The voters of Bridgeport decided long ago, validated in the City Charter, they don’t want city employees serving on the City Council because of inherent conflict of interests. A loophole in state law, however, allows city employees to sit on the legislative body, something State Rep. Jack Hennessy wants to close. Hennessy says it’s improper for city employee council members to approve their own wages and benefits. Hennessy’s battling a coalition of powerful interests such as the Connecticut AFL-CIO that will be testifying against his bill at a public hearing Wednesday (today) morning in Hartford. Email from Hennessy: Just got off the phone with Lori Pelletier of AFL-CIO. Said she will be testifying against the bill. The guns are getting bigger.
A number of Bridgeport residents have either submitted written testimony or will be sharing verbal testimony in support of Hennessy’s bill at the public hearing before the state legislature’s Planning and Development Committee. Unions, however, have a lot of juice with Democrats around the state. The Democrats in the General Assembly have long rewarded unions for their election support, one of the reasons for the bloating of state government the past 20 years. Hennessy, himself a Democrat, is a realist in this process. His bill will likely die the gooey death as a result of unions reminding the Democratic-controlled legislature what they’ve done for them under (in this case) the political guise of don’t exclude hardworking people who care about their communities. Can you hear the violins?
Reality check: Union leadership cashes in on conflicts when conflicts suit them. They go to bat for the city employee council members who approve union contracts. And so it goes. And then you pay for it. Hennessy’s bill, however, is strategically flawed because it doesn’t grandfather in those council members in question. If this bill were to pass in present form council members on the city payroll could not seek reelection in November. You grandfather them in and you take away the argument of retroactive punishment that in part is driving the audience against the bill.
Pelletier serves as the state labor federation’s chief legislative advocate, representing the AFL-CIO at the Connecticut General Assembly on workers’ issues ranging from workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation to corporate accountability and workers’ rights, according to the organization’s website.
Give the city employee council members credit for rallying the troops against Hennessy’s bill. What, we haven’t rallied anyone, the council members will protest. This is all on behalf of good government.
Or maybe gravy train government.
I am hearing most people now saying we need to separate those who work for the city from those who serve on the city council. All decisions on the city council should be made based on the merit of the issue and not because someone or their relative works for the city.
This is the drone attack from our city administration–will we be strong and survive or do we want business as usual?
Unions stink.
This is just ridiculous. Union reps, politicians and lawyers. Think about how interchangeable they all are, and they all create the same thing; NOTHING!
Are union members allowed to give support for this bill, even though the union is against it, or would there be consequences for them? I’m still a little confused here. The unions have come out in favor of maintaining conflict of interest in city government?
Come to think of it, I have already heard union members on our TV show mention support for the bill, but they are not able to reveal their name for fear of consequences.
I am a city employee, a union member and a strong supporter of organized labor. I also support Hennessy’s bill (although I agree with Lennie, it should have grandfathered in sitting council members). My name is John Soltis and I have no fear of retribution from my union for supporting Jack’s bill.
Great.
Ironically, the truth may be money can be saved by reducing conflicts of interest. And some of those savings could be used to pay for the unfunded entitlements those very union workers receive and depend on.
This is a decision that every city or town should be free to make for themselves.
Bridgeport did make this decision, Phil. It’s in the Charter. However, the powers that be choose to ignore it:
Section 5.
(g) (1) No member of the city council shall, during the time in which he/she serves as a member of the city council, be appointed to or hold any office, the emoluments of which are to be paid from the city treasury.
(2) No person while holding office as a member of the city council shall be a member of any of the boards of the city, and no member of the city council shall be appointed to an office by any of such boards for which compensation is to be paid.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Bridgeport’s Charter vis-a-vis salaries
Section 7. Salaries of elected officials.
(a) The city council, by ordinance, shall have the power and authority to determine and change the salaries or other compensation of all elected officials of the city.
(b) During each even numbered year the city council shall review the compensation of all elected officials, established under the provisions of this section, taking into account the salaries paid to persons performing similar duties in other cities and towns and the private sector and all other relevant factors, and shall determine whether any adjustment should be made.
(c) Any actions taken under the provision of this section, including any increase in the compensation of elected officials shall be consistent with the Constitution and General Statutes of the State of Connecticut.
www .bridgeportct.gov/content/89019/89530/89535.aspx
At a public budget meeting a while ago Mayor Finch explained the budget–$500 million–after the city paid obligations, loans, bonds–he showed a very big number left over. He then said, of this over 80% goes to union contracts–and he had less than $20 million left for his staff and to spend on his initiatives. 12-14% of CT residents are union members. You BET the unions want to see this defeated!
Council president Marty is also a city employee, he is an attorney, his job is to negotiate union labor contracts …
*** Very simple, to get a conflict of interest “no” vote by a union-paying member who is a government employee elected official and is about to vote on a government employee contract is like shooting craps, so why load the dice too? *** NO MORE BETS, PLEASE! ***
I am told by someone high up in town that lots of investment money directed to Bridgeport is waiting on the sidelines, held back until this conflict of interest issue is resolved.