Welcome to the City Council session(s) from last Monday.
First the public comments session initiated without a quorum present of Council members which is why I requested a deferral of my comments to the end to have additional Council ears listening.
Second was a hearing session on a matter the assembled public did not understan, for which there was no material provided and present (nor included on the video system, paid for by the public, but not used to educate everyone for “the common good”.
Third, the Council meeting itself with minutes to approve, matters from sub-committees to approve or not, and discussion on matters of contention. The Miscellaneous Matters Committee had approved three new members who sought a position in the ETHICS area, newly revitalized by the voter approved Charter in November 2025. Suddenly instead of a vote ‘yea or nay’ on the three experienced women residents who had pursued the process in full faith, the Council members extended the process into the future by “tabling” the vote. Possibly on June 15, 2026 the vote will re-appear. Hopefully, Mayor Ganim wil be present along with Council woman Martinez, Council man Hodges, and Council woman Smith.
Part of the lengthy discussion by the Council had to do with ‘politics’ as the basis for decision making. Bridgeport has human beings as residents. They live with errors in their lives and those of their neighbors. Is it strange to consider that six of the 21 actors on display because we voted for them have been judged felons, or facing court actions that will separate their actions into felonies where they are judged innocent or merely ethically suspect long after the acts themselves, while they hold political power.
I submit my comments to the City Council to you for your review and intent to come to the next Council meeting previous to their shortened summer schedule.
CC Comments – 6/1/2026
It is spring. Nature greens before us and the variety of blossoms inspires us once again. It is 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, and other current holidays like Memorial Day, upcoming Flag Day, Juneteenth, and Latin parades and celebrations abound at this moment. In each of these remembrances, do we reflect with our neighbors, as humans about the principles, virtues, and values that have created “the common good”? Certainly! We also discuss sports, music, family issues, among other things, with interest and passion. But do we formally gather to include CIVICS, the “study of citizen rights and responsibilities in casual conversation?
Last week our mayor presented a “state of the city” address to a local association, many members of whom are not city residents but support the business community. They have a right to listen to him, certainly, but this message appropriately is deserved by owner/resident/ taxpayers to see their agreement with his assessment. Does the Mayor’s address represent “of the people, by the people, for the people” governance? Does it fulfill the Charter duty of a mayor to deliver a message annually to the residents of the largest city in the state?
Our forefathers of 250 years were white men of standing, reputation, and belief in virtue. The fifty-six colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, at various times before September of that year, but not on July 4, the date we celebrate, put their lives at risk. Eight of these “founders,” who signed, were immigrants, not born in the colonies. They were from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Why do we have such trouble today in Congress providing immigration policy, rules, and practice settled around potential citizens? The Declaration also recorded that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were foundational. Where do we hear that “pursuit of happiness” for all people, humans, as neighbors, is the purpose of good governance.
‘Consent of the governed’ is another phrase, not well supported in a municipality where 10% or fewer of registered residents cast a 2025 ballot. Can we improve voting by the currently voiceless by stopping for one hour monthly to listen, hear questions, and respond truth to neighbors. Relative to your vote for three ethics candidates tonight: All of them are citizens of stature and needed for that Commission to address their tasks. What would our Founders respectfully tell us if they could, were they to consider current public virtue? What does good governance demand? Time will tell.
Welcome to the City Council session(s) from last Monday.
First the public comments session initiated without a quorum present of Council members which is why I requested a deferral of my comments to the end to have additional Council ears listening.
Second was a hearing session on a matter the assembled public did not understan, for which there was no material provided and present (nor included on the video system, paid for by the public, but not used to educate everyone for “the common good”.
Third, the Council meeting itself with minutes to approve, matters from sub-committees to approve or not, and discussion on matters of contention. The Miscellaneous Matters Committee had approved three new members who sought a position in the ETHICS area, newly revitalized by the voter approved Charter in November 2025. Suddenly instead of a vote ‘yea or nay’ on the three experienced women residents who had pursued the process in full faith, the Council members extended the process into the future by “tabling” the vote. Possibly on June 15, 2026 the vote will re-appear. Hopefully, Mayor Ganim wil be present along with Council woman Martinez, Council man Hodges, and Council woman Smith.
Part of the lengthy discussion by the Council had to do with ‘politics’ as the basis for decision making. Bridgeport has human beings as residents. They live with errors in their lives and those of their neighbors. Is it strange to consider that six of the 21 actors on display because we voted for them have been judged felons, or facing court actions that will separate their actions into felonies where they are judged innocent or merely ethically suspect long after the acts themselves, while they hold political power.
I submit my comments to the City Council to you for your review and intent to come to the next Council meeting previous to their shortened summer schedule.
CC Comments – 6/1/2026
It is spring. Nature greens before us and the variety of blossoms inspires us once again. It is 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, and other current holidays like Memorial Day, upcoming Flag Day, Juneteenth, and Latin parades and celebrations abound at this moment. In each of these remembrances, do we reflect with our neighbors, as humans about the principles, virtues, and values that have created “the common good”? Certainly! We also discuss sports, music, family issues, among other things, with interest and passion. But do we formally gather to include CIVICS, the “study of citizen rights and responsibilities in casual conversation?
Last week our mayor presented a “state of the city” address to a local association, many members of whom are not city residents but support the business community. They have a right to listen to him, certainly, but this message appropriately is deserved by owner/resident/ taxpayers to see their agreement with his assessment. Does the Mayor’s address represent “of the people, by the people, for the people” governance? Does it fulfill the Charter duty of a mayor to deliver a message annually to the residents of the largest city in the state?
Our forefathers of 250 years were white men of standing, reputation, and belief in virtue. The fifty-six colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, at various times before September of that year, but not on July 4, the date we celebrate, put their lives at risk. Eight of these “founders,” who signed, were immigrants, not born in the colonies. They were from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Why do we have such trouble today in Congress providing immigration policy, rules, and practice settled around potential citizens? The Declaration also recorded that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” were foundational. Where do we hear that “pursuit of happiness” for all people, humans, as neighbors, is the purpose of good governance.
‘Consent of the governed’ is another phrase, not well supported in a municipality where 10% or fewer of registered residents cast a 2025 ballot. Can we improve voting by the currently voiceless by stopping for one hour monthly to listen, hear questions, and respond truth to neighbors. Relative to your vote for three ethics candidates tonight: All of them are citizens of stature and needed for that Commission to address their tasks. What would our Founders respectfully tell us if they could, were they to consider current public virtue? What does good governance demand? Time will tell.