Only in Bridgeport

It used to be when city employees were required to live in Bridgeport they were a political force. In 1973 city employee voter strength was probably enough to reelect Republican Mayor Nick Panuzio who promised generous 20-year-and-out pensions for uniformed services.

In 1985, a nasty legal fight for control of the Police Department between Mayor Lenny Paoletta and Superintendent of Police Joe Walsh led to split loyalties. Cops actively supported Democrat Tom Bucci for mayor. Bucci won.

As collective bargaining regulations eliminated residency requirements, police employees began moving out of the city.

Mayor Bill Finch has a running battle with some city employee unions. Tensions are the highest with city cops. The arrest of  Finch’s son Pete over a felled street sign has not made it any better. Lots of short fuses out there as we head into the Fourth of July weekend. Finch wants concessions to close a multi-million dollar budget gap. Cops feel they’ve done their part to help city finances. They feel Finch is reneging on a labor contract.

No doubt Finch faces a tough reelection next year with State Rep. Chris Caruso poised to challenge in a primary. The challenge cops have — if they really want to work against Finch (and many do) — is that so many don’t live in the city. They can still weigh in, organizing friends and relatives to vote their preference, but it’s not like the old days.

(Check out my daily webzine www.onlyinbridgeport.com)

It’s not hard to figure out the priorities of some cops during a storm. They’re more worried about their paychecks than police work. This is a total abuse of power.

While city was struggling to recover from a devastating storm, police said the mayor’s son, Peter Finch, grabbed a fallen street sign, tucked it under his arm and walked with it into a local bar.

“It’s just unbelievable,” said Police Lt. Thomas Lula, head of the Police Department’s Strategic Enforcement Unit. “Everyone’s out clearing trees, cleaning up and he stops to get a souvenir.”

Finch, 28, of West Parkway, was charged with sixth-degree larceny. He was released on a promise to appear in court.

He couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

According to Lula, at about 6 p.m., a half hour after Mayor Bill Finch’s city-wide curfew went into effect, Peter Finch took the “Broad Street” sign from a fallen pole at the corner of Cesar Batalla Way and Broad Street, tucked it under his arm and walked with it to Murphy’s Law on Fairfield Avenue.

“Officers saw him walking with the sign and then go into the bar,” Lula said. He continued that officers Frank Cuccaro and Frank Delbouno went into the bar and issued Finch the summons.

“He claimed he was going to turn it in to his father,” Lula said. “But he walked past a half dozen public works trucks that he could have turned it in to on his way to the bar.”

Really? Did Lula offer full disclosure to the Connecticut Post? That Frank Cuccaro who pinched the mayor’s son is the former head of the city police union the mayor seeks concessions to close a budget gap? Is it unbelievable to Lula that someone would pick up a street sign from the ground that was blown away by tornado-like winds? Is it unbelievable that cops have nothing better to do? They’re now pinching people for picking up a felled street sign? Picking on the mayor’s family because they have a beef with the mayor?

How is it that police were able to see Pete Finch carrying the sign, but not the actual sign itself? What’s wrong with saying okay give us the sign? How do they know his intent? He had such intent to ‘steal’ the sign that he posed for a picture of himself holding the sign? So three police officers during a catastrophic storm, during this state of emergency, where folks are displaced, roofs disconnected from buildings, are investigating the mayor’s son for a sign that was on the ground? You want to argue Pete should have shown better judgment? Okay. What about the police showing better judgment? This has nothing to do with police work. (And I hope not one cop receives a layoff slip.) It has everything to do with abuse of power, and some cops’ beef with the mayor because he wants union concessions, and threatens layoffs.

This is a huge week for city bean counters and union negotiators.

A new budget year begins July 1. Mayor Bill Finch’s budget requires millions in union givebacks. Every day beyond July 1 makes it more difficult for the city to close that gap. That means if unions don’t step up layoff notices will likely go out within the next few days. Stay tuned.

(Check out my daily webzine at www.onlyinbridgeport.com)

From Connecticut Post reporter Linda Conner Lambeck:

A crowd that tested the limits of the Aquaculture School all-purpose room’s 198-person capacity told the Board of Education in no uncertain terms Monday not to close Dunbar and Roosevelt schools.

“People feel disrespected. That is the anger you hear tonight,” said Wayne Winston of the Greater Bridgeport NAACP and a Roosevelt School graduate. “The anger that you see in this room is nothing compared to what you will see if you close those schools.”

Winston told the board the NAACP chapter has voted to ask it to stop the proceedings to close the two schools and to conduct an impact study of closing both schools, which are said to be among the lowest performing schools in the state.

Some in the room claimed the closing of Dunbar and Roosevelt was the equivalent of institutional racism. Based on what? This is the most difficult BOE budget in a long time. It has the same amount to spend for the budget year starting July 1 as it has for the spending year that ends this month. The BOE has asked for labor concessions. Union leadership has said stick it.

Layoffs are coming. Schools may close. And the screaming may become ear-splitting.

(Check out my daily webzine www.onlyinbridgeport.com)

What’s going on around here? Two weeks ago nearly half the City Council was pushing, shoving, rolling on the benches and floor that would make wrestling guru Linda McMahon smile from nose to toes.

Monday night, with folks wondering if there would be a rematch between City Councilwoman Evette Brantley and community irritant Cecil Young, everyone was on the sweetest behavior. Oh, yes, peace and love and togetherness.

Lost in all the syrupy behavior, the City Council voted to raise your taxes last night. Must make you feel warm all over.

(Check out my daily webzine www.onlyinbridgeport.com)

Democrat Dan Malloy had a good day on Thursday when the State Elections Enforcement Commission awarded his gubernatorial campaign more than $2 million in public funds, and a new poll by www.rasmussenreports.com places him ahead of GOP endorsed Tom Foley. From Rasmussen:

Democrat Dan Malloy has extended his advantage over Republican Thomas Foley in Connecticut’s gubernatorial contest, according to the first Rasmussen Reports survey following the state conventions in which both candidates received their party’s endorsement.

Malloy earns 44% of Likely Voters in the state, while Foley picks up 35% support. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and 17% are undecided.

Support for Foley is unchanged from last month, but support for Malloy is up six points.

At this point, despite their convention endorsements, both Malloy and Foley still face primary challenges. Voters from both parties will pick their nominees on August 10.

Malloy picks up 42% in a match-up with Foley’s challenger, Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Fedele, who gets 28% of the vote. This race has changed little over the past two months.

Foley now posts a more modest 38% to 36% lead over the other Democratic hopeful, businessman Ned Lamont who unsuccessfully challenged Joe Lieberman for the U.S. Senate in 2006. In early May, Lamont led Foley 42% to 35%.

Lamont now leads Fedele 43% to 34%. From April to May, support for Fedele dropped 10 points, but his support is back up from 28% last month. Support for Lamont hasn’t dipped below 40% since our first look at this election in early February.

In all these match-ups, nearly one-quarter of the state’s voters are either undecided or prefer some other candidate.

(Check out my daily webzine www.onlyinbridgeport.com)

Linda McMahon’s campaign team is not loving these latest poll numbers from www.rasmussenreports.com. More validation that voters just don’t like the McMahon persona. This poll actually provides an opening for economic guru Peter Schiff, the other Republican in the race trying to petition his way on the ballot for an August primary. Schiff can now raise serious doubts to GOP voters about McMahon’s electability. From Rasmussen:

Democrat Richard Blumenthal apparently has weathered charges that he exaggerated his military service in Vietnam for years and is running as strongly as ever against both his Republican challengers in Connecticut’s race for the U.S. Senate.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Connecticut finds Blumenthal with 56% support versus 33% for Linda McMahon, the officially endorsed GOP candidate. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. McMahon has come under criticism recently as people have focused on her role in World Wresting Entertainment, a corporation that one conservative pundit compares to the Gulf oil spill as “a relentless gusher of pollution.”

Blumenthal, the state’s longtime attorney general, earns 55% of the vote in a match-up with Wall Street investment banker Peter Schiff, who hopes to collect enough signatures by Tuesday to force McMahon into an August 10 primary contest. Given that match-up, three percent (3%) like another candidate, and nine percent (9%) are undecided.

With both Republicans earning roughly the same support, the new findings suggest that the race continues to be largely about Blumenthal.

The current figures put the race back where it has been for most of the year, a likely Democratic victory in a challenging year for the Democratic Party. However, the numbers also reflect a big change in the race from the days immediately following a New York Times report suggesting that Blumenthal had exaggerated his military record. The Times is an influential publication among Democrats, and, in the heat of the moment, their story caused some Democrats to have doubts about Blumenthal.

Just after that story broke, Blumenthal held a very narrow 48% to 45% lead over McMahon.

However, at that time, Connecticut voters still held a very positive view overall of Blumenthal and the candidate had just begun to respond to the charges. Even in the midst of the allegations, 66% offered a favorable opinion of Blumenthal.

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Connecticut was conducted on June 1, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Now, with some time to evaluate both the story and the candidate’s response, 49% say the issue is at least somewhat important in determining how they’ll vote, while another 49% view them as unimportant. These figures include 26% who say the issue is Very Important and 18% who say they are Not At All Important.

Voters who view the misstatements as Very Important strongly favor the Republicans. But even those who regard the misstatements as somewhat important lean slightly toward Blumenthal, while those who are more dismissive of the comments overwhelmingly favor the Democrat.

Blumenthal now carries male voters by nearly two-to-one and female voters by a slightly smaller margin regardless of which Republican he faces. Voters not affiliated with either party give the Democrat nearly 60% support.

Blumenthal benefits from an electorate that is more supportive of Democrats than voters across the nation. While 60% of voters nationwide favor repeal of the national health care bill, just 48% feel that way in Connecticut, while 40% of the state’s voters oppose repeal. This includes 38% who Strongly Favor repeal and 30% who Strongly Oppose it.

Both Republicans earn about 65% of the votes of those who Strongly Favor repeal. Blumenthal gets more than 90% support from those who are Strongly Opposed.

Blumenthal is viewed Very Favorably by 42% of Connecticut voters, up seven points from the last survey before the New York Times story broke. He is seen Very Unfavorably by 19%.

Fifteen percent (15%) have a Very Favorable opinion of McMahon, the millionaire former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, while 30% view her Very Unfavorably.

For Schiff, Very Favorables are 10% and Very Unfavorables nine percent (9%). But he is far less well-known than the other two candidates.

(Check out my daily webzine at www.onlyinbridgeport.com)