It’s never good when a bar serves 80 underage college students, even worse when off-duty police officers–against regulations–watch it going on as bouncers for the bar. Tuesday night city police raided Golden Star Cafe on Main Street in a round-up of Sacred Heart University students. To the surprise of the raiding party two off-duty city cops were working the bar. Surprise, surprise.
Police regulations prohibit cops moonlighting as bouncers. Police officers Andres Talavera and Chris Smith were placed on “administrative leave” with pay Thursday morning by Police Chief AJ Perez pending further review by the Office of Internal Affairs, according to mayoral spokesman Av Harris. Although on leave with pay, per union contract, this will certainly bite into the police officers’ overtime. Both made the list of top 100 city wage earners for 2015.
Police raided the bar in what appeared to be a party for Sacred Heart college students. Infractions were issued to students for underage drinking. Police said they were also going to cite the owner, Gregory Kapetaneas, for numerous liquor violations. Perhaps more surprised than the students were the two off-duty police officers moonlighting as bouncers. Gee, didn’t anyone have the courtesy to drop a dime in the phone to their comrades?
Partying Sacred Heart University students have been a toothache for the city, particularly in the North End where many SHU students rent apartments. It places an added burden on public safety. The burgeoning Sacred Heart campus proper is located in Fairfield, but the school’s initial dormitories were built across the line in Bridgeport during the early years of Joe Ganim’s first mayoralty. As the school has blossomed from its infancy as a commuter school launched by the Diocese of Bridgeport to a multi-purpose institution, growing pains have spilled over to Bridgeport. As the institution has grown, so too have complaints from North End residents to police about beered-up kids creating havoc in the neighborhood.
On Thursday Ganim, Police Chief AJ Perez, City Councilwoman Michelle Lyons and Sacred Heart University Dean of Students Larry Wielk are scheduled to announced “stepped up enforcement measures to combat underage drinking.”
AJ Perez + Chuck Paris + Joe Ganim = ________
AJ Perez + Chuck Paris + Joe Ganim = 0
This problem is not new. Sacred Heart University has created a demand for housing that has resulted in single family homes being turned into rooming houses. I go by a three-bedroom house several times a week and it is not unusual to see seven cars parked on the front and side yards. The behavior of the students is only part of the problem. Zoning and building code guidelines are not enforced. All that has been happening for years is announcements.
Here is video of the police raid. Don’t tell anyone I told you about it:
www .youtube.com/watch?v=Q5YmnZHU9Ec
Maybe these two police officers were undercover and they provided the tip for the raid.
Yeah, right.
Bullshit.
These extra days will give them time to get their stories straight.
Lennie, withholding the names for what possible reason? There’s no doubt they were there, no doubt they were working in violation of department policies and no doubt they did nothing to stop the violations of State laws.
Why are they getting a pass, because they are police officers? They knew they were violating department policy when they worked there and they probably knew underage drinking was going on in violation of State law so the public has a right to know who these officers are who violated the public trust.
DD, just a short-term withholding of names until official action is taken by superiors. Now that action has been taken, story is updated to reflect officers’ names.
Ron,
I think they provided the tip of the iceberg.
Joe, Chuck, AJ. Let’s see how this one plays out.
I am guessing somehow it will be Finch and Gaudett’s fault.
For years people have looked the other way when it comes to Sacred Heart students. We have heard the rhetoric from every freaking politician who represents that area.
What is not being said is the financial liability the city has taken on by knowing but ignoring violations of the State and City Fire Code. Let me explain. A one-family house with four or more unrelated people living in it is considered a rooming house and therefore subject to the laws that cover rooming houses like sprinkler systems, central station alarms and many more laws. The owner of the building might have fire insurance but if the insurance company knows nothing about the tenants they WILL NOT PAY.
God forbid there is a fire and kids die (it will happen), the city is going to be financially responsible because they took no action even though they knew the violations were present.
There are so many ways of looking at this and the seriousness of the situation. Andy Fardy makes a very good point, G-d forbid there was a fire.
The rites of passage and student drinking is just not unusual. If not in the bar then a keg party, a frat party etc. Drinking and driving is an issue. Do these students have a designated driver? The biggest issue of course is to have the very people who work to protect the city and the students and protect against drunk driving. This is the biggest issue. Talking to Sacred Heart is a waste. Students will be students. Cops should always be cops. Shame on them!!!
What does/will the Office of Public Integrity have to say about this iceberg?
** 80 students being served against the law is just one issue.
** Two police officers working against department rules in said establishment.
** The reality of having City rules regarding numbers of inhabitants by unrelated parties failing observation or enforcement.
** Risks to City taxpayers of liability for illegal conditions, known but unenforced by City officers.
Where is the Sheriff? Where is the integrity of departments whose purpose fails to be honored by action? Where is the “body” guided by Ed Adams concept that will cut through the lax and irresponsible leadership and indicate as a City we honor the rules (or we change them after public discussion) but discontinue ignorance of, failure to honor or support, and leave the public at risk? Time will tell.
Considering we are talking about our police force, does anyone know or have any opinions as to why the Bridgeport Police Force has been understaffed? I’ve been “Google-ing” around and I see articles over the last eight years about hiring, (COPS) funding, large number of applicants etc. yet today (and in the recent past–last two years of Finch) we are told the force is understaffed–which coincidentally, has resulted in lots of overtime. Who dropped the ball here?
Look, the politicians and the police union have allowed the lower numbers in the police department to happen for a number of reasons. From the union’s point of view, why say anything because the members are making a lot of OT, which means fatter pensions. From the city’s point of view having fewer officers means they have a budget savings they can spend elsewhere and no one knows where the money is coming from. Don’t forget under Finch they still budgeted for unfilled positions.
Ganim is budgeting big dollars for positions. How will we know if they get filled and who’s going to follow the money? I’ve always felt there was some collusion between the police union looking the other way in terms of the staffing level, allowing a good chunk of their members to dramatically increase their salaries through overtime. What happened to the Board of Police Commissioners? Asleep at the wheel? And Dan Roach, top aide or whatever his latest title is to Joe Ganim, was there all this time.
Andy, the City finds it cheaper to pay overtime than to pay for health benefits and pension payments to newly hired police officers. But that creates a health and safety condition for the police working their regular shift, then their dept overtime and then the outside overtime and the same thing goes for the fire dept.
I know this, Ron.
Frank,
You continue to ask solid questions. I think “understaffing” as you reference it, relates to trained officers, physically, mentally and emotionally able to serve at a given time, those duties and services outlined in a “Manpower Organizational Chart.”
Who has seen administrations in recent years share such with the public? Perhaps there is none such. But that would be absurd, right? There are references as high as 490 officers, then they drop to around 450-60 and finally decrease to a current reality below 350. (Anyone with current Department figures, actual vs target, is welcome to post same.)
When was the last management level review that confirms our staffing pattern today stays the same as established some 20 to 45 years ago? Is the crime picture the same? Are other segments of the educational and legal system working to change the social shame of crime statistics? What of our own Police Commission from which little or nothing has been heard year after year about retirements and a “shrinking trained workforce?” Maybe the Chair of Police Commissioners for those years might like to make a “public comment” on the subject. Although he was an unpaid volunteer on the Police Commission in those years, today he is a top-level compensated adviser to G2. Shouldn’t his “love affair” with public safety officers be replaced with an embrace of the entire public, whom the safety officers are meant to serve? Time will tell.
JML,
Thank you for the “reference” staffing levels so we can see the big picture. You raise another point I and others have discussed. My understanding is under the present contract negotiated by Chuck Paris and the City, police officers can carry over vacations, PTOs, sick days year after year. If I am wrong on this I am ready to stand corrected. JML, when you ask about a police force that is “physically, mentally, emotionally’ able to carry on the duties of their job, should we not be quite concerned about the overtime within the department and now hearing about moonlighting?
For some years the PD has carried officers on their current lists who are unable to fully serve, perhaps having their situations or issues reviewed to see whether disability or retirement are correct and timely solutions. Who handles those issues and how many of them are on deck at the same time for instance?
Working under stressful conditions a lot of extra hours can take its toll of the most able and trained individuals. When overtime hours are assigned to fewer rather than a larger group of people, stress damage personally or to the body politic (by bad decisions under pressure, perhaps) can be expected to occur more frequently.
Perhaps the search for the one person, or one body that dropped the ball in recent years is practically fruitless, but searching for a fully professional staffing chart with current-day assumptions about contractual agreements existing should not be a worthless probe. When a leader decides to INCREASE funding for one department with 400 employees the majority of whom live outside the City and totally ignore the needs of another department working with 22,000 youth, all of whom live in Bridgeport, the question of fairness and justice must be asked. So I am asking. Anyone else? Time will tell.
Here is a quote. “On Thursday Ganim, Police Chief AJ Perez, City Councilwoman Michelle Lyons and Sacred Heart University Dean of Students Larry Wielk are scheduled to announced “stepped up enforcement measures to combat underage drinking.”
How many times have we heard this bullshit? So you check the bars and the kids go to Fairfield where they have their own problems. How about establishing a task force of one cop, one Fire Marshal, one housing code inspector and one asst state’s attorney and let’s start raiding these illegal dwellings and arresting the landlords and students. Trying to stop student drinking is like putting your finger in a leaking dam and hoping it stops leaking. I fucking want to know who is going to be responsible if some of these kids die in a fire in one of these illegal dwellings.
None of these politicians know what it’s like to put a burnt body in a body bag. Ron and Don and I know. I can guarantee you if politicians knew what it was like they would look at this more seriously.
I myself was caught once in a fire. It is unimaginable. You might conjure images of a fireplace with flickering flames, but in actuality it is like being in the middle of a raging furnace. You literally have seconds to get out. The fire moves quickly like a monster wherever it can get oxygen. The smoke is a poisonous thick black air that will bring you down in seconds. I got out but still ended up in the hospital. If we are seeing the overcrowded conditions as listed above, it will only be a question of when a tragedy will occur, NOT IF.
BTW, those two police officers should be FIRED.
Frank, firing these officers is a little harsh, but they should be suspended. There’s no doubt it was a serious broach of department rules and good judgement, but to take their livelihood would be an over-exaggeration of their offense.
Donald Day, I respect your opinion, but this was a SERIOUS transgression. Do these two really deserve to wear a badge and swear to uphold the laws and to protect the citizenry?
Frank Gyure, if the City took the action you are saying, the City would lose the case at the State Labor or in court because of the past practice in the department and their rules and regulations.
Ron, you don’t know that to be true and there are grounds to fire these two. They are cops 24-7 and were employed at a place where the law was being broken. As police officer on duty or off duty, they did nothing. That my friend could be a firing offense.
Andy, I understand but past practice will still come into play.
Frank, whatever the outcome, everyone is entitled to due process.
While we are discussing the severity of the transgression as well as the punishment, perhaps we must recall we have become a City of “second chances.” That said, are there already “second chance” situations for the two officers? The term “knucklehead” is sometimes used by officers as a term for someone who fails to appreciate the situation. If these or others have been provided “second chances” in the past, perhaps we ought to light up the road ahead for all to see. To dedicate as much of our public dollar as has already been negotiated to people who stand above the law, rules, and regulations of their positions and citizenry in general, is to waste precious resources. What penalties or limitations might cause an employee to pause before putting themselves in a ‘situation?’ Time will tell.
And this is the same bar involved in a rape in an article posted by the Connecticut Post yesterday. Lennie, can you attach the CT POST article about Alfonso Reid, rape, SHU student, picked up at this bar?
CT POST just updated the situation and investigation going on, whether or not these two police officers were acting as bouncers on the night of the rape. The article states these two officers were regularly seen working as bouncers at this bar.
“Administrative leave.” “With pay.”
With pay? Seriously? Because, why? A union contract. An investigation. So, I can buy that for an officer who came into something unfortunate while on the job who needs time to sort out how a situation played out.
But for this? They get paid? That’s ridiculous. Absolutely, one-hundred percent ridiculous.
connecticut.news12.com/news/police-officers-moonlighted-at-bar-cited-for-underage-drinking-1.11664356
Frank. To touch on your above question about staffing, then-Chief Gaudett and moreover Assistant Chief Nardozzi, were given ample warnings about the rush of retirements for years. In fact there was a CT Post article in which Nardozzi was quoted as saying “I haven’t received any requests or none on my desk yet” in a sarcastic manner to poke at the union which was warning him. Then whammy, they came in droves. Finch didn’t care because of the huge savings in salaries and benefits not being paid vs. the overtime. That plus election-year propaganda by claiming he’d be hiring new cops. Also, please bear in mind the commission is just a review board for police policy and procedures. They have zero operational authority. They take care of some but not all discipline that results from civilian complaints only, nothing internal. As for this case, yikes! Not very bright. It has been a bit since I’ve retired and can’t speak to these two.
Phantom, thank you for your perspective of the Police Commission. My understanding and interpretation is the Police Board, like all the other Boards in our City, are not there for day-to-day hands-on operational control but the Boards are there for the “Big Picture.” Theoretically, the Mayor nominates “upstanding” citizens to a board; in the case of the Police Board, possibly those who have a background in law enforcement, criminal justice and then the City Council would approve/disapprove the nominations. This would create a buffer between the highly political nature of a mayor’s/councilperson’s situation and result in a Police Dept. that is de-politicized (as much as possible). The Police Board would look for the BIG PICTURE, THE LONG-RANGE VIEW. A good board may move to prevent a seriously understaffed Police Department. Maybe this scenario is called GOOD GOVERNANCE. Are we there?
Frank, c’mon man, these positions are not filled by people who have a background on these boards, they are people who are in the Party and who make financial donations to the candidates and Party and sometimes these board members change their Party to become a Independent voter because there can only be so many members from one Party.
*** No surprise, and nothing new in Bpt! As a matter of fact, one of the biggest DWI volunteers in this city after work or on their days off are P/Os and F/F’s. Check out any of the favorite watering holes by the city or state’s hazardous duty workers on any given Friday, the weekend or after a long tough work shift and you can make your own conclusions on my opinion. *** WHOOP ***
Mojo, throw correction officers in there also.
*** They fall under hazardous duty workers, just so you know! ***
To council woman Lyons and any other lawmakers, please don’t pass any more feel-good laws concerning drinking by underage kids. There are enough laws on the books already. The state Liquor Commission is in charge of checking these bars. Let’s get them off their asses once and for all.
The city needs a few more ordinances to address the public safety and neighborhood quality-of-life issues related to SHU-student/SHU-institutional abuse of Bridgeport. Violations of the ordinances should be designed to punish SHU, student violators, and absentee landlord violators heavily, while enhancing Bridgeport’s public-safety and zoning-enforcement capacity.
Talking with Larry Wielk/SHU, who has presided over the SHU student rampage for many years, and expecting a different result, doesn’t show great intelligence. The fact Larry Wielk is still at SHU in the same capacity only reinforces the obvious observation of SHU having no regard for Bridgeport and no intention to curb its students.
Besides the new ordinances, the city should be exploring the option of lawsuits against SHU on behalf of the city at large and the neighborhoods of the city.
SHU is one of Bridgeport’s biggest problems and, historically, the city has done nothing but accommodate their every overture while pretending to “get tough” with them on behalf of our beleaguered neighborhoods.
Can anyone tell me why, when I put my brown bags of leaves out on Friday with my trash and the rest of my recycling the bags don’t get picked up? My neighbor tells me he saw a truck picking up bags yesterday! WTF? You must be kidding me. Guess I’ll look at them for two more weeks!
They are supposed to pick up leaf bags the day after recycling is done. In your case that means leaves RE PICK UP THE Monday AFTER RECYCLING.