No Gusto For Musto–Opposes Government Reform Bill, Defies City Charter–Walker: Musto Fails

Following numerous letters and phone calls from constituents, State Senator Anthony Musto has finally come out of hiding, taking a public position against the government reform bill proposed by State House members Jack Hennessy and Auden Grogins that would bar city employees from serving on the City Council, prohibited by the City Charter but allowed through a loophole in state law. Musto, a lawyer, issues a dubious rationale that defies the City Charter approved by city voters, even admitting in his explanation that “there is a certain potential for a conflict of interest” with city employees serving on the City Council.

Musto shared an odd explanation in his response to his constituents Tuesday saying he’s not in favor of the proposal “as I don’t believe the solution to the City’s struggles will be found by barring people from public service.” It’s illegal for state employees to serve in the legislature, it’s also illegal for federal employees to serve in Congress. Bridgeport’s City Charter bans city employees from serving on the City Council to avoid conflicts of interest. City Attorney Mark Anastasi has rationalized a loophole in state law allows it. Musto says this issue should be rectified by voters. But the voters have decided. That’s why the City Charter bans municipal employees from serving on the council.

Municipal employees are barred by state law from serving on boards of finance, but Bridgeport’s legislative body also serves as a finance board. The bill proposed simply extends the law to apply to situations involving Bridgeport and other impacted municipalities. Musto also represents Trumbull and Monroe where municipal employees are barred from serving on those respective boards of finances. Musto opposes conflicts of interest in Trumbull and Monroe, but as far as Bridgeport goes he rationalizes it’s just fine.

Five of Bridgeport’s 20-member City Council are public employees including City Council President Tom McCarthy who serves at the pleasure of the mayor. Musto seems more concerned about not alienating Bridgeport political support than responding to the wishes of his constituency, as he tries to position himself for a state judgeship, according to several sources. Musto claims if conflicts exist they can be rectified by council members recusing votes. But council members every year, including the five councilors on the payroll, continue to approve their own wages and benefits.

Musto is also caving to the municipal and state unions that have actively lobbied against the reform bill. The City Council approves collective bargaining agreements. Musto came out against the bill even though it was amended to grandfather in his political supporters on the City Council.

Musto issued this response on Tuesday to several constituents:

Thank you for your letter regarding HB 5724 An Act Prohibiting Municipal Employees From Serving on Certain Municipal legislative bodies. It is always a pleasure to hear from constituents who take the time to share their opinions with me.

I am not in favor of this proposal as I don’t believe the solution to the City’s struggles will be found by barring people from public service. While there is a certain potential for a conflict of interest, members should recuse themselves when appropriate and if this is a problem it should be rectified by the voters, not by arbitrarily denying someone the ability to run for a chance to serve in their local government. At the local level, barring people from serving seems unfair as there are many issues facing the City Council that have nothing to do with the budget.

If the City Attorney has incorrectly interpreted the law, a lawsuit would be the appropriate way to address the issue, although the law has stood for several years without a legal challenge.

I am focused on efforts I know will make a difference for Bridgeport, like attracting and fostering job creation, securing much needed state resources for education, brownfield remediation, municipal aid, and the public nuisance abatement bill, which I am proud to co-sponsor.

Thank you again and please feel free to contact me with any comments or concerns on future issues.

Musto’s Black Rock constituent Jennifer Buchanan fired back this response to Musto:

So I must assume you do not support the Hatch Act and are not aware this state law interferes with Home Rule–our charter clearly states no city employees may serve on city council. I know the majority of your constituents do not agree with your position on this issue. You were elected to represent us, not your own personal agenda or beliefs.

I also do not understand as we are willing to allow for a compromise with the current elected council members, and while this is not ideal for us, we are willing to make allowances for the greater good, I just do not understand why you are not willing to do the same.

Statement from David Walker on behalf of community action group Citizens Working 4 a Better Bridgeport:

“We are shocked and saddened by Senator Musto’s statement opposing HR 5724. It flies in the face of well established good governance practices and home rule concepts. It’s not clear who Senator Musto is representing but it’s clearly not his constituents. This good government related legislation is a very real and simple litmus test for seeing who is for the public interest and who is not. So far Senator Musto is failing the test. If he does not change his position of HR 5724 very soon, many people will work very hard to make sure that he is not re-elected next year.”