in the complaint, is why he was fired noting the fabrication cited  by the commission–Jacobs suggesting that a lawyer for a city employee seek arbitration to resolve a labor dispute–was not just cause for termination.

And what will this cost the city in legal expenses to defend? The city has hired two law firms in connection with dumping Jacobs. Or maybe the city just settles the case? Or maybe the mayor doesn’t care what this costs, he just wants Jacobs out. Jacobs has also filed a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement. See relevant portions of the Superior Court complaint below:

6. In carrying out his responsibilities, the plaintiff (Jacobs) has opposed the actions of certain officials of the city of Bridgeport which would violate the civil service provisions of the charter of the city of Bridgeport.
7. The plaintiff has on a number of occasions brought the contemplated unlawful conduct of the city officials to the attention of the civil service commission and the city council.
8. As a result of the communications between the plaintiff and the civil service commission and the city council, the plaintiff had been made the subject of an unauthorized investigation and spurious charges of misconduct, culminating in his wrongful discharge from his position as personnel director.
9. The misconduct ascribed to the plaintiff involved his actions in reporting, verbally and in writing, the unlawful conduct of certain municipal officials. See Exhibit 1.
10. The plaintiff participated in protected activity under the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51m when reporting to the civil service commission and the city council.
11. On August 3, 2009, the defendant notified the plaintiff that he was being charged with “breach of your duty of loyalty.” Exhibit 2.
12. On August 21, 2009, the defendant conducted a hearing at the conclusion of which it terminated the plaintiff’s employment.
13. The defendant claimed to have terminated the plaintiff’s employment because the plaintiff “on February 18, 2009 … urged NAGE’s Regional Counsel James Tessatore to initiate legal action against the City.” Exhibit 2.
14. The defendant illegally, and over the protests of the plaintiff, met in executive session, in violation of the express provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, where it discussed and devised the false and illegitimate reason for terminating the plaintiff’s employment.
15. The defendant never discussed the reasons behind the termination of the plaintiff in open session.
16. The defendant came out of executive session, and without discussion of any kind, proceeded to take a vote on motions it had prepared in executive session, to discipline and terminate the plaintiff’s employment.
17. The Freedom of Information Act does not permit an executive session to discuss the discharge of an employee without the employee’s express consent.
18. The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment solely because the plaintiff had resisted the concerted efforts of the mayor of the city of Bridgeport and his subordinates to circumvent the appointment provisions of the civil service provisions of the charter of the city of Bridgeport.
19. On various occasions, the plaintiff communicated with the defendant, and the City Council regarding the efforts of the mayor of the city of Bridgeport and his subordinates to circumvent the provisions of the appointment provisions of the charter of the city of Bridgeport.
20. As a result of the plaintiff’s insistence that the mayor of the city of Bridgeport and his subordinates act lawfully in filling employment positions, the mayor and his subordinates embarked on a concerted effort to fire the plaintiff from his position as personnel director.
21. The mayor of the city of Bridgeport, without the approval of the defendant, hired the services of a private law firm to formulate a strategy and devise reasons to terminate the plaintiff’s employment.
22. The private law firm hired by the mayor drafted a memorandum, replete with misrepresentations and mischaracterizations, falsely asserting that the plaintiff had breached his duty of loyalty to the City of Bridgeport. Exhibit 1.
23. The memorandum, Exhibit 1, specifically charged the plaintiff with breaching this duty of loyalty by reporting to the civil service commission and the City Council, and various agents and officers of the city of Bridgeport, the unlawful attempts of the mayor and his subordinates to circumvent the provisions of the civil service provisions of the Charter of the City of Bridgeport.
24. At the time of the hearing on August 21, 2009, the members of the defendant, including its president, failed to exercise independent judgment and feebly succumbed to the will of the mayor of the city of Bridgeport, and his subordinates, and terminated the employment of the plaintiff without just cause.
25. The charge that the plaintiff had violated his duty of loyalty stemmed specifically from the defendant’s own action when, in January of 2009, it ruled in lawful session in favor of an employee who had filed a grievance over her layoff by the city of Bridgeport.
26. The employee had claimed in her grievance that the city of Bridgeport had ignored the seniority rights granted to her under the rules of the civil service commission of the city of Bridgeport.
27. After hearing the employee’s grievance, the arguments advanced on the employee’s behalf by the plaintiff and the opposing position advanced by the subordinates of the mayor of the city of Bridgeport, the defendant voted to sustain the employee’s grievance and rejected the arguments advanced by the subordinates of the mayor of the city of Bridgeport.
28. The mayor of the city of Bridgeport and his subordinates refused to abide by the ruling of the defendant.
29. As was his obligation under the provisions of the civil service provisions of the charter of the city of Bridgeport, the plaintiff attempted to have the ruling of the defendant implemented.
30. When his efforts at persuasion failed, because of the resistance of the mayor of the city of Bridgeport and his subordinates, the plaintiff sent a letter to legal counsel for the union which represented the employee suggesting that the matter be submitted to binding arbitration in order to have a definitive resolution to the issue in dispute.
31. The plaintiff’s actions were entirely consistent with the determination of the defendant, which had voted to sustain the grievance of the employee.
32. The plaintiff’s behavior was completely loyal to the civil service provisions of the charter of the city of Bridgeport and the official ruling of the defendant in lawful session.
33. The action of the plaintiff on which the defendant based its decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment occurred in January of 2009.
34. The defendant was supplied with a copy of the letter which the plaintiff had sent to the union counsel in January of 2009.
35. Between January 2009 and August 2009, the defendant never raised an issue with the plaintiff’s efforts to enforce the defendant’s ruling or the letter which the plaintiff had sent to the union counsel.
36. Between January 2009 and August 2009, the defendant never reversed its position on the employee grievance which it had voted to sustain, making it the obligation of the plaintiff to enforce.
37. The termination of the plaintiff’s employment was based on fabricated reasons and was without just cause.
38. Section 223 of the charter of the city of Bridgeport provides, in relevant part, “[n]o person or employee holding a permanent office or position in the classified service shall be removed, discharged or reduced, except for just cause which shall not be political or religious.

Master Plan

Anyone attend the Planning & Zoning meeting Monday night? Nancy Hadley, former director of economic development, is pleased about the Master Plan update approved by the commission that started on her watch.

“This whole update started four years ago. It has to come to a conclusion so the developers and property owners know the rules of the game. The financial institutions will not make investment decisions with stuff remaining in limbo. The growth of the City’s tax base depends upon it. Kudo’s to the PZC for their unanimous decision. ”

Dems Pass New Budget

The Democratic-controlled Connecticut Legislature passed a new budget that calls for increasing the income tax on millionaires and lowering the sales tax. Will Republican Governor Jodi Rell oppose it? If she doesn’t sign it the bill becomes law after five days. From Chris Keating of The Hartford Courant:

Following approval by the House of Representatives shortly before midnight, the state Senate approved the Democratic-written budget early Tuesday morning that raises the income tax on millionaires and funds numerous social programs.

The vote marked the latest turn in the longest budget battle in state history–breaking the record that was set in 1991 during the creation of the state income tax. Connecticut has been one of only two states–along with Pennsylvania–that still did not have a budget in a summer-long soap opera that was filled with dueling press conferences and high-pitched political rhetoric on both sides.

The bill was approved, largely along party lines, by 22 to 13 shortly before 2:30 a.m. Tuesday. Sen. Joan Hartley of Waterbury was the only Democrat who voted against the budget–joining all 12 Republicans. Sen. Andrew Maynard of Stonington was traveling out of the country and missed the vote.

Republicans complained that the two-year, $37 billion budget would increase spending by more than $800 million over two years, while Democrats said they had cut $3.1 billion from the “current services” budget that counts lower-than-expected increases as cuts. Those spending cuts represent 35 percent of the state’s projected $8.5 billion deficit, according to the legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal office. Despite those figures, Republicans said that the budget had “no real cuts” and simply had accounting maneuvers and money transfers.

The budget calls for cutting the sales tax from the current 6 percent to 5.5 percent in January 2010, along with increasing the state income tax to 6.5 percent on couples earning more than $1 million annually and individuals earning more than $500,000. The sales-tax cut, however, is contingent and can be repealed if the state does not meet its revenue targets.

News release from State Rep. Auden Grogins


Representative Auden Grogins (D-Bridgeport) proudly announced her support today for a state budget that “saves Bridgeport assets that were on Governor Rell’s chopping block and supports programs and services vital to Bridgeport families.”

Rep. Grogins worked with members of the Bridgeport legislative delegation to secure funding for the Beardsley Zoo, Discovery Museum and libraries, which had been targeted for funding elimination or significant budget reductions by Governor Rell.

Rep. Grogins also lauded the continuation of full funding for education, the decision to retain the property tax credit for homeowners and a decrease in the state sales tax that will help countless Bridgeport families.

The General Assembly’s House of Representatives passed a state budget last night, following months of budget negotiations among Democrats, Republicans and Governor Rell. The bill awaits Governor Rell’s signature.

Rep. Grogins held an informational forum in June at the Black Rock Library that was attended by over 100 Bridgeport area residents concerned about Governor Rell’s proposed cuts to libraries and tourist and educational attractions like the Beardsley Zoo.

The Beardsley Zoo attracts more than 275,000 tourists annually from around the state and nation. It features an educational center that serves more than 50,000 Connecticut residents and provides a valuable curriculum on endangered species as well as education concerning the ecosystem.

The Discovery Museum is an educational museum dedicated to science literacy. It provides over 60 educational programs to student visitors from all over the state and provides 2,500 hours of outreach education to Bridgeport public and parochial schools annually.

“I was honored to work with my colleagues in the Bridgeport delegation to ensure funding for these resources so vital to the people of Bridgeport,” Rep. Grogins said. “This is a budget for the people of Connecticut – one that will help us recover from the economic crisis but also one that protects those that already been hit hard by the recession.”

Is Sam Really The Man?

News release from GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sam Caligiuri. Sam has kicked up the rhetoric in this one. I’m still waiting for the Dodd campaign to send me its releases. Maybe OIB friend Marlys can help us with that.

What is Dodd Hiding in his Health Care Bill?

Transparency Absent in Dodd Health Plan Process

SOUTHINGTON, Conn. – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sam Caligiuri issued the following statement on Senator Chris Dodd still not making public his health care reform bill that the Senate Health Committee Democrats voted out of committee in July under his leadership:

Only in Washington do people believe it is okay to play with other people’s lives and not allow those people the information they need to determine for themselves what is in their best interest.

The healthcare debate in this country is critical to every citizen. Any legislation that is passed can have enormous impact on any one of us. Yet, despite the public outcry over what we know has been proposed and the requests from several colleagues in both parties, Chris Dodd still has not released the text of the marked up bill.

At the July markup, Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said, “Giving me language on little pieces of paper on which I’m going to commit the sacred fortunes and honor of the United States for decades, this is not the way to go. We can’t do this on the backs of envelopes.”

Legislating off of little pieces of paper? Is this what Chris Dodd thinks is acceptable legislative discourse when dealing with an issue that will impact every American?

And still, there is no copy of Senator Dodd’s secret bill.

One reason I am running for the U.S. Senate is that I am tired of the games and the arrogance of Washington insiders like Chris Dodd who don’t think they need to answer to anyone. If Senator Dodd has some brilliant plan to fix health care, then clue us all in, but the days of closed door, back room deal making must stop. Chris Dodd has hurt enough people with his failings on the Senate Banking Committee. His handling of the health care bill leads me to believe this will be another historic debacle. This lack of transparency is a disgrace. His failure to disclose the text of this bill to the public is yet another reason why he is unfit to chair the Senate Health Committee, in addition to needing to finish his job on the Banking Committee.



  1. The Civil Service Commissioners have been doing the Mayor’s bidding for a long time. He is in contact with them whenever there is a hearing for grieving civil servants. Ask around city hall, we all know this goes on. They are supposed to be an objective board, but they certainly are not. The Civil Service, Fire, and Police Commissioners are political appointed hacks and there is no actual reason for their existence anymore … except to do their appointing powers’ bidding. Most all decisions are passed on to the State Board of Mediation. They should all be exposed.

  2. Pobrecito Mayor Finch. The city will lose this case in court with Jacobs just like they lost the case with the libraries!

    I cannot wait to see what the judge will say in the Jacobs case. This is a classic wrongful termination suit that the city will lose. The law firm that advised them to take this course of action was dead wrong. I am sure that they were going based on the fact that CT is an At Will state. But the city screwed up on this one. Just wait and see.

  3. This will cost at least a few million. This is a giant distraction. This makes the Mayor look terrible. Who is advising this Mayor? They should be rightfully terminated. I predict Jacobs will win, get a hefty financial award, be allowed to have his job back if he wants it … this should all play out over the next two years …

    One-term Mayor.

  4. Riddle me this, is Finch a liar or simply incompetent?
    From the CT Post
    Master Plan Approved Without Any Changes
    August 31, 2009 at 11:21 pm by Keila Torres

    “I’m disgusted,” said one city resident.

    “They made up their minds way before this,” said another.

    “They should be ashamed of themselves,” commented yet another angry resident.

    After sitting through the commission’s nearly four-hour meeting, more than 30 city residents – many North Enders and members of the Ungag the People Committee – stormed out of City Hall after the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to accept a resolution that confirmed the validity of their March 2008 approval of the Master Plan of Conservation and Development.

    Although presented with two other resolutions by City Attorney Mark Anastasi and Associate City Attorney Greg Conte that accepted amendments to the document proposed by the City Council and Mayor Bill Finch, the commission decided the master plan was perfect “as is.”

    Only Commissioner Barbara Freddino voted for any amendments to the document. Four of the eight commissioners present at the meeting even refused to discuss any possible amendments, while their four fellow commissioners debated for several minutes whether the master plan and zoning regulations had to be identical or “just” consistent.

    Who knew there was THAT big of a difference between the two words? Anybody have a dictionary?

  5. I hope Jacobs is judicially reinstated and I hope he returns to his duties. Imagine being fired for complying with the very rules you were sworn to uphold. WHO THE HELL DOES PHINCH THINK HE IS? At a time when we are scrambling to find every nickle we can just to pay our bills, this incredible asshole further harnesses us with an expense we cannot afford. Surely the city’s legal expense will be in the millions, plus Bucci is sure to prevail and will demand that his fees be borne by the city as well AND Jacobs is surely going to win a sizable punitive award. Forget stuffing the library coffers; we will be luck to be able to pay for the cops, firemen and teachers.

    If Cougar would have done the right thing and allowed Caruso to take his place on the last general ballot, things would not be as bad as they have become and it will surely get worse. I hope the chump change you were rewarded, Cougar, was worth it to you.

  6. The Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map can’t ever be identical but they must be consistent according to state statute. If you look at the proposed July 2008 zoning map, there are twenty different zone classifications. The future land use map has ten land use classifications. Let’s take single family residential as an example. On the Future Land Use Map, single family use is designated as ‘yellow’. On the zoning map, there are two classifications of residential single family because the PZC has determined that there needs to be different design standards within the single family zone. The regulations detail the differences. Either zone would be consistent with the Land Use Map. HOWEVER, if the proposed zoning map shows a Multi-family/high density zone for an area that the land use map shows as single family, that would be totally inconsistent. The PZC can’t make 10 and 20 identical but must make them consistent.

  7. “BARF,” Excellent posting, you are 100% correct; the problem continues to be when will the City Council ever step in and say this madness must stop now. It is a total abuse of the Civil Service system that threatens every City employee.

  8. Jacob’s basis of termination is “The memorandum, Exhibit 1, specifically charged the plaintiff with breaching this duty of loyalty by reporting to the civil service commission and the City Council, and various agents and officers of the city of Bridgeport, the unlawful attempts of the mayor and his subordinates to circumvent the provisions of the civil service provisions of the Charter of the City of Bridgeport.”
    To TC and Ron Mackey, if the administration terminated Jacobs for reporting their actions to the City Council, do you really think even if the council grew a set of balls big enough to step into this fight, the City Attorney wouldn’t step in and call the council’s actions illegal? Then the council would need to go out and hire its own legal representation (which the City Attorney would also rule to be illegal) to challenge these actions.
    And, oh by the way, this would need to be spearheaded by City Council President McCarthy who is either a co-worker or a boss of Mr. Dunn (depending on how one would draw the convoluted organization chart in Labor Relations).
    This will never happen.

  9. First off McCarthy is not going to lead anything other than what the mayor tells him to. He along with other members of the council are sitting back while the attempts to gut civil service are on-going.
    I can’t and won’t speak for the other council members but I can speak for Ann Barney and myself. We will bring this forward to the citizens of Bridgeport and will use everything at our disposal to fight for civil service and the employees.
    Anastasi may be the city attorney but he is not the last word. It maybe time for the Attorney General to step into this uncontrolled mess. Employees are protected by civil service and civil service is there for due process. If this is done away with then it’s time for the state to weigh in.

  10. RE Optimistic’s posting yesterday concerning Joe “Snake Oil, Anyone?” Celli and the former Black rock Bank & Trust building at 2838 Fairfield Avenue that was occupied by Mr. Celli and his allegedly “nonprofit” arts group IPA (“I would love to understand specifically what Celli did to be a polarizing figure. Celli started a free summer music festival at City Hall, supported DSSD in getting musical talent, organized wonderful arts and political discussions at the Arts Center”).

    By courting the well-heeled residents of Black Rock (e.g., those homeowners earning six-figure incomes living south of Fairfield Avenue near the Ash Creek salt marsh and Saint Mary’s By The Sea) and dismissing the apartment dwellers living north of the avenue as “a bunch of drunks” (a myth that a few local journalists actually bought into for a while), Mr. Celli was a divisive figure. The art center was a great idea; Mr. Celli’s agenda, motivated by a grossly inflated ego, was his downfall.

    Mr. Celli didn’t ‘start’ the Sweetport Music Festival; he was merely the manager of the event, booking the acts, hiring the sound and lighting crews, providing ‘security’ with unpaid volunteers, one of whom suffered a seizure during Nicholas Ashford and Valerie Simpson’s performance (Mr. Celli derisively referred to the poor soul as “just another drunk”), etc. “Summer Sounds of the World” existed well before Joe Celli elbowed his way into it and tried to take credit for everything.

    The political discussions organized by IPA (in reality, Mr. Celli) were self-serving, last-ditch efforts to stave off the inevitable closure of the art center. The city had the upper hand. We owned the building, and ol’ Joe thought he was entitled to a free ride, or at least a ride that only cost him $1.00 a year (while the city’s annual debt obligation on the property was more than $40,000.00). Mr. Celli did not honor any negotiated agreement with the city, did not perform any documented renovations to the building, rented space in violation of his lease with the city, and harassed local residents that disagreed with his tactics. When he finally admitted to himself that he was losing the battle and the war he cut bait and took a job with the city New London, fired the art center’s employees (one of whom has taken to calling Mr. Celli “the devil”) and closed up shop.

    Good riddance.

    1. Since all RFP responses have to be received by 2 September, I have to wonder if there is a developer with connections to Finchie and Paul “The Pimp” Timpanelli and Il Calamaro Grande biding his time …

  11. As a proud Finch supporter for a year and a half I must say I am very disappointed in what he has done so far. I was not of age to vote in the 2007 race just a week short but I did vote for him in the general election. When he came to PT and urged us to vote for Auden I did he was very popular guy at that time at PT. Now he has gone wild firing people who uphold the law, wants people to vote no for a library system that needs money, raises taxes. He has not done anything about education and he lacks good leadership. I can now say I no longer support this mayor and Caruso is looking better and better every day. Caruso was right about this guy.

    1. If Mr. Caruso were to formulate sound policies for the management and stewardship of the city of Bridgeport, shop for clothing somewhere besides the Men’s Store at Sears Roebuck, and tell his barber he’s tired of looking like an asshole, he’d have my vote secured. Declaring the intention to rid the city of “the corrupt political machine” is all fine and good, a task that ought to be undertaken for the good of the people of the city of Bridgeport.

      What will he do after that?

  12. Ralph Jacobs was quoted by the Connecticut Post as saying “I have to carry out the law. I have to follow the charter. It’s not really a choice, it’s a requirement. So when the mayor wants to do something that violates the law, the charter, I have to tell them they can’t do that. And they get frustrated. ‘Who are you to say the mayor can’t do this?'”

    My late father was an attorney; I’ve never been to law school but Dad taught me enough to know that Mr. Jacobs and his attorney would not be saying the things being quoted in the local media if they didn’t have a strong case. Only a lawyer engaging in wishful thinking would claim to have an unbeatable case; Mr. Bucci appears to have one, however. This will cost the city more than a few bucks; Bridgeport’s taxpayers are not being served if their tax dollars are being spent to defend the mayor’s fits of ego and narcissism.

    Can you say “one term”?

    Sure, I knew ya could.

    1. This business concerning the wrongful termination of Ralph Jacobs is yet another indication that Bill Finch is unfit to serve as Mayor of Bridgeport. He’s getting bad advice from Adam “Pecker” Wood, his chief yes-man. (Does “Pecker” dress up in a bright yellow cape-and-tights outfit emblazoned with an outsized “Y” when he meets with Hizzoner?) How does it benefit the people of the city of Bridgeport to wrongfully terminate a career municipal employee if the termination leads to a civil case that could well cost the beleaguered taxpayers several million dollars?

  13. town committee,
    Speaking of McCarthy I just learned some guy name McCarthy will be running at Longfellow who the heck is that? Never heard of him in my life. Does anyone know if he is a Finch put into?

    1. Marty McCarthy, proprietor of Marty’s Pizza & More on Fairfield Avenue in Black Rock. I don’t know that Finch had anything to do with Mr. McCarthy’s decision to seek public office. He is tight with Danny Roach, the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee’s man about Black Rock, and Mr. Roach is tight with Hizzoner the mayor. Connect the dots.

  14. Riddle me this, what happened on unpleasurable bitch???
    This just in; courtesy of the CT Post.
    Local aviation legend Morgan Kaolian was recently shocked, and saddened, to see the old Pleasure Beach carousel and former bumper car buildings reduced to piles of rubble.
    Was it the work of vandals?
    Or something more, he asks.
    Maybe it was the ravages of time (the amusement park has been gone for decades).
    Still he wonders why both buildings fell to the ground around the same time.
    Morgan shot these photos about 1:30 p.m. today.
    Sounds curious; we’ll check it out too.

  15. Has anybody given consideration for Auden Grogins for mayor? If there are three people worth voting for they are Obama, Himes and Grogins. The only highlight of the Finch administration was his support for her.

  16. donj,
    Climb down off that limb.
    Auden Grogins for Mayor. I hate to say this but she would be 100 times worse than Finch.
    Name one single thing she got accomplished up in Hartford this year? One!
    She was incompetent on the City Council, incompetent on the Board of Ed, totally over her head as President of the BOE and has done nothing in Hartford and you want her to run for mayor?
    Get out of the way ’cause if she is running for mayor I am running for the hills.
    OMG!!! That is the most bizarre thought I have seen posted here in a long, long time.

  17. It is time for a regime change at City Hall, the City Hall Annex, and the leadership of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee. The outbuildings at Pleasure Beach have moldered for years, finally collapsing. The Congress Street Bridge has been broken, stuck in the open position, rusting away for years. (This is one of the most noticeable sights from the window of an Amtrak or Metro North train.) Mayor Finch is so obsessed with power and control and his own image in the executive washroom mirror that he can’t be bothered to entertain developers and venture capitalists interested in in investing in the city’s long-overdue revitalization. The city’s leaders, both elected and self-appointed, are more interested in getting a piece of the action than doing anything that could benefit and improve the quality of life in the city. What do we matter to this bunch of self-important, antipathetic assholes? They get the votes; after that they could care less about the lot of the average citizen.

    Time for a change, and I’m not referring to stinking diapers.

  18. Lol I did not say she should be mayor I am asking a question about it. Let’s see other than Caruso, who is qualified or at least would be a good mayor? I have researched some pretty bad things about C Lopez and that will not play well with certain voters. That leads me to Ganim. I am not saying I would vote for him but I think he would beat all the other opponents.

  19. The gold standard for being a stubborn and stupid Bridgeport mayor was set by John Mandanici. Mandy wasn’t dumb, he’d just do stupid things because he was stubborn, or because he thought he knew it all and was smarter than anybody else. That made him stupid.

    I think Mayor Finch is going to have an excellent chance to see what he is made of, on the taxpayer’s nickel of course, in the Jacobs affair.

    Mandy never went nuclear on Civil Service; Finch just did. Mandy yelled and screamed; but quiet-ol’-Billy-boy just broke the Civil Service covenant. Without a whisper. Talk about your cold-blooded assassins!

    I think Mr. Jacobs lives, however. If he’s enough of a mule, the mayor is not going to be able to pay him off and make him go away. How much loot are we going to need?

    Lennie, I think we need a ’77 Coupe de Ville. When’s the new moon? Where’s Dick Cheney? If we could kidnap City Attorney Mark Anastasi, take him down to the boat ramp at Seaside Park, waterboard him and shoot him up with sodium pentathol, he’s going to tell us the city and Finch is a loser in court against Tommy Bucci and Jacobs. Maybe we can get the city’s number out of Anastasi while we are at it to see what it takes to make Bucci and Jacobs go away.

    I’d like to figure out how the mayor got the civil service commissioners to go along with this. They ate rat poison for Finch. What’s the sweetener?

  20. Budget will become law without Rell’s signature
    By Ken Dixon
    Updated: 09/01/2009 06:02:57 PM EDT

    HARTFORD — Gov. M. Jodi Rell will not sign into law the $37.6-billion Democratic budget approved early Tuesday, but will let it lapse into effect after five days, ending the state’s historic partisan fiscal stalemate.

    “We need a budget,” Rell said. “I have to govern and that’s exactly what I’m doing.”

    Rell issued an executive order to retain state spending at the start of the third straight month without a budget, but said her tacit agreement to approve the budget provides the closure the state needs to move on after a record-setting logjam.

    She half joked that if she had vetoed the Democratic spending package, it could have further delayed a budget deal until “Thanksgiving.”

    Speaking to reporters outside the Capitol late Tuesday afternoon, Rell said she would use line-item-veto authority to kill $8 million in “pork barrel” spending, including tens of thousands of dollars for the Bridgeport-based Regional Youth Substance Abuse Project and the Ansonia Nature and Recreation Center.

    She vowed that if the special-interest spending appears in legislation later this month that puts the budget into effect, she’ll veto them again.


Leave a Reply