Retired Superior Court Judge Carmen Lopez, a stinging critic of state takeover of city schools, questions the legal status of Board of Eduction member Leticia Colon’s right to serve. See her commentary below:
BRIDGEPORT’S DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED BOARD OF EDUCATION WILL TAKE OFFICE ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10. THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE 8 MEMBERS OR 9?
ONE INDIVIDUAL HAS RESIGNED FROM THE BRIDGEPORT CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE HER SEAT ON THE BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION.
HOWEVER, THE BRIDGEPORT CITY CHARTER IS PRETTY CLEAR. ONE CAN’T HOLD TWO MUNICIPAL OFFICES.
THE MOMENT THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS SWORN IN AS A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER LAST YEAR, SHE AUTOMATICALLY RESIGNED HER SEAT ON THE BOARD OF EDUCATION. ONE CERTAINLY CAN’T RETURN TO AN ELECTED OFFICE THAT SHE NO LONGER HAS A RIGHT TO HOLD.
AT THIS WRITING, THE FINCH ADMINISTRATION’S SILENCE ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ASTOUNDING.
HOWEVER, THE CHARTER IS THE CHARTER.
THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2012 CT POST HEADLINE, PROCLAIMED, “BOARD OF EDUCATION ELECTION NOT OFFICIAL YET.”
THE 12 PARAGRAPH ARTICLE, WRITTEN BY LINDA LAMBECK, PROVIDED A SOMEWHAT HAZY AND NEBULOUS DESCRIPTION OF THE EVENTS OF THE PREVIOUS DAY, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2012.
TUCKED AWAY IN THE NINTH PARAGRAPH WAS THE REVELATION THAT LETICIA COLON HAD, THAT VERY AFTERNOON, RESIGNED AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. ALTHOUGH THIS CLARIFIES HER STATUS AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, QUESTIONS REMAIN CONCERNING HER RIGHT TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION.
CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5(g) (2) OF THE CITY CHARTER PROVIDES, “NO PERSON WHILE HOLDING OFFICE AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BE A MEMBER OF ANY OF THE BOARDS OF THE CITY …? [THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS A MUNICIPAL OFFICE, SEE CHESHIRE V MCKENNEY, 182 CONN. 253,259-260 (1980)]
MS. COLON WAS ELECTED TO THE BRIDGEPORT CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF 2011, AND TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE SHORTLY THEREAFTER. AT THE MOMENT SHE TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE, SHE CEASED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO WHICH SHE HAD BEEN ELECTED IN 2009.
IN FEBRUARY 2012, THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT DECLARED THAT THE TAKEOVER COUP, WHICH MS. COLON SUPPORTED, WAS ILLEGAL, AND THAT THE ELECTED BOARD OF EDUCATION MUST BE REINSTATED.
BECAUSE NO ACTION OF THE ELECTED BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD BE QUESTIONED DUE TO THE IMPROPER SEATING OF ANY MEMBER, I WOULD HOPE AND EXPECT, THAT A WRITTEN OPINION BY THE BRIDGEPORT CITY ATTORNEY WILL BE PROVIDED AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC CONCERNING LETICIA COLON’S RIGHT TO RETURN TO A BOARD FROM WHICH SHE RESIGNED WHEN SHE BECAME A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
TO ALLOW THE ELECTED BOARD OF EDUCATION TO MOVE FORWARD UNDER A CLOUD OF UNCERTAINTY, ONLY INVITES MORE SHAME AND EMBARRASSMENT WHICH BRIDGEPORT CAN ILL AFFORD.
Let’s see what the boy genius in the City Attorney’s Office comes up with to challenge Carmen Lopez statement, more “smoke & mirrors.”
Carmen Lopez is trying to create a vacant chair she’d be happy to occupy. I don’t think she seeks justice, just a comfy seat.
Here’s the weakness:
Time of resignation is questionable and assumed. It was never stated, formally or informally. The assertion is Carmen Lopez’s and requires an ultra-liberal interpretation.
Retroactive Oversight is used for personal gain only. Stick around if you want to see the judge have the book thrown at her!
It really is quite simple.
We live in a nation of laws.
According to the law, Leticia Colon was no longer legally eligible to hold the Board position once she was sworn in as a member of the City Council.
The thorn in Judge Lopez’ argument is while we believe we live in a nation of laws, in actuality we live in Bridgeport. Bridgeport, being the Bermuda Triangle of Connecticut, is often shielded against the imposition of mere law.
As Lennie has oft shown, “Only in Bridgeport.” So no matter the law, it is in the hands of “a higher authority,” Mario.
The book that should be thrown at Judge Lopez is “Only In Bridgeport.” What could Judge Lopez, or for that matter any Bridgeporter, be thinking? To assume the rule of law applies to politics in Bridgeport? NOT!!!
Local Eyes,
Accusing Carmen Lopez of pursuing this subject for “personal gain only” is quite something. I can’t remember you holding “personal gain” or “conflict of interest” as a governance-disabling issue in the past. Why now?
Is it because Judge Lopez’s recounting of who, what and when is so compelling? Sounds to me as if Colon’s pursuit and/or securing of CC position (according to the Charter) invalidated a right to hold the BOE position. Was her resignation necessary or was she de facto ex-BOE?
Where is your skin in this game? Please enlighten us. And how does a retired judge expressing her personal opinion in a clear and cogent manner “have the book thrown at her” in a City so used to leadership doing what they wish including ignoring Charter or Ordinance language? Time will tell.
Then what is the discussion started By countdown that Leticia will be the Chair? That would be salt in the wound of injustice.
*** If it’s painted the colors the admin. wants it will be called a Picasso, no? *** OUT of TOUCH ***
The problem with Judge Lopez’s logic is Ms. Colon ceased to be a BOE member not in November 2011, but August 2011, when the BOE voted itself out of existence. She held no city office until November when she won the CC seat. Only when the newly elected BOE takes over does Ms. Colon need to make a decision, which she has made.
This is just common sense. Judge Lopez’s logic is wishful thinking at best.
So many B’porters share Judge Lopez’ wishes.
WittyUserName, you are totally wrong, just check the dates.