Bridgeport ordinance committee reviews rewrite of Chapter 17, weighing council approval for top appointments

The Bridgeport ordinance committee met in a special session to review proposed revisions to Chapter 17 of the city charter, a rewrite aimed at clarifying which city positions are in the classified civil‑service system and which are in the unclassified executive ranks.

A presenter from the charter/civil‑service staff told the committee the draft is the product of nearly a year of work with the charter commission, the civil service commission and the city attorney’s office to make Chapter 17 more readable and to reduce the kinds of ambiguities that have produced litigation in the past. The rewrite reorganizes language, tightens definitions for reemployment and probation, and attempts to limit legal exposure created by unclear classification rules.

Committee members pressed staff on a recurring issue: how mayoral appointees have in some cases acquired union protections that effectively provide “just cause” removal rights, undermining the idea that certain executives “serve at the pleasure of” the mayor. One council member said the city has allowed some mayoral appointees to join bargaining units over the years, and staff advised that those applications are controlled by the director of labor relations; if labor relations does not object, the state can place positions in a bargaining unit.

“The problem we talked about a short while ago is the use of unaffiliated employees applying and getting union membership; that ties our hands in terms of unclassified,” the presenter said during the discussion, explaining the rewrite’s distinction between unclassified roles (top executives created explicitly as non‑civil‑service) and unaffiliated employees (not in a bargaining unit but potentially still in classified service).

The draft also proposes a procedural change to give the city council more time to act when the mayor requests creation of a classified position: the review window would increase from 60 days to 90 days, a change staff said the council had requested so it would have sufficient time to consider complex requests.

A central practical question for the committee was which mayoral appointees, if any, should require council ratification. Staff noted that police and fire chiefs currently remain in the competitive classified division, with a five‑year term and a mayoral appointment from the top three ranked candidates; the health director’s appointment is governed by state statute. Several council members proposed adding public‑facing department heads such as the director of planning and economic development, the director of public facilities and the director of policy and management to the list of positions that would come to council for confirmation.

Those who supported adding positions said council confirmation would provide a public check and allow the legislative body to question nominees’ qualifications and plans. Others cautioned that some technical or budget‑facing offices might not be appropriate for routine confirmation and suggested a narrower list of public‑facing roles instead.

Members also raised recruitment and list‑management issues for police and fire: the charter currently establishes a two‑year life for eligibility lists, which begins after a 30‑day review period. Staff and psychometric consultants cautioned that longer list lifespans can become stale and reduce selection quality, though council members said candidates who passed demanding exams can be disadvantaged if lists regularly expire.

By the end of the session committee members praised the cleanup for reducing unnecessary pages and clarifying modern personnel processes. One council member summarized the policy intent bluntly: “We’re tired of having a former mayor take our money all the time,” a comment reflecting frustration with past perceived abuses of appointment and pay authority.

A motion to move the matter forward was made and seconded; the record shows a voice vote was taken to advance the item. Committee members asked staff and the city attorney’s office to prepare any follow‑up language needed in other charter chapters (for example, Chapter 7 for particular appointment processes) so that council‑approval mechanisms would operate as intended.

What happens next: staff will refine the draft and committee members indicated they will identify specific top positions they want to require council ratification. Any change that makes a mayoral appointment subject to confirmation will likely require targeted edits to the relevant charter chapters in addition to Chapter 17’s classification clarifications.

(At the meeting close, the committee took a voice vote on a motion to advance the matter; no roll‑call vote or formal tally was recorded in the transcript.)