Bridgeport commission advances broad civil-service rewrite, including new unclassified‑position process and longer exam windows

The Bridgeport Charter Revision Commission on May 31, 2025 walked commissioners through a set of proposed amendments to the citycivil-service chapter aimed at clarifying decades-old language and giving the city new procedures for creating unclassified positions.

John, associate city attorney, told the commission the working draft (exhibit one) consolidates and cleans the charter text and that the team expects to make a few final edits before sending a redline to the commission. "We think this is completely solid," John said as he introduced the exhibits and the draft revisions.

Why it matters: under the existing charter, language drafted decades ago has had the practical effect of placing many later-created positions into the classified service, which can limit the mayors ability to appoint top-level aides. John cited a 2019 court ruling in Austin v. City of Bridgeport that held a senior labor relations officer was in the classified service and therefore entitled to civil-service protections. The proposed package would retain core civil-service principles while establishing a formal, multi-step process for moving a position into the unclassified service.

What the draft would do - Create a guarded process to add unclassified positions: the personnel director would investigate whether a new or reclassified position should be unclassified, the Civil Service Commission would vote, and the city council would have a 60-day period to accept or overturn that decision. - Clarify and reorganize language across section 205 and related chapters so appointments, terms, and exceptions are consistent and easier to find. - Amend probation and reemployment language: the proposal keeps probation as a defined period (often six months, with variations by collective bargaining), clarifies the documentation and hearing steps when probation fails, and distinguishes layoffs (two-year reemployment list) from voluntary resignations (employees who voluntarily leave would have 60 days to request return; if approved, their reemployment list term would be one year). - Extend testing and provisional-appointment timelines: exam-trigger timelines would move from 120 to 180 days to allow modern validity studies and EEOC review; provisional appointments in place while an exam is prepared would also be extendable to roughly 180 days (emergency acting appointments from five to 30 days in narrowly defined circumstances).

Eric, the citys personnel director, said exam development requires more time now than it did decades ago because of job‑analysis and validity requirements. "We hardly ever satisfy the 120-day time period," Eric said, arguing that 180 days better reflects the work needed to prepare defensible, nondiscriminatory exams.

Scope and examples The presentation listed specific classes of positions that the drafters believe should be unclassified (mayoral aides such as chief of staff or communications director, certain board-of-education executive roles, specific department directors and other defined senior posts). Presenters emphasized that many of the roles are already designated in various parts of the charter but are scattered; the draft centralizes the listing and adds guardrails for future changes.

City staff provided workforce context: commissioners were told the city employs roughly 2,800 people (higher seasonally), while the Board of Education workforce was estimated at about 4,000.

Next steps The commission scheduled a series of follow-up sessions and a public hearing: staff will circulate a redline of exhibit two for commissioner edits, civil-servi ce staff will return, a public hearing is planned for June 12 (Black Rock Library), and the commission aimed for further votes in mid-June. John told the commission the draft will be finalized after the commissions additional edits and then referred to the city council for review.

The presentation produced extended discussion about who should keep civil-service protections and who should serve at the "pleasure" of an appointing authority; that debate is expected to continue in subsequent meetings and during the council review.