Bridgeport’s Ethics Commission, largely a toothless tiger in its 25-year existence, is expected to take up a complaint Thursday by Republican Town Chair Marc Delmonico that members of the all-Democratic Bridgeport City Council have violated city ethics and ordinance provisions by accepting full weekend passes for themselves and a guest to the Gathering of the Vibes worth more than $400.
The council approved a provision in the city contract with the Vibes promoter that members be required special access to the annual hippie fest at Seaside Park. And, oh yes, we deserve to bring along a guest as well. Council members maintain they deserve the VIP treatment to assess the future viability of the event. Gee, does the guest have input in the decision-making process? The Ethics Commission is scheduled to meet Thursday, 5:30 in City Hall. Most of the discussion will be taken up in executive session.
Where will this go? Hard to say. If the Ethics Commission thinks the complaint is valid the hearing and investigative process could take several months. Or it could be just another ethics yawner. Many good folks on the commission, most serving with expired terms. Does this lead to quorum issues? The next meeting after Thursday is scheduled for Oct. 13. Thanks to NOLA Bookie in comments section.
Ethics Commission members, according to City of Bridgeport web site:
Howard T. Owens, Jr. (D)
488 Brooklawn Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Term Expires: 12/31/2008
Mary Donnelly (D)
53 Reading Place
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Term Expires: 12/31/2009
Joseph W. Ianniello (R)
128 Balmforth Street
Bridgeport, CT 06605
Term Expires: 12/31/2010
Harry Weichsel (U)
64 Janet Circle
Bridgeport, CT 06606
Term Expires 12/31/09
Robert Filotei (R)
365 Sailors Lane
Bridgeport, CT 06605
Term Expires 12/31/09
ALTERNATES
VACANCY (R)
Term Expires: 12/31/2007
Jeffrey Kohut (D)
30 Wickliffe Circle
Bridgeport, CT 06606
Term Expires: 12/31/2007
Foley Jabs Malloy’s Port Proposal
On Tuesday Democratic nominee for governor Dan Malloy released his plan for reviving state ports, including a stop in Bridgeport. His Republican opponent Tom Foley responds:
Tom Foley Reacts to Malloy’s Port Proposal
Stamford, Conn., — “Dan Malloy has just proposed his second new government agency in ten days, the last one being a new authority for Bradley Airport. Bad idea. Connecticut doesn’t need more government, we need more jobs. He says his new authority won’t have any fiscal impact and then says he will allocate up to $50 million in previously authorized Special Tax Obligation bonds to pay for it. Did I hear that right? Does he mean that it isn’t really spending if it has already been authorized or if we are borrowing the money? This is the same tricky accounting from Hartford that got us into this mess. Government doesn’t create jobs, businesses do. The right jobs policy is not more government and more spending, but getting government off the backs of employers and solving the uncertainty created by our budget deficit. After we have done that, employers will be comfortable hiring people again.”
Who are the members of the Ethics Commission?
*** You mean you really don’t know? You seem to know everything else! Doesn’t matter, they’re just as useless as some of the other commissions. ***
Mojo you are right I really do know. Thanks for the compliment, someday I want to know as much as you; until then I will have to settle for second-smartest.
*** Yeah right! ***
Lennie, who is on the Ethics Commission? How did they get put on it and by whom? If they meet, but mostly in Executive Session, then does it at all matter anyway? We’ll never know if they are just having a good laugh or really taking it seriously.
Ethics commission members are listed here:
www .bridgeportct.gov/boardscommissions/pages/ethics.aspx
Here is the outline of the rules from that page:
* Seven members, all residents & electors of city
* All members nominated by Mayor, confirmed by the City Council
* No candidate can be an office-holder or political activist
* No more than two members of any one political party. Alternates of different parties.
* Terms of two years.
* No one serving 3 years is eligible for reappointment.
* Members serve until a successor is appointed and has qualified.
* Meet 2nd Wednesday of the month.
A major portion of the problems in this city can be directly attributed to the fact that our commissions are not adequately re-appointed/re-placed. Without the commissions our Legislature would come to a complete HALT. The commissioners make the suggestions we as citizens live by. Why would it be so different locally? By not re-appointing/re-placing you breed contempt from the members themselves. Commissioners need to feel they are as important to the city as the councilmen (and they are!!!). I’ve heard 60 to 80% of the commissions are undermanned. The standing argument has always been “no one wants to serve.” Their is an enormous amount of citizens who would gladly serve {me included} if asked but they would have to be allowed to “state their minds.”
It took one month but we are finally getting somewhere. On August 24 I did some seat-of-the-pants research at the City site and reported on it to OIB. The City has 20 listed Boards and Commissions the Mayor has the power and duty to fill.
So after three years in office what is more important to the Mayor of Bridgeport? Rain barrels or good appointments to foster citizen meaningful participation in City government?
You be the judge: One month ago I counted 38 vacancies and 58 people still listed (presumably actively serving until re-appointment or replacement. That means that only 29 or 22% of those positions are filled with people appointed who are still within their eligible term. And some of these expire on September 30, 2010.
Of more importance with the Ethics Commission is the fact that “no one serving three years is eligible for re-appointment.” Do you see that only one member is within their unexpired term? So are decisions (or even discussions with these circumstances) legal or valid??? Guess we have to get over to the City Attorney’s office once again for an opinion? Or does Ethics have its own counsel these days? It’s a mess because it is not a priority of the Mayor! And it was not a priority of the previous Mayor either!!! Where does John Gomes stand on this issue???
Finally, we have observed that the City budget savings from last year to this year were partly accomplished by failing to fund one or more pension plan obligations. There is more than one pension plan in this City. Where are the Board members listed? How do they gain their position? Do they have a stewardship responsibility to the people covered by the pension? When a plan is not funded annually or adequately, to whom do they raise an alarm? Why are Board members so quiet about the long-term liabilities? When are the meetings held? Who participates? The one thing I do know is the taxpayer ultimately will fund the responsibility. Where are our watchdogs?
BEACON2 // Sep 22, 2010 at 1:37 pm
The answer is obviously rain barrels, isn’t it?
To your other question … appointments to boards and commissions is a task that should be undertaken in the first few months of a new administration when the hope and anticipation are high. This is a task that should be specifically assigned to a staff member in the Mayor’s office, but those working for the current administration have no inclination for the hard work that is needed and the outreach that is required.
That the practice of appointments to boards and commissions has been lax at best is still no reason to continue the same practice.
As Mayor, John M. Gomes would regard the Mayoral duty to appoint members to the boards and commissions as a far-reaching duty to the citizens of this City.
And yes, of course there are many people in Bridgeport who would willingly serve … if asked.
Right. Unfunded entitlements are an increasing liability around the country too. What was that in Mayor Finch’s speech … Bridgeport taxpayers are paying 24% this year as opposed to 17% last year.
Now as for ethics, is that really the best ethics case to pursue, concert tickets for city council folks? They ain’t doing nothing else questionable? That’s good to know. What about the city council members performing at the Vibes, that way they all will get tickets without complaints. Maybe Timpanelli can get his band to play too or something.
Bridgeport now, wrong venue.
BEACON2 is asking all the right questions.
I’ll throw a little observation into the mix to hopefully help it bubble.
Since nobody is following the rules, why follow the rules? I think Finch deserves a pass on this; it was happening before his watch. It looks like he inherited a system that doesn’t follow the rules, so why should he be Mr. Ethical all of a sudden?
It seems it is administration policy not to regularly fill vacancies to boards and commissions. This allows the administration to manage by fiat.
Ethics Commission? Please. It is non-functioning like most of Bridgeport government. A tabby clutching a ball of catnip and rolling around on the carpet is more frightening.
Jim Callahan // Sep 22, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Responding to your posting.
You are kidding aren’t you? Finch getting a pass on his failure to follow the rules?
In this administration a thousand wrongs are always right …
Yes, I agree with Jim; it’s been happening all along for years. So why should anyone change now?
Democracy is a participatory sport. You have to show up and suit up every day to get what you want.
Some time ago I suggested people in every district write a letter to their district leader demanding quality candidates and threaten to deny them the household votes if they didn’t do so. If all 10 district leaders received 100 letters each, there would be change.
Granted, that takes some effort and organization, but so does Little League! If kids can field a team why can’t adults field good candidates?
It’s all about the numbers.
Case in point, years ago Chris Caruso was a neighborhood activist. He turned out people to meetings, strong-armed his way onto the town committee as chairman and now has a state representative’s seat, salary and health care benefits. He showed up at the game. In addition, people here are promoting him for mayor, too.
He figured out it’s all about the numbers.
Now as to those vacant appointments, who has complained before now?
J & J,
Well, Hector and I have raised questions before today, before this year, etc. So it’s kind of nice to have people weighing in when they realize how something as basic as “appointments to boards and commissions” when left undone creates negatives for current processes and ultimately leads to disrespect for leadership.
Under Fabrizi, there had been an active campaign to get people to volunteer. Well more than one person threw their hat in the ring, only to discover long after, as they were told, that all of the applications had somehow been lost!!! Meanwhile a neighbor from the ‘hood was appointed to a Board, having never been a participant in anything other than a friendship with a local pol. Connect the dots. A closed circle. New blood not needed.
Jim, working the bubble, which rules should we give an incumbent a pass on? If you aren’t going to follow the rules, you’re going to be called offsides, and if you ignore the offsides, you deserve whatever derision you receive as a leader. If you don’t think rules apply to you, change them and communicate why. No one has done that recently. And when you put out rain barrels after the drought we have been through the past few months, you may be accused of wrong targets and misdirected governance.
By the way City appointments are part of the Charter and they have nothing to do with ethical behavior that has a very narrow definition that seems to involve proven financial self-aggrandizement.
What I am saying as an example, Jim, is the day you exit from an establishment for cultured and educated drinking gentlemen to enter your car, and remembering the Irish enjoy driving on the left-hand side, decide to give into that opposite go for a change, know you’re not the first to do it; you’ll be actually following quite a sizable lineup of lawbreakers; hope you hit a tree first and do damage only to yourself (rather than anyone else); because it’s a better idea in both cases to respect the known rules and stay right.
Now if a Board or Commission has no real work to do, maybe no real problem in the short run, but local land use Boards don’t bother to meet if they don’t have a quorum, so vacancies need to be filled to conduct the public’s business. And businesses wishing to buy or operate in a larger way can be prevented by long agendas and too infrequent meeting schedules. Or discouraged from fighting other businesses who operate for long periods in defiance of enforcement citations while presenting or appealing. Bad effect on property values.
I am personally familiar with the historical process in Fairfield and often point to it as a quality example of bipartisan volunteer service on boards and commissions. Favoring the community is the primary goal most times and high standards regarding conflicts of interest are generally observed. I wonder if a case for general discrimination against property-owner taxpayers could be claimed when those boards and commissions in Bridgeport are not adequately organized to serve the public needs? And further can be more easily manipulated by legal advocates attempting to win for their individual client at the expense of neighboring property owners or the community at large? What’s the fuss? Or damage, eh?
Now who has some info on the pension boards in the City? By the way since a good number of readers of OIB work for the City, shouldn’t you be more concerned personally about the representation, expertise and standards of care exercised by those trustees exercising decision-making responsibility? How do you know if things are working out? Does your early warning signal only show up in the month when no check comes from the City or benefits are reduced?
BEACON2, you state “Favoring the community is the primary goal most times and high standards regarding conflict of interest are generally observed.” That is called service before self. Unfortunately what we have in Bridgeport are a bunch of self-serving mopes who could not care less about the community they are supposed to serve.
I have. It has always been my position the appointments needed to be made and they should reflect the population of the city. My biggest criticism of a former president of the council was his opportunity to name people to all the vacancies and let the mayor veto them (if he so chose) which he didn’t do. These commissions are the lifeblood of city spending and local ordinances being established. Any other city in the nation will tell you the importance of having commissioners with the power and insight assisting in the decision-making for their cities.
If you really want to see government working show up at a commissioners meeting (check out the smaller meetings as the bigger ones are fully staffed). Get back to us with your feelings. Oh, you should check out a commissioners meeting in an adjoining town or in the Capitol also, so as to compare.
Hector, I was joking when I said city council should play the vibes.
I know so was I. Only I was talking about Timpanelli’s group.
BEACON2:
Your observations and criticisms of my post are just.
Your logic is worthy. It deserves merit, consideration, and should be followed in a democratic society where you expect input from the people.
HOWEVER.
Whoever thought Mayor Bill Finch would present us with such a splendid example of seduction of power?
The mayor is a nice guy. He likes to talk to people, is concerned about their welfare, and would like to do a good job. Hell, for all I know he even likes dogs.
By observation we must conclude the mayor wants little to do with the board and commission function of city government. He prefers to govern without such encumbrance. His Common Council does not challenge this position. Even that acclaimed music lover Council President Jolly McCarthy raises not an aria in protest.
The situation is what it is.
Our Webzine patrone, for example, has posted the list of Ethics Commission members. The terms have expired for four out of the five members. The term of one alternate commissioner has expired. The other alternate position is vacant. This is according to the city’s own records.
The effectiveness of such a board is hindered by the lack of current appointments. The expirations call into question its moral authority over the city at any rate. This from the Ethics Commission, no less.
The conclusion is simple and difficult to ignore. The Finch administration, enjoying the lack of advice and lack of consent from an unconcerned Common Council, is abolishing such boards by benign neglect.
Oh, and since it is Bridgeport politics, one can’t help but be a little impertinent.
Are we sure all these ethics commission people are still alive?
Well, I guess I know Howard Owens is still around. He endures.
Hi Howard!
So all this goes to show this dirty, dirty city needs a good broom.
My thanks to Carolanne Curry for her insights as to what the Gomes camp is thinking.
Does anyone know what 1/2 of these boards even do? Please don’t cite their Missions per website. I mean do we KNOW WHAT THEY DO??? Some minutes are posted on the City Website, but not for all. Since filling these board seats is required in the Charter, doesn’t the Council bear some responsibility to see that this happens?
Just because you do something (wrong) for a long, long time doesn’t mean you have to continue to do it that way. Change it.
Does the Mayor ever just show up and observe or send someone from his office to just sit in? Does he ever say Thank You for serving to anyone, or does he save those THANKS just for his PR speeches? Perhaps if someone from his office, if not he were to do that, he’d find some not even meeting and others are without a quorum. Where is the oversight? Where is the transparency?
There’s a lot of joking going on about how business is done or not done, but the fact is this is just not right. Why the people of Bridgeport are not at all bothered means there’s even a bigger problem in The Park City. Apathy and/or Ignorance?
More than ten years ago this City went from a mayoral two-year term to four years. This was a part of a transition from a “weak mayoral form” of governance to a “strong mayoral form” according to one of the movers and shakers in the time of the Financial Review Board.
Bill Finch is a nice guy. He’s friendly and gregarious. Probably likes dogs, little kids and is fun to fish with? However no one accuses him of being strong in indicating the City’s major priorities; in moving all parties toward sound financial progress; in being open, accountable or transparent in the way his office operates.
What do we have? Perhaps we have a weak person in a strong office? Other parts of the governance structure have been weakened or co-opted and thus there is no push-back in favor of real public service that endures for the longer term, but rather splashes that entertain or seem timely, but actually take attention away from bailing the boat and strengthening capacity to move forward economically.
An ethics commission with a “hometown” and narrow definition of behavior in need of citation and correction may be one area to review …
A City Attorney who sees his primary responsibility as loyalty to the current Mayor rather than to the body politic as a whole …
A budget process that discovers it cannot pay the regular annual expense of pensions and produce a balanced budget simultaneously, and therefore drops that annual cost and proclaims a lower budget than the year before, and therefore no increase in taxes cannot be trusted with their explanation of numbers …
And so it goes, with Boards and Commissions, with the gutting of Civil Service , providing increases in compensation to your appointments at the same moment you are holding union compensation “feet to the fire” … And how does the City operate with “acting” rather than full-titled leaders? Is it because exams can’t get handled? Do we need to hire out-of-town experts with black bags to finish this work? (Like the Mayor did with “Surprise, It’s Bridgeport!”)
The money issue is probably the largest issue that will trip up a weak performance in a strong office. So elected Council members need to consider what they have done, including serious questioning and follow-up for credible responses, or a reform slate without close political identity could certainly become a possibility. And appointed board and commission members should be looking for an official re-appointment and a timetable from the Mayor for filling vacancies. It is enlightening and encouraging that so much serious discussion has gone into these issues recently. And it is also fascinating that with the multitude of topics the Post finds issues in Seymour and Milford to be more relevant to readers.
This is an issue that could have been resolved with his transition team and SHOULD be done with the transition team that comes with whomever is our next mayor (in a year or so). The only announced candidate is Mr. Gomes. So on this most important of issues, I’d like to hear from HIM, what he will do. I guess it would be fair to ask him what position he envisions for Ms. Curry also. I don’t think she should answer this unless maybe he’s promised her a position already.
Hector A. Diaz // Sep 23, 2010 at 11:35 am
Responding to your posting
Since Jeff Leichtman, myself and Rina Bakalar did all the on-the-ground work in assembling the Transition Team for the Mayor, we knew at the time what he wanted … (no one had yet poisoned his drinking water). Discussion of the Ethics Commission was a component of the whole fabric of transition subjects to address.
The Transition Team presented their thoughts and their findings to the Mayor after a given period of review and evaluation (just as they did with the Ganim Transition Team in 1991 I also helped).
The resulting actions and decisions made by the current Mayor reflect in many instances a rejection of the outstanding work the Finch Transition Team did for him.
Any new incoming Mayor does not have to have a Transition Team. To have one is a choice made by the Mayor-elect. To not choose to have one is foolish, but then to not implement into actions some of the very good recommendations that come from Transition Teams is insulting to Team members, is short-changing the citizens of this City, and shows an absence of political will.
The Election in 2011 of John M. Gomes to serve as Mayor of Bridgeport would certainly see a changed approach to receiving and implementing the work product of a Gomes Transition Team.
However Hector, you seem to be addressing your concern with the bigger “issue” of appointing members to Boards and Commissions in a timely manner and to have these appointments reflect the demographics of the City of Bridgeport.
Rest assured Hector, there was enough time at CitiStat when John was Director for him to determine among many of the failings of the City Government system, that the failure to make these appointments was a disservice to the City, and needed a far more active effort from the Mayor’s Office to seek out and recruit members to serve.
You may think whatever you want Hector, but I will continue to be posting. For the most part, those who are posting on OIB are highly knowledgeable about this City and her political systems. If more elected leaders could fathom the value of reading OIB, material within the framework of public service, I guarantee you there would be change.
Think big Hector, don’t be petty.
And if you were seriously reading what’s been posted by me as a result of working with John for more than two years now on a day-to-day basis, you’ll find we don’t disagree on the components of good governance for Bridgeport. And also you will have read that John intends to make a policy of appointing City of Bridgeport residents to serve as his Department Directors. I’d say you had a better chance than I do Hector. At least I think you’re living in Bridgeport.
The mayor has 2 months from when he wins until he’s sworn in. Wouldn’t it be “grand” if the commissioners were all sworn in along with the council people, sheriffs, etc.?