Marshall Lee urges independent legal counsel for Bridgeport Board of Education; Councilman Cruz questions mayor presiding over council meetings

Commissioner Marshall Lee told the Charter Revision Commission that the draft charter language tying the Bridgeport Board of Education's legal representation to the city attorney’s office raises conflict-of-interest risks and should be reconsidered. “The portion regarding legal representation for the Bridgeport Board of Education through the city attorney’s office … is problematic,” Lee said, arguing the legislature separated school boards from municipal legislators to avoid such conflicts.

Lee told the commission that situations could arise in which the board would need to sue the city, and that a city attorney employed by the mayor could be constrained when choosing counsel. He cited recent examples he said demonstrated potential conflicts: cameras on school buses that generate ticket revenue the board pays for under its contract, and a recent council proposal tied to the Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR). Lee spoke cautiously about dollar figures—saying he couldn’t remember exact numbers and estimated “probably a couple hundred thousand” in revenue from the bus camera program—but emphasized the structural risk: “We need an independent attorney to speak up for the kids, to speak up for everybody.”

The hearing record shows additional discussion about the city attorney’s capacity. A participant noted the city attorney provides routine services at no charge to the board but may farm out specialized education work and that the city attorney’s office had a job posting for an education legal attorney. The transcript does not record a formal decision on whether the charter should require independent counsel.

Councilman George Cruz, who identified himself as representing the 131st District, urged the commission to study governance practice in other cities and to consider whether the mayor should preside at council meetings. “Why is the mayor running the council meetings if we have a president of the council and the president pro tempore?” Cruz asked, urging that the council president should preside to avoid an appearance of mayoral influence.

Another public commenter supported Cruz’s recommendation and told the commission she favored the council president presiding and keeping broader representation on the council.

Speakers at the hearing also urged broader public engagement around the charter process. One commission member described prior charter efforts, the long gap since the last successful revision, and neighborhood outreach plans, including library conversations and handouts on civic duties and the Constitution.

The commission closed the public hearing after the comments. A commissioner moved to end the hearing; the motion was seconded, the commission voted in favor, and the meeting adjourned.