Should city employees be allowed to serve on the Bridgeport City Council? The City Charter prohibits it, but state law provides a loophole that allows it, something State Rep. Jack Hennessy wants to close amid opposition from city employee council members trying to drum up support to kill the bill. Hennessy says city employees serving on the council leads to conflicts of interest such as approving their own wages and benefits. Council members say let the people decide whom they want to serve.
On Wednesday a public hearing will take place before the legislature’s Planning and Development Committee at 10 a.m. in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. Several city residents are expected to trek up to Hartford to speak in support of Hennessy’s bill including Tom White, who served for several years as legislative liaison to the council. White shares a letter he sent to Jim Finley, executive director of the municipal lobbying group Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, who plans to speak in opposition to the bill. Finley’s group received roughly $88,000 in fees from the city this budget year approved by the City Council. White’s letter to Finley follows:
Perhaps you remember me. I was staff for the Bridgeport city council and often received assistance from your staff on research I compiled for city council members. I also interacted with your staff regarding arrangements and payments related to conferences frequently attended by Bridgeport city council members.
I understand that you plan to speak in opposition to HB 5724, an amendment to CGS 7-421 to extend an existing provision that prohibits municipal employees from serving on a municipal board of finance except where permitted by charter or home rule ordinance.
Jim, did you know that town employees where you reside are prohibited from serving on your town’s board of finance?
Did you know that the Bridgeport city council has the duties and powers of a municipal board of finance as a result of charter revision in 1988?
The intent of the amendment is to make the guideline that applies in your town, applicable in Bridgeport.
You object to this? Why?
You commented to the Connecticut Post that this amendment would “further limit the already shallow pool of folks who want to enter local politics.”
The pool is shallow in Bridgeport because allegiance to the Democratic Town Committee is the only requirement to serve on the city council.
This amendment would address the conflict of interest that exists on the Bridgeport city council by making laws that apply in your town apply in mine.
I will address the Joint Committee on Planning and Development at the public hearing as well and share these thoughts with them, along with some points that may explain why you are opposing this bill.
Black Rock resident Jennifer Buchanan, part of a coalition of smut busters that successfully spearheaded regulation of massage parlors and strip bars in the city, is also scheduled to speak in support of the bill. Buchanan shares the process to submit written testimony:
Subject line of the email – Written testimony for Bill HB-5724 – Public Hearing 2/13/13
Body of letter –
To: Steve Cassano, Jason Rojas and the Planning and Development Committee:
Please consider and enter this as my written testimony for HB-5724
And give them what for with your own reasons!
Thanks, Tom.
Thanks Lennie, Tom and everyone else for support–the rest of the state has no idea we have this issue–now they do–support is gathering in the House of Representatives–now we must apply more pressure with written testimonies–It Does Help!
I haven’t had reason to research this, but if I had to guess, the loophole will most likely state they cannot be denied their constitutional right to seek public office based on their type of employment. Can someone clarify if Mr. Hennesey’s proposal is just targeting Bridgeport or will it encompass every municipality in the state?
fairfield.patch.com/articles/walsh-steps-down-as-selectman-over-conflict-of-interest
Godiva–if your “guess” were true, then it would have applied to Fairfield.
Basically the state law says municipal employees cannot serve on budget or land use committees, so Bridgeport disbanded their finance (budget) board and moved the duties into the city council. When we ask to adhere to the City Charter that prohibits city employees from serving on the city council, the city attorney says state law overrules City Charter. Translation, change the state law so the city will not be engaged in an expensive lawsuit. When Jack speaks with other state reps, they had NO IDEA we have no finance board–as such we are the only city, and one of the few with no independent finance board, and city employees have the ability to vote on city budgets–it will encompass every municipality in the state, however we seem to be the only place this practice is in place. Let me know if you need more details!
Thank you for the helpful information. This has now piqued my interest.
I wonder if the State of CT, when giving so much money to Bridgeport, truly understands this issue. All CT residents should be paying special attention to this issue.
Yes they should–if you could email or Facebook your page with this petition to sign, and help them understand the importance of how their tax dollars are spent, it would go a long way. Each time a vote is cast, and email goes to the Governor, and every state senator and rep, it’s a powerful tool! Here is the link to copy and paste and share:
www .change.org/petitions/state-of-ct-senate-and-house-of-representatives-vote-yes-for-hb-5724
I think city employees who serve on the city council should not be allowed to order calamari.
AllforOne,
I completely agree all Connecticut residents need to pay attention to this issue and encourage their legislators to support HB 5724. The Bridgeport City Charter has prohibited municipal employees from serving on the Common Council for several decades. The City does not have a separately elected Board of Finance. Those fiduciary responsibilities fall to the Common Council Members. One third of the Council work for the city/board of Ed. Another one third or so have immediate family working for the city/board of Ed. The Democratic Town Committee continually nominates these folks because the state law trumps local law. Some look at Bridgeport and decree the electorate wants these people in office because they continually re-elect them. So Bridgeport is getting what it deserves; a conflicted legislative body. Wrong premise in my opinion.
This is a one-party town. 100 percent of the City Council are Democrats. There is no minority representation on the Council. I believe if the State Law were changed as being proposed in HB 5724, the Democratic Town Committee would no longer be permitted to nominate municipal employees therefore the electoral slate would be different. When you have families and extended families voting for family members in a primary election, the challengers have a huge hill to climb. That is the political side to this dilemma.
From the fiscal viewpoint, I am really concerned with the perception or actual conflict of interest. The City Council votes on budgets which include salaries and positions. The City Council votes on labor contracts which include work rules including hiring and firing. The City Council sets the mil rate. Do the votes on the City council benefit them or their immediate family personally? Yes. Do they think about that when they vote? I have no idea. All I know is they shouldn’t even be tempted. They should be concerned solely with what’s best for the City as a whole.
HB 5724 is the way to clear this up. State law should respect the Bridgeport City Charter language. State Law currently prohibits municipal employees from serving on Boards of Finance. Since Bridgeport doesn’t have a Board of Finance, municipal employees or their immediate family members should not serve on the City Council.
I respect all of the City Council members. They have a very hard job to do as volunteers. They should not be subjected to personal and family financial pressures as they vote.
countdown–excellent and informative comment.
A City employee (or relative of one) may be elected to the City Council with the greatest intentions to do right by the people who elected him. But when he (or his relative) is threatened with termination/pay cut if he doesn’t vote with the mayor or when he (or his relative) is rewarded with an increase/promotion for voting with the mayor, then the good intentions go right out the door. This is how Bpt operates and this is why the law should be changed.
On another note, I could not help but laugh out loud tonight as I contrasted the governor’s presence and words to the mayor’s during the press conferences today. The governor was factual, calm, professional. The mayor stood there in his hoodie and whined, “it’s the people’s fault, they parked on the street and wouldn’t move their cars.” He accepted no responsibility and offered no hope. The governor had a look on his face like he was thinking, “what an idiot.”
If we had an independent-minded City Council, they would demand an INVESTIGATION into the blizzard response. If we can replace some of the existing members with non-employees, that will be a good start towards taking back our city.
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Legislator-pushes-conflict-of-interest-bill-4266086.php
*** Tom has first-hand info on many employee pressured votes by the admin. ***
Please sign the petition. Please call members of the state legislature. Please send in testimony. You don’t have to live in Bridgeport to do something. Please contact your state legislator no matter where you live. Support HB 5724.