Democratic mayoral candidate John Gomes wants to give voters the power to approve the city budget. If that ever happened it would be a nightmare. Mayberry towns such as Monroe can get away with insufferable multiple budget votes by electors. It’s not practical for the state’s largest city so reliant on state and federal funding and dealing with a cross section of social problems associated with urban life.
Gomes, chief strategist Carolanne Curry and new campaign manager Marilyn Moore, who runs a support group for breast cancer survivors and understands the city’s role in social programs, should all know better. What programs to the needy are they prepared to wipe out if voters blowtorched budget proposals? You want voters to decide how many cops in the streets? How many firefighters? What parks to open and close? We’ve heard from the Gomes campaign that he’s leader, a man of action. Handing budget approval to voters is not reform, it’s ridiculous.
You want government reform? How about a charter amendment to reform Civil Service to a rule of three? From Gomes:
GOMES CALLS FOR CHARTER REVISION TO BEGIN REFORM IN CITY HALL
Bridgeport Democratic Mayoral candidate John Gomes stated today that when he is elected Mayor, he would take the necessary steps to establish a Charter Revision Commission for Bridgeport, followed by a public vote on the Commission recommendations.
“We cannot count on the current administration to begin the extensive reform needed in City Hall operations. Clearly that is lesson we have learned from our history. In most other Connecticut municipalities, citizen volunteers revise their municipal charters every five to ten years. These municipal charters serve as their very constitutions. And charter revision is done to meet the challenges they face, as well as to continue to produce honest and transparent government.
“Bridgeport has not revised her Charter since 1998. There is a reason for that. Those in power benefit from the status quo.
“We should first consider using a procedure used by other municipalities in Connecticut, i.e. taking the budget that is approved by the Council and then submitting it to the public for a final vote. Citizens should be the ones with the final say.
“Let us honestly determine if they want to spend more on education, more on city services, or less on taxes. They should have the final say and our elected officials should follow their will.
“Also, the Charter Review Commission will want to address another concern: the appointment of Department Directors who are not residents of the City. The Charter should call for these appointees to be residents of Bridgeport.
“I believe that we can modify our charter at least to specify that a council person shall not vote on any matter that directly affects them. Another area to address: it is not ethical for municipal employees, who are elected to City Council to then vote on matters that directly benefit them. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from serving in any such capacity or getting involved in politics. We should expect the same level of ethics from our elected officials in Bridgeport.
“Connecticut State law, section 7-421 of the General Statutes, (which supersedes our own City Charter), prohibits a municipality from barring municipal employees from service on its legislative body.
“As it now stands, any municipal employee (or city teacher for that matter) is eligible to serve as a member of our City Council, vote with conflicted interest, and the taxpayers in Bridgeport must pay for the consequences.
“As Mayor, I would plan to work closely with our State Legislative body to overturn this statute.”
Gomes concluded by saying: “When elected Mayor, I will encourage a Charter Review Commission to scour our City Charter and come up with recommendations that will represent true reform, and then give the public an opportunity to make that reform permanent.”
*** Does Gomes get advice from experienced people before making off-the-wall statements on running the city? He scares me sometimes with the off-the-cuff political statements, no? And are city voters really aware of what’s been actually happening in city government over the last 3-1/2 years to get them to vote for change? *** Reach out & touch. ***
City Needs a Major Charter Change
Great Job John & Tom
Tom Lombard recommended a few months back, while he was on the campaign trail, that the City of Bridgeport needs a Major Charter change.
Starting with the City Council that no elected members shall consist of more than 51% of the same political party, or fraction thereof.
1. A new Elected Board of Finance, with nine voting members, and two alternates no more than six of whom shall be registered with the same political party.
2. A new Elected Town Planning and Zoning Commission, with nine members and two alternates. With no more than six of whom shall be registered with the same political party.
3. A new Elected Zoning Board of Appeals, with five members and no more than three of them registered with the same political party. And two alternates.
Let’s hope one of the Mayoralty candidates comes in with a Charter Revision for Bridgeport, and takes Tom Lombard’s recommendations.
Is this why Tom lost his election? He was running for STATE REP not city council or any other city office!
Why is it Tom’s Finance Board can have two thirds from one party and his P & Z have two thirds from one party and his ZBA three fifths but his City Council can be no more than 51%???
Sounds like Tom may have helped John Gomes craft his charter reform.
Hey GR, I don’t know what you do in East Bumfuck, but most ZBA members are smaller in size. City Council, RTM in most towns have a larger number of members.
Just remember this, John Gomes is working his campaign, while Miss Cream Puff is waiting for her close-up.
This is about transparent city government. Giving people some kind of voice.
Imo he wants the public to vote on how much a voice.
It’s change, isn’t that what we want?
… not necessarily that kind of change.
This proves–once again–Gomes is a nice guy but doesn’t have what it takes to lead. If you want change–Foster’s the best bet. Hands down.
Gomes’ idea that a vote should be taken on each and every budget is not realistic and it is expensive. The last round of budget hearings saw about 5 people who attended all of the hearing, the public hearings were poorly attended.
Wouldn’t it be more practical to have a board of finance elected from the people? This board would hold the hearings, make the cuts and submit the budget to the council for approval.
Change is coming … you can feel it in the wind … and in the lack of conviction on the part of Finch advocates that his pluses outweigh his many minuses.
So change will be shaped by many factors and hopefully there is big attention to financial issues in the City and ultimately how they are communicated, discussed, and decided.
One general observation: Budget and Appropriations hearings to a large extent do not represent a citywide viewpoint. That is a critical lapse. A second observation: A majority of B & A members, to say nothing of Council members who ultimately vote have not read (the audit for the previous year, the notes in the City Budget document and/or the very readable actuarial reports on the Pension Plans) and do not understand the financial situation of the City based on past promises. These are not the only issues on which they vote (on faith and trust rather than intelligent preparation) but they are worth mentioning for starters. A board of City resident-taxpayers with no dominant party affiliation who have financial experience requisite to read and understand all of the pertinent documents and question and respond on behalf of City taxpayers is critically needed. Long terms maybe but two terms and out. The right to review documents without FOI and to receive timely reports from City administration as Finance Board determines necessary. And, since we do not have experience with best practices in municipal finance, they would initially create a process based on those practices that have kept other communities from the financial dangers of: deferring current obligations, using outdated practices to hide that deferral, keeping comprehensive information close to the vest and subject to City Attorney review of multiple and frequent FOI requests, keeping the thoughts, ideas, and voices of intelligent and caring community members from regular sharing in public dialogue about financial matters.
Bridgeport is probably too big to use citywide voting like rural representative town meeting formats and annual budgets. General public understanding of complex budget and financial details is too low for intelligent voting, and cuts to one or more department budgets at a once-a-year meeting brings out the large numbers of people fighting for their single item, but no one looking at the entirety of what is happening.
However, the idea of allowing people to speak at B&A meetings and have a respectful response, i.e. responsive dialogue would rapidly increase the learning curve all around this City. When Council or Committee members sit on their hands when folks on whatever subject make comments does not assist the education and informing of our City decision makers.
Finally, this is the time for those with political and/or governmental observations to be taking them out, showing them off, and/or getting feedback. I salute and support Coviello, Foster, Gomes and Kohut (alphabetical order) for stimulating new ideas for fixing our broken body politic, that the changes, after good discussion, research and formation, may help us get up, limp forward and solve as a community the problems with which we have become so familiar.
Ganim gave us a blowtorch, Fabrizi exchanged it for an oxyacetylene tank, Finch replaced it with a flamethrower. This time next year we will all be drinking canal water and our taxes will go up 15% across the board. People will be moving out of this city at a rate never before seen. Businesses will be moving out faster than Modern Plastics. Your home has lost more than 30% of its value, and it’s not over yet. Mario is waiting for the next school project, so he can receive more contractor kickbacks, while the FBI sits on its hands. Sal DiNardo still owes the city millions in back taxes. The Police Department has only 21 cops per shift. The BOE is laying off 400+ of its workforce.
If you believe our taxes will remain the same, I have two bridges for sale. Pension Plan A is ready to go under, with a $20 Million shortfall per year. In a few years, Bridgeport will be know as Little House on the Prairie.
John Gomes is right, start with a Charter change, folks, and hold on tight! Next year we’re in for a HELL-OF-A-RIDE.
JF,
I was away for four days. Looked at the newspapers, listened to the radio, no news flashes on TV … what caused you to become so negatively prophetic? … I get it … you met chicken little?
Well calm down a bit, houses are “attempting'” to be sold all over, even in the vaunted suburbs. People are having to extend their expectations about how long it takes, and they certainly are learning about realistic pricing. Houses will sell at market, and market is what a motivated buyer will pay. There are lots of people here with different needs, so businesses of one type or another will stay. The softest part of your diatribe is when you talk about City employees. NO COUNCIL QUESTIONER ASKED ANY CITY DEPARTMENT HOW THEY WOULD PROVIDE NECESSARY SERVICES WITH A 10% CUT IN BUDGET!!! Why not? Because they were not serious about budget review. If only 21 cops per shift, this means lots of public-safety officers doing things other than policing. Is that a problem? Might it have a respectable, serviceable and less expensive solution?
Perhaps all the candidates will sign on to a full, open, accountable and transparent financial process so we will know with Finch out, we can finally see who is getting the contract and how much. Have you seen candidates post on that subject yet?
Pension A probably has four to six years left in investments, depending on where the funds are allocated and the fortunes of those specific asset markets. So ease up a bit. I would be happier with Finch funding what his professional experts tell him to (on behalf of the City) instead of the flights of fancy and hope he likes to take, but the numbers provide a little more time to us.
A charter reform is due. A list of things that need change is worthy of study: Finance Board, other boards to be elected, stipend expenses revealed quarterly as reported by Council persons, more opportunities for public speaking and elected responses in public, all minutes of meetings that have illustrations or financial sheets should include that material when kept as public record, etc., etc., These are just a few I can think of immediately. Doubtless those who cover other scenes will think of more. How about it, Lennie? Let’s accumulate a list first, then you can post ideas to review and revise by readers.
Ah yes, B2, those are a few of my favorite things:
… and Pension Plan A and what do you say, that Finch is so fucked-up he’ll never get laid. la la la.
Len, the trouble is Barney Fife is running Bridgeport …
Gomes is right about one thing. It is a definite conflict to have so many City employees serve on the City Council. They are too easily bought off with raises or scared off with threats. By the way, Bob Curwen still has a City job. He is working for John Tristine in Public Facilities. You can catch him on most days warming up his lunch in the cafeteria at the Annex. Another Finch lie.
Bridgeport Girl,
Finch gave Goober another city job? I don’t mean to sound mean but he’s dumb as a stump. What’s the job pay and what is his job title, Admiral Bob?
Ronin, I only know Curwen’s office is in the Annex and he is being hidden somewhere in the public facilities budget, along with his wife I might add. He’s probably being paid as a contractor or consultant. That’s how they’ve been hiding all the illegal employees.
Lennie, why don’t you host an OIB mayoral debate this summer? You can have it at the Playhouse on the Green. Everyone can give a small donation at the door to help their cause. And wouldn’t it be fun to see the candidates answer the real questions?
Or at the Bijou. Check it out:
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Movie-theater-in-downtown-Bridgeport-nearing-debut-1424409.php
Discussion, good thing. Better than current adm dictatorship.
Afscme union told their members last night the mayor signed an agreement guaranteeing his favorite union no layoffs. If afscme continues to support Finch they will receive special treatment. The union and mayor backdoored Ramos and the BOE by signing an agreement before the BOE voted on the budget. I am not sure if the mayor can enter into such an agreement with BOE employees but he apparently thinks he can. So now the teacher’s aides and security guards will be saved but what good will it do if there are no guidance counselors, psychologists and teachers?
Two years ago when the AFSCME contract came up for renewal (we had been working without a contract for nearly a year!), we took 5 furlough days, NO raises for 2 years with 2.5% raises in July of 2010, January and July of 2011, and January of 2012. I’ll expect big givebacks when the contract expires next year. And for what it’s worth, the paraprofessionals and BOE bus drivers and the PFD employees are in the same union!!!
NE Girl, I took a big cut myself so I empathize with you. But is it legal or ethical for Finch to be cutting backdoor deals with the union? HELLO, shouldn’t he be working side-by-side with Ramos and the BOE to try to solve this mess? He is not showing any leadership whatsoever. It is all politics with him. So sad.
If what Harley says is true, why hasn’t this hit the newspapers? Isn’t this big news? WTF???
This IS big news … but the Connecticut Post covers Connecticut and has no desire to cover Bridgeport. The contract you refer to in your first post is 2 years old. 2 years ago I had a feeling what was going on was only the tip of the iceberg … the mess will not be solved until Finch and Ramos both lose their jobs!!! For what it’s worth, I’m at top step as a special ed paraprofessional–and gross $28Ka year. Cutting regular ed paras (who earn less than I do) and special ed bus drivers saves the proverbial drop in the bucket!
“I believe that we can modify our charter at least to specify that a council person shall not vote on any matter that directly affects them. Another area to address: it is not ethical for municipal employees, who are elected to City Council to then vote on matters that directly benefit them.”
This is a well-meaning statement and pretty sad we need to have a Charter Change to enforce. The last Charter Change was in 1998 for 4 year term. Who did that benefit? That was Status Quid-Pro-Quo!
Foster has said she would not appoint a sitting City Council member to a job and has publicly chastised the serving of two masters mentality of the city. We can’t even fund our pensions and now Gomes wants to open up a can of worms. Sounds more like a Grin Reeferendum.
I think Gomes is trying to make the City like a suburb. Also, he needs a little lesson in the law. Small towns do not open their charters voluntarily every 5 years. It usually takes some bolt cutters and a bit of TNT. Having the public vote on the budget is the worst idea possible. We are a representative form of government not a true democracy. Have you seen how many times towns who vote on their budgets do so in order to get one passed? It would cost the City probably $100,000 per referendum, as the budget approval time deadlines are not near any scheduled election. Ultimately, the approved budget will fall far short of what is reasonable to run the town. Ask the people in Seymour, Newtown, Monroe and Oxford. People will not vote for the general good of the City they will vote with their own wallet in mind. Additionally, in order to have minority representation the law states you must vote for council members at large, otherwise you have to do it by district. Further, it is illegal to make residency a requirement for work, it is unconstitutional. Mr. Gomes, you are getting like Finch making claims you will do something you currently can’t legally do. While suburbs have their charms, you can’t run a City like a small town.
If Bridgeport is defined as synonymous with crazy, the Gomes statement makes perfect sense.
Gomes got a headline. What else are you supposed to do if you are running for office?
Any practical political scientist can tell you, and there is enough evidence around to back it up, that pure democracy doesn’t work so well with larger numbers of people. Next case. And any crap about the Internet changing things is crap. People are people.
It shouldn’t be necessary to forbid city employees from seeking elective office, but maybe it is time to figure out how to save city voters from themselves. (See pure democracy.)
Bridgeport Civil Service goes back to 1934-35 with amendments since. It was very strict and idealistic even in its day. That fit Jasper McLevy’s decision to stick it up the butt of the politicians.
But even Jasper, a Socialist, wouldn’t have predicted the strength of public-sector unions in the years ahead. The old union guys (remember the Captain, Lennie?) said Jasper was a pain to negotiate with. The voters backed up Jasper no matter what. The mayors following McLevy were mere mortals and subject to pressure.
A Rule of 3 would be a great help in administering the city. A rewrite of Civil Service might be best.
Public-sector employees should be protected from straight-arm politics with Civil Service. But then you add on unions. Then you add on employees taking over the political process. Suddenly the city exists for the workers.
You reach a point where citizens need to be protected from their own employees and politicians.
How Bridgeport is that?
Jim,
Thank you for reacquainting all OIB readers with Bridgeport’s municipal moving parts (before Finch was elected). Whether there has been real negotiations with unions and serious bargaining, there are significant legal expenses with that process. Whether city workers feel protected by Civil Service or union grievance procedures is really unknown. Whether administrator preferences and humors rule City process most regularly and expensively (legal fights, settlements, downtime spent on the rumor mill, lack of enthusiasm as applied to work effort, nowhere to get necessary changes to do the most effective work in an efficient manner) or not, the comments and casualties attest to the lack of something.
We are at a tipping point. It is affecting governmental systems everywhere, not just in Bridgeport. We may learn from the mistakes of others as well as our own, finally.
Why “A Rule of 3?”
Why not 5 or 10?
“… And next month, Gomes promises, the casino will host a nightly “Naked Circus” in a parking lot tent …”
Read more: www .ctpost.com/news/article/Sex-and-Atlantic-City-Casino-resort-heating-up-1420760.php
The brilliance of John Gomes’ Charter Revision plan for the City Charter is it creates strong concrete discussion on the way and direction on how to make the changes to run Bridgeport. A number of OIB members have made some great points on the directions we need to go; BEACON2, Jim Callahan, tc and others but John Gomes is opening the door as a candidate for mayor where we can add and subtract from his proposal where the people can give input.
This is lame Mr. Mackey. Here is what Mr. Gomes said:
Let us honestly determine if they want to spend more on education, more on city services, or less on taxes. They should have the final say and our elected officials should follow their will.
Is this your idea of leadership? Mr. Gomes claims to be committed to improving the schools but if the voters say spend less then so be it.
Bingo.
Ron M. gets it.
Breaking News:
Joe Ganim arrested in attempt to have relations with a 14-year-old minor:
www .ctpost.com/news/article/State-cops-Derby-man-snagged-in-online-sex-sting-1425040.php
It’s not the former mayor.
But it did get your attention!
Joel–that’s how you get attention. It can be pure bullshit but they can’t sue you for blogging it.
We’re open for business, but not in Bridgeport:
www .modernplastics.com/pages/retail_store.htm
It is easy for Gomes to say things that can’t be done. Finch did that about property taxes. Some of his ideas wouldn’t just require a change in state law but to overturn a Supreme Court Decision and change the US Constitution. Also remember, when you open a Charter you can’t control what gets changed. Would Mr. Gomes have sufficient support in Council to change the law? Could he control them … no. A change of Mayor is one thing, changing the entire City Council body is another. Checks and balances … they can be a bitch sometimes. We need to hear realistic goals, these remind me of the quote, “Together we are making Bridgeport the cleanest, greenest, safest most affordable city, with schools and neighborhoods that improve each year”–Mayor Bill Finch. It is easy to say we will do this or that … We need to hear the plan as to how we do it.
Let’s expand that to all candidates. MJF or John Gomes need to tell us their strategies to implement change. Whoever wins this election will be facing massive financial challenges. We all are selecting our horse in this race. If you don’t have a game, you aren’t a player. We are rapidly approaching the put up or shut up phase of this election. Ladies & Gentlemen put on your aluminum foil helmets.
Antitesto // Jun 15, 2011 at 5:12 pm
To your posting
AT,
And I thought you recognized your good work being continued. Doesn’t it start with opening up a process that has become so incestuous it is now a perversion as much as it is an abuse of public trust and public taxpayer investment that is meant to assure quality public education, quality public safety, decent taxes for decent service to the public and the ability of the City’s leader to get himself to the public places to meet the real people of Bridgeport? Want to help?
Carolanne,
You are a great writer & I enjoy your replies. Dump Gomes & my people will come in to assist in your campaign for mayor. You have a great intellect & grasp of the pertinent issues. I hope Gomes realizes how fortunate he is to have you on his side. You have my number, call me & we can do lunch. I have been dying for a Famous Pizza.
Antitesto // Jun 15, 2011 at 11:06 pm
to your posting
Anti …
Not going to happen … Better candidate … John is qualified to lead … John is.
And John would be the first qualified person to serve as a role model for the diverse communities of Bridgeport that have not seen their Mayor yet elected …
“… with schools that improve each year …” Finch is improving the schools by turning his back on the BOE’s huge budget deficit. Wouldn’t even take back the crossing guards who are, btw, supervised by the police dept. The cost is below $1 million–wouldn’t have made a huge impact but it would have been a positive gesture, an olive branch so to speak. This is NOT how you improve schools each year. It is, however, how you begin the total destruction of your school system.
Ganim averts eviction by leaving home.
“This lady was paid, she was under foreclosure and needs to sell the property and I certainly sympathize with her financial plight,” said Ganim.
This is your typical Ganim. Doesn’t pay his rent but sympathizes with her financial plight.
Repeat after me; No More Ganims!!!
A leopard cannot change its spots and shit will always stink. The boys were raised by dear old dad and are only committed to Ganims.
Where has Carolanne been today?
Lake Forest Guy // Jun 15, 2011 at 4:05 pm
to your posting
Lake Guy,
I have been here all day long. There is a distinct difference between the OIB flamethrowers and those who understand change means a radical difference in the status quo as we know it so far in Bridgeport. There is someone far more important than I am in this conversation today … Don’t you think?
There is … but we have never heard from him on this blog.
Lake Forest Guy // Jun 16, 2011 at 10:17 am
to your posting
Lake Guy,
Right …
*** Stick with the facts, most city voters don’t have any idea of what city government needs. However they can point out what’s wrong or not working for them, no? More needs to be done on a local level to reach all the voters in every district by its known local community residents. Talking loud & saying nothing on OIB and areas that don’t reach the local folk in Bpt will not bring candidates a win come this fall. *** Time to get busy the old-fashioned way; “earn it!” ***
Mojo, you got that right.
Trying to run a city with budget by referendum would be a nightmare. What is needed is honest leadership and qualified finance staff, most especially an OPM/budget director with some ability to do financial analysis and management. They basically brush off an old budget each year. They protect the sacred cows, then they look at making cuts (first to the people who don’t yes them to death), next they invent one-time revenues (that may or may not happen), they shift more operations staff into the capital budget and basically it is full steam ahead–balanced or not, honest or not. There is no long-term planning or vision, no analysis of impact of decision making (case in point pension issue) … it is a low level, low talent approach.
Can you imagine the budget referendum fiascoes … no more ballots, polls not opened on time, referendum in dead of winter so turnout is low, one issue kills the budget repeatedly … on and on …
If you come into office qualified to lead and you put good people in place and face the problems honestly and fairly you can move the city along … this just has not happened!
RW&B, that’s exactly how the budget is put together. How did you know? Are you sleeping with Tom Sherwood?
Bridgeport Girl // Jun 15, 2011 at 9:20 pm
to your posting
BGirl,
Not nice …
RedWhiteandBlue // Jun 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm
to your posting
RWB,
No fiasco … if you know what you’re doing. I wouldn’t trust a referendum to the current group of incompetents … They would do all the things you mentioned. But think good government and you can find many ways to move this City forward. Just imagine that! Good government is the operative word here, not the kind you and I have been witness to.
LOL!!! I am not his type, although I could use a raise so maybe I should check into it.
Advice for anyone proposing an elected Board of Finance, Planning and Zoning Commission or anything else:
Take a look at the City Council.
Any elected board will be nominated and elected by the same process; “political leaders” continue to nominate people who can be controlled and the result will be the same.
Here is a place to start the reform process. Demand candidates for all offices, but especially Mayor, demonstrate they (1) understand, beyond rhetoric, the problems facing the City; and (2) are willing to present realistic (and probably unpopular) plans for addressing them.
So far, I haven’t seen that kind of leadership from anyone running for Mayor.
Phil Smith,
You bring historical perspective, unquestioned integrity and logic to OIB.
You are negative about elected Boards because they will be beholden to those who nominate them, the DTC. But wouldn’t the same objection pertain to an appointed Board? So are you negative about both appointed and elected boards? What alternative is there?
Qualifications for any Board can be easily filled by those who generally fit requirements of experience or credentials. Walking on water type of credentials have not been part of civic job postings. But you are talking about criteria like courage and integrity. Aren’t those hard concepts to expect as requirements realistically? Can we assume one or both of those characteristics apply to the announced candidates to a greater or lesser extent, but certainly in greater measure than we are witnessing from Bill Finch?
To the extent candidates are embracing changes that will benefit a Citywide constituency: of children requiring education, of competent and efficient workers, of taxpayers requiring basic services at reasonable value, of voters who have a right to expect truthful statements from their elected representatives, and open, accountable and transparent process from the elected “leader of the pack” and all appointees and employees of a given administration, I don’t see your reason for wondering about the leadership commitment or values of those running for office. Please explain further.
Let’s give democracy a shot and see what happens.