Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer and award-winning columnist, shares his take on city employees serving on the City Council. He argues that public employee unions have way to much influence in how local and state governments are run. Check it out.
Most cities in Connecticut long have been operated more for the benefit of their own employees than for the benefit of their residents, and Bridgeport may be the worst case, its City Council being dominated by members who are also city employees and members of public employee unions, which have been looting the city. Surprisingly, the conflict of interest has offended a state representative from Bridgeport, John F. Hennessy, a Democrat–that is, a member of the party controlled by the unions–and has prompted him to propose legislation to knock the city employees off the council.
Bridgeport’s city charter already prohibits membership by city employees but state law supersedes the charter to allow such service. Indeed, the state constitution is absolute on the subject in favor of the broadest democracy. “Every elector who has attained the age of 18 years,” the constitution says, “shall be eligible to any office in the state,” except as the constitution itself provides otherwise–and it allows no exception for municipal offices. So the Bridgeport legislation would be unconstitutional just as the city charter is on this point. But that’s not why it has no chance in the General Assembly. It has no chance there because the unions control the majority party.
That is, this conflict-of-interest problem is up to ordinary democracy to correct at election time.
That will be hard as civic interest and public participation continue to decline throughout the state. The unions have taken over the cities precisely because the cities are so impoverished and no longer have an independent, self-supporting, taxpaying middle class capable of holding government to account. The public employee unions themselves now are the only political class in the cities.
Bad as this is, democracy can’t be saved by restricting democracy, and even if it was enacted the Bridgeport legislation probably would have little practical effect. For as long as the public employee unions are the main political force in the city, a City Council member who was also a city employee but was disqualified from serving might easily be succeeded by his or her spouse, who would know equally well how to keep putting city employees first.
I reject Chris Powell’s comment “members of public employee unions, which have been looting the city.” Don’t tell us what you feel, state facts and your statement is not fact. How dare you impugn the hard-working women and men who are City union members?
Fair enough, Ron. What do you think about union leaders killing Hennessy’s bill?
Lennie, I understand what Hennessy is trying to do and I do see the problem in Bridgeport as the total hold and control the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee has on almost everything that happens in Bridgeport.
I do have mixed feelings and I think there could be a middle ground. I think it’s dangerous going down that road of denying people the right to serve their City but the hold the DTC has needs to be addressed. But how?
FACT: UNIONS STINK.
All these groups are the same. (NRA, NAACP, pro-abortion, anti-abortion). They all have an ‘if you give an inch, they will take a mile’ attitude. Say you have 10-round pistol mags. The NRA would blow a gasket if you went for 9-round mags. The anti-gun people would do the same thing if you went for 11-round mags. With any protective group it is all or nothing. After all is said and done the unions will probably lose this. It will only mean they will have to spend a lot more money to get the same things done. If you cannot be the council person, you have to buy one.
Ron, to your point. When our mayor presents his public budget dog and pony show and breaks out the numbers on our 1/2+ billion dollar budget, he shows a huge amount of money after the city pays obligations (loans, bonds). He then goes on to state the union contracts over which he has no control takes over 80% of what’s left–somewhere in the area of 400 million+ dollars of the city budget. With union membership in the state at just over 12% of the population and nationwide just over 17%, it would appear the union contract share of tax dollar budget in Bridgeport is substantial, so it makes this statement carry some weight–fair or unfair. I do not believe it is a statement of the work ethic of City Union members, it is how the union leadership is viewed in light of the budget expenditures in CT. I can certainly understand how a union member would take umbrage.
The City of Bridgeport has little income except for all of our local, state and federal tax dollars. I am very concerned about how tax dollars are allocated in the city budget, union and non-union. Having the state statute amended so there is some real oversight in the budget process by elected officials with no conflict of interest is something I support. For the record, I was a Teamster for four years when I was employed by Eastern Airlines. My father was a Teamster all his life. My life was certainly better from union benefits.
Lenny and OIB fans:
Please excuse the second off-topic input, but there’s is no Thrilla from Manila from the V … anyone want to eat two baluts? I’ll drink the San Miguel … Pope Francis I is an interesting pick, but I worry a little about where he was and what he was doing in the 1970s in his homeland, if he was there while Argentina was the grips of their so-called dirty war. Hmmm? Back to the regular program …
PLEASE.
I had hoped for Cardinal Sicola, then we could have had Pope Sicola.
Mr. Powell has jumped on the “Let’s Blame the Unions” bandwagon. It’s convenient for people to blame the unions without blaming the politicians.
Mr. Powell need to look at the spending of the Finch Administration over the past 5 years.
1. He created a $100K position for a liaison person and his office.
2. He created a press person for the PD at $60K-plus.
3. He has a person in charge of waste barrels for saving rainwater.
4. Mayor Finch and his appointments have taken generous wages as employees have taken furlough days.
5. Mayor Finch has taken over CitiStat, which has turned into a telephone answering service costing over $500k in salaries.
6. Mayor Finch has allowed the police and fire chief to retire and collect their pensions while collecting their contracted salaries thus a loss of $250K
7. The hiring of outside attorneys is going on unabated while we increase the salaries of the slip and fall lawyers in the city attorney’s office.
8. Mayor Finch’s last two budgets had ghost positions (unfilled jobs) that have cost us close to $10 million.
The list goes on and on. Lest I forget Finch and his henchmen qualify for a pension after 10 years, city employees don’t.
The Bridgeport politicians are responsible for where we are today. The council votes to approve budgets they don’t understand and don’t want to understand. In the past two years they have not cut one city budget, not one.
MR. POWELL, DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
I agree Andy–while it is true the Unions are working hard to stop this bill, the evidence and reason given in the article was not as balanced as I would have liked.
He really did not blame unions. He commented on the conflict of interest union people have when they are in a position to approve their own contracts. Fair is in the eye of the beholder. The taxpayers MAY have gotten a ‘fairer’ deal if they were represented by people who were impartial. Would you go to a doctor who was directly employed by your insurance company? The article is focusing on one aspect of municipal budgetary problems. This is by far not the only problem. You listed a number of valid issues. To fix the problem all these issues need to be addressed. City unions influence in the council may not be the biggest problem and may not need to be the first problem addressed but it should be addressed.
“its City Council being dominated by members who are also city employees and members of public employee unions”
6 out of 20 hardly seems like domination.
… and to vilify unions and claim they have undue influence is wrong and egregious!
Brick, have you never seen a union work to get out the vote, picket and lobby? The only group more organized and with fewer members is the NRA. Union leaders are in Hartford every day our elected officials are in session working to push their agenda. As to employees on the City Council, 1 of the 6 is the president–and the president is pretty dominant in our City Council.
That is called democracy and freedom of association, and much as I don’t care for the positions of the NRA they have the right to mobilize their membership.
Why do you keep vilifying the NRA? All they do is support the right to bear arms … that’s the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Unions, on the other hand, have become a Frankenstein. Their original tenet was the protection of jobs, benefits and providing a living wage for their constituents. You cannot have labor telling management how to actually run a business. As for public-service unions, working for the government was always a cushy kinda job with guaranteed benefits, but a bit lower wage. Today the public sector gets pay and benefits you cannot find at the same levels in the private sector.
Jennifer,
Keep in mind the President of the City Council is a city employee and a labor negotiator. Two key conflicts of interest that cannot be dealt with via recusal.
Now we know where you got the name Brick!
How is that?
I say to Mr. Powell who always seems to be to the right of Attila the Hun; even Ronald Reagan the darling of the conservatives had this to say, union membership was a “fundamental human right.”
www .youtube.com/watch?v=orwN4WKhriw
BRG, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ron: what do yo think of union leadership killing Hennessy’s bill? More specifically Lori Pelletier, secretary-treasurer of the CT AFL-CIO, who is lobbying hard to kill the bill.
I am not happy with it Lennie but as a former member of a union though a private-sector one I find the characterization of unions as looting the city offensive.
Hennessy’s proposed legislation is NOT unconstitutional. State statute already prohibits city employees from serving on municipal boards of finance. It’s in the state law. The issue here is Bridgeport got rid of its board of finance years ago so the city council performs those critical financial responsibilities. Hartford, Danbury, Derby, and New Britain are in this same situation. All Hennessy’s legislation will do is extend the current state law prohibition to cover the five cities that do not have a separate board of finance. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that.
As for Bridgeport’s charter, it was voted on by the residents of the city and states city employees cannot serve on the city council. Hennessy’s proposed language only involves those cities where the local city charter restricts city employees from serving on the city council; further narrowing the impact I think.
If we really wanted to clean this up, I would have wanted to see language that extended to immediate family members. We all know the recent chair of the City council’s budget and appropriations committee did so while his wife worked for the Public Facilities department. The chair of the Economic and Community Development committee has children working for the city/board of Ed. There are many more examples. I know adding immediate family to the prohibition is totally unrealistic but it doesn’t make it acceptable.
Bridgeport doesn’t need the gross hyperbole the Journal Inquirer article states. Get with the facts.
UNIONS REALLY STINK.
ESPECIALLY IN BRIDGEPORT. NO? TIME WILL TELL.
yahooy, UNIONS REALLY STINK, yeah we need more child labor and illegals in place of unions in the workplace thereby doing away with contracts, health benefits, fair working conditions and living wages.
The year is 2013.
AND?
ya-hooey stinks!
Granted, the ‘sweat shop,’ child-labor days have passed but unions do have a place, especially for city employees. It would be easy to imagine what would happen to the city workforce every time a new mayor came in if the unions were not there. If you think cronyism and nepotism is bad now imagine if every city job were susceptible. Got a cousin who wants to be a cop? Donate to my re-election fund. Ron was commenting on the fire chief serving after he retired and asked if any fireman could do the same thing. No they can’t, because the union will not let them. The union is afraid if a retired fireman who can not be in the union were allowed to serve, that would open the flood gates to de-unionize the fire and police departments.
*** Basically city government unions, especially Bpt, have lost a large percentage of their past influence and power over city government in general. The union’s political edge of working, voting and living in the same town or city are like this city’s industrial past, “history!” Therefore any little advantage they feel they may have in having city employees on political boards, committees, councils, etc. they want to keep! It’s simple, city unions are only as “strong” as their “active membership,” which in time may also be something from the past, no? ***
countdown,
You are correct, the bill is not un-constitutional. By CT state law, state employees can’t be in the state legislature, teachers can’t be on Boards of Education, and city employees can’t be on Boards of Finance and Zoning Boards. The state Constitution also says we are supposed to have balanced budgets and we don’t.
It’s time to recognize unions represent their members and not the taxpayers. Elected officials are supposed to represent the taxpayers. Let’s see what happens. It’s a litmus test for legislators.
David,
I am saddened this is becoming union vs the rest of the residents. I believe the unions provide an important role in the workplace. However the unions lobbying against the bill is directly related to the six Bridgeport city councilpersons who are city employees. They are using whatever power connections they have to hold on to the conflicts they demonstrate on the Council. A sad commentary. My real hope is all of this will wake up the electorate and have them engage in Bridgeport’s future. That is the real hope for Bridgeport. Whether it is a reincarnated Republican party or a true bunch of unaffiliated voters who stay the course or ‘reform’ Democrats who will dig in and fight the good fight, it will take a lot of energy to change the conflicted path Bridgeport has considered acceptable for decades.
countdown,
I believe reform-minded Democrats, Working Family, Republicans and Independents like myself will unite to change this city and create a better future. The more people who get involved and the more they are willing to let their voices be heard the faster it will happen.
Doncha just think it’s amazing this subject has finally being revealed by some journalist? Besides, we’ll ALL be old and gray by the time we’ll all have an honest and transparent government at ALL levels.
I am surprised Chris Powell would make a statement that was so obviously inaccurate. State Statute Chapter 113, 7-421 has been in place since 1991. It calls his credibility into question. I would not be surprised though, if government employee union leaders attempt to cite constitutionality, even though it was they who promoted the legislation allowing municipal employees to serve on municipal legislative bodies. They apparently did not feel the constitution spoke to that and/or wanted to flex their political muscle. They appear to be flexing their political muscle again. Powell is correct on that count.
Bridgeport City government has broken down. It is so broken down in so many areas it is hard to determine where to fix it. The current administration stays in power through controlling information and dialogue, keeping financial disclosure and participation limited and by violating important directions of Charter and Ordinances.
Can someone help point me to the old Charter (not the Charter Reform proposals) location on the City web site? Didn’t the Charter Commission document go down to defeat last November? Aren’t we still governed by the Charter that did not get reformed?
Those who find fault with any one of the symptoms of “broken City governance” must gather together, assess the decrepit and unlawful way the machinery is operated, and begin the multiple repairs to problems in the executive branch, the absence of a competent, independent fiscal branch with watchdog responsibility and a conflicted, undersupported legislative group that does not represent broad community interests. Time will tell.
You, like JML, are doing a lot of talking but not a lot of doing. When are you going to announce the current political structure is self-agendized and crippling the citizens of this town by placing the entire operational cost burden directly on the shoulders of the hapless home owners? This latest Testa insult should cause the citizens to become indignant demanding reform. Sadly it won’t unless people like you motivate the citizens to create reform at the voting places. We need change so desperately. It is truly a shame the way we are forced to live so the few can reap so much. And yes, I too have done much talking with little effective action.
As far as any of us knows, all you do is talk, and that is too bad because a few of your observations get close to real. However, when you talk about anyone else’s activity (and finally confess your own “little effective action” it betrays a careless and uninformed side to your postings generally.
If you were to understand the public meetings attended in a seven-day period, the reading and research and the contacts with other “informed” members of the community by Walker or others, you would be surprised.
Land use issues are important. Re-read Pat Fardy’s comments. She knows the lack of formal training the folks on the land use body have had. Look at posts that have been presented for months on the problems when a Mayor abuses his appointment power by failing to publicly evaluate individuals and allows almost all to serve expired terms until they cross his agenda. It is a formula for conflicts and undue influence, not for a motivated, independent and informed citizenry serving on important Boards and Commissions.
Why don’t you show up at the Library Saturday? Meet some of the numerous “neighbors” who are public in supporting Hennessy’s bill because of the difference it can promptly make in uprooting the obvious conflicted behavior present on the Council. Pick a department in the City you feel needs more oversight and sign up as a Budget Oversight Bridgeport 2013 volunteer this year. One by one we are not heard, we easily get discouraged and we fall by the wayside and moan about our disability to get anything done. But by gathering together and having in common the knowledge our broken governance machinery needs fixing, we can dig down, find out how deep the repair has to extend and get on with a grand strategy. Time will tell.
So you say. You see, all you really do is ‘say.’ Go to your meetings. Spout your pontifications. Do nothing. The Calamarians still rule, still plot to cover costs with more and more taxation without any hint of fiscal responsibility. My ‘careless and uniformed’ side still thinks of you as an ineffective dolt.
JML, guess who Bill Finch was talking about when he used the term yahoo.
We are still governed by the Charter that was ratified in the past. It is on the City’s web site but may be hard to find, in part because it is not being complied with in a number of respects. I just found the document on the City’s website via a Google search. I read the entire document within several months of moving to Bridgeport three years ago and noted a number of serious governance and other issues. However because of my commitment to various national reform issues, I was not able to spend any time on local issues until recently.
I wake this morning with an open mind. I gave considerable thought to the viability of labor unions relative to the current issues in today’s labor market, especially in municipal labor factors. I concluded unions stink.
And your thoughts … much like your lower intestine are stinky and loaded with danger.
Brilliant. Wear your artificial sateen jacket with bright yellow lettering and a stupid ball cap well. It’s good to be able to identify union members.
A stupid ball cap? Sateen jacket? What are you talking about? I think the 1970s called looking for its references back! hahaha
For unions, it would seem the real endgame is pensions (and the accompanying healthcare benefits). A wag once told me to really have it made in Bridgeport you need two things: a job working for the city and a handicapped parking permit. Government workers are the first line of defense between the ruling class and the rest of us; they work for them, not us. They must be well provisioned. I have to wonder if the constant melt-up in the stock market is (among other things) to reassure the pension funds that need a fantasy rate of return on their investments to remain solvent–if the Federal Reserve fails at this people would be out in the streets with torches and pitchforks because the promised pensions aren’t there. Taxpayers will take the hit big time when cities and states cannot fund the promises made during flush times. In the private sector, are there any benefits comparable to government workers (maybe those UAW workers from Colt Firearms demonstrating up in Hartford today against gun controls) unless we are talking about a company’s executive division? And it’s written into law governments have no way out of these pension obligations? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, but sometimes things are beyond repair. When Obama gets around to cutting Social Security and Medicare, the unions will still be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him, because they got theirs.
That is not really true. The union pensions and social security would be more than fine if the government put the money they collected into some moderate return fund. The problem here is the word ‘unfunded.’ The government never put any money toward the pension health benefits. Same as social security. If you put $25 a week away and started at 18, at 58-1/2 you would have $1,000,000 in today’s money. Stocks correct for inflation. The average worker will earn $2 mil in their lifetime. That means they would pay $158K into social security. If you retire at 62, collect the max benefit and live to the average age of 76, you will collect back $168K. That would be a 0.1% rate of return. This ignores what your employer put away for you and interest stops when you start collecting benefits.
The problem is both social security and pensions are being paid from what current workers are being charged. Like a Ponzi scheme. It is not working because the workforce is shrinking, people are living longer and insurance costs are rising.
Even status-quo mainstream media noticed the discrepancy between projected and actual returns for state pension funds:
www .nytimes.com/2012/05/28/nyregion/fragile-calculus-in-plans-to-fix-pension-systems.html
But maybe here in FFLD County, the bedroom community for Wall Street, we are getting better financial advice towards investing city and state pension funds.
One thing is for sure: Chris Powell will not be receiving any awards for this column. You make it sound as if the majority of city employees have loaded bank accounts or no space left under the mattress. I’m a member of NAGE, NAGE members are paying 108% more on our insurance premiums and over 100 members lost their jobs during the Finch layoff. We still are not receiving the full 5% of our raise, but we are paying the full cost of the premium increase–the 5% raise doesn’t cover the premium increase. We got a pay cut!
Lennie, who died and made Lori Pelletier our leader? Any State elected official who feels intimidated by Lori or any union representative has got to get their gut checked. The only union to blame is the 90-member union called the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee. They are the ones who come up with the wonderful quality of City Council members and the many other office holders.
Once again, this “unfunded” pension is not the union or the workers’ fault, they “paid” 8% of their weekly pay towards their pension, the blame goes to those past mayors and City council members.
Look at it this way. The workers have been subsidizing taxpayers for years. The city paid the worker $10/hr and took back $1/hr for their pension benefits. The city put that $1 into the general fund instead of a pension fund. This kept tax rates lower than they should have been because the city used those dollars to pay the bills. Now the worker needs his money and it is not there and current workers are not paying enough to pay the retired workers. The taxpayer still reaped the benefit of all those dollars for all those years. You should remember to thank a city worker for paying your way when you put a quarter into his retirement cup on the street corner.
The real problem is not the pension benefits, it’s the retiree health benefits. They are unreasonable, unaffordable and unsustainable.
The real problem is not the pension benefits, it’s the unreal profits of the health care industry.
Ron, the problem includes the healthcare industry, medicaid, medicare, private health insurers, the unsustainable union negotiated healthcare and retirement packages, and the intractability of all those involved to sit down and find a common-ground solution.