City Council President Tom McCarthy has placed Mayor Bill Finch in a pickle. McCarthy serves at the pleasure of the mayor as deputy director of Labor Relations while filling the dual role as head of the city’s budget and legislative body in defiance of the City Charter. How can Finch take the high road asserting pols who’ve violated the public trust must not be allowed to run again when the voter-approved City Charter is violated on a daily basis? The brain of Finch says support the charter while his heart goes out to a loyal political supporter. Sometimes it’s better to tell the political supporter, if he won’t get out of his own way, to make a choice: job or council. The baggage isn’t worth it.
McCarthy, a decent person who cares for the city, has stubbornly lost recognition that government works best with checks and balances that do not currently exist in city government. And how did all of this start? City Attorney Mark Anastasi, a very long time ago, crafted a dubious legal opinion to protect the political establishment claiming a loophole in state law allows city employees to serve on the City Council in violation of the City Charter, irrespective of every other likewise scenario in government being illegal. Anastasi crafts legal decisions not on behalf of city residents, but on behalf of the mayor he loyally serves.
A whole bunch of folks who support Finch say he should honor the City Charter, as pointed out in a story by CT Post scribe Brian Lockhart. Claiming this is a witch hunt against McCarthy, as suggested by freshman State Rep. Chris Rosario, insults the intelligence of voters who do not want city employees serving on the City Council. It’s impossible for taxpayers to get the best deal for their buck with no checks and balances and no separation of power in government. Rosario, who’s on the city payroll, is doing nothing more than parroting the party line for the power-grabbing political establishment. He says let the voters decide. Well, the voters have already decided this issue at the polls, no city employees on the City Council.
McCarthy has become baggage for Finch. And this issue is not going away any time soon.
From Lockhart:
Wade thinks Finch has helped improve Bridgeport’s soiled reputation. And that is why Wade is disappointed the mayor is not pro-actively backing state legislation to prevent municipal employees from serving on Bridgeport’s City Council.
“He should have stood up and said this is wrong, we need to fix this,” Wade said. “Find your voice.”
An unprecedented seven of the city’s eight state legislators as well as two potential mayoral contenders–businesswoman Mary-Jane Foster and ex-Mayor Joseph Ganim back the bill. Meanwhile, Finch has sat on the sidelines, his office saying he does not oppose the bill, but neither is it a priority.
Full story here.
So many people supported and voted for Rosario but he is still attached to Finch’s teat. People thought he would bring new ideas because he is young but his ideas are fed to him by Finch. This is your brain, this is your brain on Finch. Any questions? He needs to grow a pair, man up, and lose da vajayjay.
Enter tall white man named Finch.
Finch: “Hi, Rosario”
Rosario: “Hi Dad (Finch)”
Finch: “Don’t sign that letter Rosario or I will chop off your fingers and mail them to McCarthy and then fire you.”
Rosario: “Okay Dad, but if you chop off my fingers, you won’t ever have to worry about me signing a letter.”
Rosario is a relative of Sandy Ayala and address dodger Andres Ayala. He is also Finch’s hire migrating quickly from secretary to department head. No one has or has ever had any positive expectations for Rosario.
It seems Mayor Finch needs to sit down with his strategists. This issue could in fact be the end of his candidacy. Timing is everything. Another candidate could emerge and make both the charter and corruption bill the single most important issue. I have respect for McCarthy and feel he is an asset to the City and I have met Mr. Rosario and he seems to be an upstanding gentlemen. However, like most taxpayers, we are not the beneficiaries of these relationships. To be clear, I believe Mayor Finch can and should be entitled to be surrounded by people of his choice. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. There will be some people who will not cross the finish line. It could be Mayor Finch. It could be Tom McCarthy and Chris Rosario. It could be all three. It could be one of the toughest decisions these three will have to make. I know if I were running for Mayor, I’d make this a cornerstone of my platform and present it as respectable and not antagonistic. It is just a matter of time before the constituency catches up with politics. I wouldn’t equate Ganim’s issues with these, but if the Mayor is going to support a bill, which I do agree with saving the public from Ganim and Rowland in positions, then he needs to look at the whole picture. Mr. McCarthy I am certain will save the Mayor humiliation or will join the Mayor in a new chapter of their lives in new careers. The wind at the Mayor’s back could turn to a gentle breeze and that would be a very sad situation for him. Just a reminder, Moses saw the greatness of the promised land but never enjoyed the land of milk, honey and Steelepointe. This is one issue I wouldn’t gamble with.
The only thing the voters of Bridgeport really care about is how much they have paid, and will pay in rent or taxes! And who has the vision and guts to keep this city moving, and that’s why I think Mayor Joe Ganim’s track record speaks volumes.
Mayor Finch is a nice guy, but his post-election promises burned us once before.
Bridgeport is a crapshoot and I for one want Ganim rolling those dice again!
Steve,
Did you know Tommy Mac has been negotiating a new labor agreement with the nurse’s union for four or five years now? Did you realize when real, bare-knuckle negotiations are required, the city goes out and hires real attorneys to represent the city? Do you know how many times Tommy Mac has nearly lost arbitration cases simply because he cannot get to them on time?
So please, provide some facts to back up this statement “I have respect for McCarthy and feel he is an asset to the City.”
Bob Walsh, I would not have access to that information. Apparently you do so please share as I am curious what the City is paying and is it out of line. Please be specific and nonpolitical.
Steve, I am confident I am more familiar with McCarthy’s actions as council president than most people. McCarthy is a major character in my suit against the city. You may wish to refrain from complimenting McCarthy until after you hear what is reviewed in court and what transpires with the ‘conflict of interest’ amendment.
Tom White, I still maintain Tom McCarthy is a nice guy and a smart guy and definitely a politician. I really cannot attest to his accomplishments while working for the City. I do know he has received many unwarranted assaults on this blog. I definitely believe there is a conflict of interest and addressed it in a previous post. I am sure when your lawsuit is done we will all hear about it. Tom B. is your attorney, yes? Look, I am not on the payroll and I am certainly not on this blog fighting for anyone’s job. I just do not allow unnecessary disparaging remarks go unaddressed. In your case Tom W., I know you were an asset to the council. Sorry you were canned. So at least we know you have a personal vendetta against Tom. I totally understand.
Lennie, do you have a copy of the so-called state loophole, and/or a copy of city Attorney Mark (Hamilton Burger) Anastasi’s opinion, so we OIB shithouse lawyers can test the knowledge of his proficiency?
Jim, CGS 7-421(e).
Thanks, Tom.
My father used to say “you get what you pay for, pal” and with these taxes in mind, I didn’t know “nothing” was so expensive.
BR, with the current mil rate 41.855, and a mayor who’s been spending money like a drunken sailor, the best business to get into for 2016 is making lawn signs (for sale by owner)!
Boomtown here we come!
Bridgeport is getting bitter every day!
Rosario issued a Blight Fine on my property on election day September 2013. (I won against the machine.) Subsequently, I sued the City and ended up getting a check from the City because this was harassment. No respect for this man or any of his ilk.
McCarthy violated the charter and the law when he and 15 council members donated $30,000 to various charities. To make it worse many of the council candidates in one form or another were involved in these charities.
McCarthy violated the law when he allowed certain council people to use their stipends to provide themselves with groceries for a year and free cable for a year. McCarthy has to go.
When Rosario was given a job with the city by Finch and company he was brought into the back room of the council chambers where they sucked out his brains and his balls. He is a total waste as a state rep. Let’s hope he is a one-termer.
McCarthy as President of the Council may reasonably be asked why he stripped the Council in 2012 of its only staff person.
That has left our 20-person legislative body with almost half that number replaced since that time with no research assistance and not much credible seniority to help them learn the ropes.
At that time questions were asked about CC stipends and factual info on the stipend accounts was not provided to the staff person (who had a supervisory signing responsibility) who was worried he could inadvertently authorize a reimbursement where none was eligible. Who can see stipend results today? Has the City opened up oversight to the public as the “McCarthy debit card” system replace the Ordinance reimbursement system but without authority, because the Council never “untabled” or “reintroduced” the Stipend issue, so the Ordinance and the practice are at distinct odds, and may even be illegal in the sense that business purpose for reimbursement is not provided and taxation of stipend is assumed in a manner not proven. A McCarthy mess?
And yet the Stipend mess is nowhere as troubling as the June 2012 introduction by McCarthy of use of the OTHER SERVICES line item budget for Council persons to take almost $30,000 from the taxpayers and vote it to the Council persons’ favorite charities just before primaries that year. Has any Council person who voted for that come clean and explained why they followed suit on that advice? Why they thought this was a righteous thing to do with City funds provided by resident taxpayers? Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, you said, “McCarthy as President of the Council may reasonably be asked why he stripped the Council in 2012 of its only staff person.” Who are you talking about?
During the budget hearings in spring 2012 the CC had a final document to include new appropriations and exclude others. In the latter case the two positions, one a ghost expense at the time and the other, filled by Thomas White, were eliminated from the budget. McCarthy called it a cost-savings effort, but it was his own idea as I never saw the B&A committee discussion and presentation to the Council as an entity for a vote other than the final vote.
Of course in that final document there was a new position opened in the City Clerk’s office. Initially that person was following President McCarthy and obvious functions done previously by White.
Hypocrisy in the sense that you remove a real employee and claim that as cost savings while eliminating assistance for the other 19 Council members. At the same time adding an employee who would seem to serve you personally in your duties as Council President? Is that hypocrisy? Was it true? Where is that question being dealt with at this moment? Time will tell.
John Marshall Lee, I knew Tom White held the position but I see they didn’t fill the other position. It was a bad decision to get rid of the position and Tom White. Although a lot of times I don’t agree with Mr. White on issues on OIB, he is respected and honest.
Ron,
As you acknowledge, the Legislative Department had two full-time positions budgeted. Tom White was in one of those for almost six years as I understand. During all those years the other position was budgeted but vacant. Budget Oversight Bridgeport came to call such positions in the City as “ghost positions.” No body, only budgeted expense, which if not spent there, could be spent by Tom Sherwood elsewhere without the public knowing where.
You see if there is no June Final Audited monthly report you are stuck with guesses only as to where unspent money in one account gets spent. Do you realize we still have ghost expenses seen in the variances of Full Time Earned Pay? And though we have the 2014 CAFR delivered to the Council on February 6 the Council does not have a June 2014 Final monthly report including all audited items from the external auditor. Will we ever get such? Time will tell.
Thank you Doug Wade for speaking out in support of this important legislation–both at the public forum last week and in the CT Post this week.
The Bridgeport Regional Business Council (BRBC), on whose board of directors you serve, should also support this important legislation for the greater good.