Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bridgeport resident urges clearer public notice as charter revisions head to ballot
Summary
A Bridgeport resident urged the city council to explain why a proposed charter revision was split into two ballot questions, questioned outreach and mayoral involvement, and offered a volunteer-driven video series to help voters understand changes.
John Marshall Lee, a Bridgeport resident who gave his address for the record, urged the City Council to give voters clearer information about proposed charter revisions that he said were approved by a charter commission and placed before the council for referral to the ballot.
Lee said the charter was last approved in 1993 and that in January 2024 Council President Nevas and Mayor Ganham discussed a review that led to a citizen commission of 13 volunteers working on a revised charter. He said the commission27s work and input from department leaders produced a simpler, more readable draft that, he said, the council approved on Sept. 2 to present a question to voters on Nov. 4.
Why the council later convened a special meeting on Sept. 5 to split the charter into two ballot questions was Lee27s central concern. "It passed, but I'm still wondering for what purpose. What are the reasons for splitting charter changes in two parts? Do those purposes serve all the voters, all the people, or only a small minority of city voters?" he asked. He also asked which council members will recommend "yes" on both questions and which will not explain their positions.
Lee asked whether the mayor had spoken to council members about the governance-renewal effort and said he had not seen coverage in local papers. He raised operational questions about how certain office changes (he mentioned a possible elimination of a part-time city clerk role by 2031) would affect residents and urged the commission and city to hold public meetings before Election Day to explain changes and answer voters' questions.
Faith Sweeney, another public commenter, said she had emailed council members and offered to produce a weekly "charter chat" video series to inform constituents about the proposed changes and invited council members to participate.
The public-comment period ended after those remarks, and the clerk announced a two-minute recess before the council began its formal business.
The council has not recorded formal action on the items in the public comments during this meeting; the remarks were public comment asking for clearer outreach and explanation ahead of the Nov. 4 ballot.
