City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. We will start the public speaking as soon as our council gets to their seats. Council, please get to your seats. Council, please get to your seats. I'll wait a few minutes so everybody can get settled in, and then we will start the meeting. It is 6.31, I called in public speaking meeting to order. I'm asking people to please keep the conversations to a minimal so we can hear you speak. Please state your name, address for the record. We will begin with John Marshall Lee. John? Oh, roll call, I'm sorry. Roll call vote, or roll call. Thank you.

I just want to get it done.

Gallen Murray.

Present.

Nicole Nelson.

Present.

Denise Delamoye.

Present.

Jorge Cruz.

You see her in here.

Dasha Spell. Present. Rolanda Smith. Present. Akin Voi. Here. Jeanette Herron.

Present.

Loretta Duba. Michelle Lines. Mary McBride Lee.

She's on vacation.

Richard Ortiz. Here. Alfredo Castillo.

Personal.

Aiden Nieves. Fred Hodges. Maria Valle. Kayla Medina. Maria Pereira, Eneida Martinez, Ernest Newton. We have a quorum.

Thank you, madam. John Marshall Lee.

It's the first day following the 250th celebration of our declaration of grievances as colonial citizens living under King George III. Are you familiar with them as reasons seeking Independents, today the official or personal gatherings enjoyed in 2026, perhaps with fireworks, reside in your memory. We're meeting tonight, but are we in a basic way practicing democracy? Are we meeting for issues of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our authentic manner? I believe that we are not. when the mayor, a man formerly challenged by a history of municipal corruption and who has presided during one or more adjudications of Bridgeport officials since regaining office, announces to a gathering that he, One, prioritizes the decrease in municipal mill rate as historic at a time when fewer than 40% of citizens face municipal taxes other than for automobiles. Two, fails to include the review of charter reform and acceptance by voters in his address despite an attempt to separate the politics from the governance. in the charter on the fact that a treatment of municipal ethics was a primary focus of the charter review process, but the informed voter was not fooled last November. Three, knows that civics, the study of citizen rights and responsibilities, is critically unavailable in the city from lack of support by official leadership by the city council as a body, though some council persons are active and engaged daily. Four, understand that the increase of state and city funding of education does not contemplate the restoration of a civics curriculum director presently. How long can this city genuinely serve the people when election processes, among other administrative features of governance, leave the public with little or no trust or experience in governance, and therefore wish to stay away from politics This is the status quo we face today. I've called you to lead the charge for a renewal of civics education benefit in each council districts since October 2024. We held yesterday a one hour session of community engagement on a porch with five learning citizens present. It's the quality of the discussion, not the quantity. I offer signs to promote your porch conversations or other casual conversations in your district. Stop ignoring the power of conversation to increase the number of people voting for someone or something of value to them. Is it about personal happiness or the service of, by, and for human beings they see as neighbors and citizens in the community?

Time will tell. Thank you, John. Joseph Thompson. Joseph Thompson. Joseph Thompson. We'll go to the next speaker, Joseph Sokolovic.

Good evening, members of the council. My name is Joe Sokalovic, 334 Burnsford Avenue. I'm speaking mostly as an individual. I'm here tonight to speak on some money-saving ideas. The city council must approve appointments to the Ethics Commission this evening. For far too long, Bridgeport's elected officials and its department heads have unethically abused their power to silence and punish critics. When public officials use the police or personnel to threaten people's employment and freedom because they speak out against them, they engage in unethical activity, potentially not only unethical, but could also be highly illegal. When multiple parts of city government move to silence critics and punish people who tell the truth, the city begins to look less like a democratic government and more like a crime family protecting itself from prison. That is exactly why this council must move quickly to appoint a fully functioning ethics commission. We need oversight now, not after more damage is done, not after more lawsuits are filed, and not after more residents lose faith in their government. What I have witnessed as both an elected official and an individual is a pattern. People speak up against power, and suddenly an elected official writes a letter to personnel asking that a stellar employee be fired. People expose misconduct, and instead of being thanked, they face arrest or termination. Police are used to create intimidation. Public access to meetings is threatened. Critics are treated not as citizens exercising protected rights, but as problems to be controlled. That is not good governance. That is a corrupt and retaliatory pattern. Public criticism is not a crime. The First Amendment protects the right to speak and criticize public officials. Public officials do not get to use departments and badges as weapons against the people whose message they dislike. Public meetings belong to the public. The police president said public meetings should be about safety, not blocking attendance, intimidating residents, or shielding officials from accountability. And let me be abundantly clear on this one. At a Board of Education meeting, a member of the public can only be denied by access by the board itself, not by the superintendent, nor his staff, nor police discretion. What I witnessed on video the other week was unacceptable. Let me let me also be clear When police and personnel system will use of weapons the system is are not merely making mistakes. It's creating a record of retaliation This is how lawsuits are built and massive payouts fears lead to large settlements a person speaks the city reacts Police appear disciplinary action follows documents show timing witnesses testify dispositions that position to close the pattern the city attorney and all elected officials are now on notice and If this conduct continues, it will look like deliberate indifference. Bridgeport should expect scrutiny into whether public officials are being used as part of an organized retaliatory enterprise. Bridgeport cannot claim ignorance to escape the inevitable lawsuits. That is why the ethics commission's appointments matter. The council should move quickly to confirm ethics commissioners and give the public a place where misconduct and abuse of authority can be reviewed Seriously, as an elected official, I am stating clearly and for the record, I believe that these actions threaten free speech and public accountability, and I am prepared to testify truthfully about what I have observed as an individual and a elected official. The city has been warned. A public record has been made. Thank you.

Thank you. John Hosier.

Madam President, members of the Common Council, thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I'd have to admit, during this entire process, I've been a little overzealous, a little demanding. It goes back to February when we started this and you appointed me to the Ethics Commission, or to the Charter Revision Commission. My number one priority was the Ethics Commission on that commission. You can ask anyone what I would say. that my number one concern is to get this ethics commission together, have it have teeth, and have it get rid of the black eye that the city of Bridgeport has. And I think the commission itself did exactly that. So forgive me for being overzealous, but I have a lot invested in this as a commissioner and as a resident of the city of Bridgeport. Now, not about me, it's about three women. One woman, her name is Chrissy Manillo. She's a lawyer.

Ladies and gentlemen, would you like to have a lawyer?

Speak to the council, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, would you like to have a lawyer on your ethics commission? Say yes or no. Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, we have another candidate. Her name is Rosella Chris. 30 years as an ethics czar at Pitney Bowles. Would you like to have somebody that has 30 years of ethics under their belts on your commission? Third, Faith Sweeney, an educator for our kids. She was the vice chair or the chairman of the Charter Revisions Commission. Would you like to have somebody that teaches our kids on your Ethics Commission? Yes. Thank you. Now, you just heard from your constituents. Every single one of these ladies have a yes from these people. These are your constituents. Now, let me just ask this very simple question, make this statement. In the state of Connecticut, in any town, any city, they would not deny these three women to be on the Ethics Commission. It's not about me, it's not about the process. It's about these three women that will serve each of us honorably. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Elizabeth Santa.

Thank you. Good evening, council president, members of city council, and fellow residents of Bridgeport. My name is Beth Santa, and I'm an 18-year resident of Bridgeport. I urge this council tonight to act on the most consequential obligation the voters of Bridgeport have placed before you. to vote and approve these three highly qualified candidates to the Ethics Commission and empower this commission to hire a director and get on with the serious business, the serious governance of Bridgeport. The world is watching. Bridgeport has a chronic image problem rooted in decades of corruption and misconduct. This is not merely an embarrassment. It carries real, measurable consequences. Residents experience diminished civic pride. Businesses struggle to attract talent. And the large-scale investment Bridgeport so desperately needs thinks twice and moves on. Neighboring towns view us with skepticism. The state of Connecticut is reluctant to allocate resources where they may be squandered. National media coverage of election misconduct has placed Bridgeport under intense scrutiny. The perception of corruption, where rules only apply to some, where access is bought and influence sold, acts as a brake on every effort to move this city economically forward. This is not a routine administrative vote tonight. This is the clearest opportunity in generations of Bridgeport to begin unburdening itself from its past. If this council has dreams of Bridgeport returning to a safe, vibrant, prosperous city, you must demonstrate to the outside world that you are serious about good governance. This vote is not inward facing. It's not about different council voices and districts squabbling over their share of power. This vote is outward facing. It determines how the outside world views Bridgeport. And it's important to understand this difference. This is about creating one Bridgeport vote voice sending an unambiguous message to the outside world, to residents, neighboring towns, the region, the state of Connecticut, and the nation, that Bridgeport has stepped up and has changed its game. That Bridgeport is a safe bet. and that Bridgeport welcomes investment in a city governed with integrity. The voters have spoken and done their part. The council must now do yours and approve these three worthy candidates for the Ethics Commission. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you also please state your address? Miss Santa, can you state your address for the record, please?

Beth Santa, 511 Lake Avenue in Bridgeport. Thank you.

Sue Lesko?

Hi, good evening. My name is Sue Lesko. I live at 5 Pine Point Drive in North End. I just have a couple of questions, and I'm not gonna keep you long. Everyone else can go on and on. I'm curious, what happened to March 1st, and what happened to July 1st? We have timelines. No matter what we do in life, we all have deadlines. It's something we must follow. Why were there so many canceled meetings with regards to these three candidates to get this process moving? Why were 12 council members absent from the meeting to interview these individuals? How are these 12 able to make an informed decision? By a piece of paper, a word of mouth? That's not informed. A council member here stated there are a lot of people who want to serve. If this is the case, where are they? Where are they in their application process? We should have many more names out here tonight, but we do not. Council members continue to state that the process has been tainted, yet no one can explain how. How has it been tainted? What is the actual fear of an Office of Ethics and a full Board of Commissioners? The city of Bridgeport is being watched, and we've been watched for quite some time around our elections in particular. We need to stand up and do the right thing and stop others from mocking our city and our elections in the process. You all have the ability to do the right thing. The citizens of this city deserve better. Thank you. Thank you.

Joseph Fitzpatrick.

Good evening, Madam President, council members. My name is John Fitzpatrick.

Oh, John, John, I'm sorry.

Yeah, you're good. My name is John Fitzpatrick. I live at 433 Ellsworth Street, second floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut. I'm speaking today in support of the three nominees for the Ethics Commission. a corporate ethics expert, an attorney partnered with a law group who delivered justice to hundreds of Bridgeporters, and a 30-year public school teacher passionate about community and education. This council's on the brink of saying no to these volunteers to serve our city. We have to ask ourselves, fundamentally, what is not working here? What is happening in city politics? If you ask a resident at random, most won't be surprised. This kind of dysfunction is standard and is commonly acknowledged at the doors during campaigns, at the polls on election day, and throughout the city in coffee shops, restaurants, and workplaces. If you ask them why, you often hear people painting with a broad brush, corrupt, hopeless, other colorful descriptions. But then you have the reality. I've had the pleasure of having conversations with many of our city councilors, others I've observed. I've watched them work, advocate, connect, celebrate, mourn. The leaders of our city are not the caricatures people will describe. They're humans. They love this city. So what is going on? Our political culture is broken and culture is powerful. It tugs on us like a giant magnet pulling us to its norms. All of us, insiders and outsiders alike. In fact, right now we are all playing into political culture in certain negative aspects. This is because the process of working within it means carrying the baggage of it and inevitably some contribution toward it. But all is not lost. We can also work to change it. However, that work must be mindful and principled. It involves explicit definitions of what is not working and proposals for what might work better. Our Bridgeport political culture has a problem with extreme transactionalism. This means that we all move in this space and tend to require something explicit in return for our contributions. While each one of us is unique and processes this differently, it affects us all, just like that magnetic pole. The counter to extreme transactionalism is the concept of reciprocity. With reciprocity, exchange is still occurring. However, it is relational rather than contractual. It is built on trust, shared values, and a shared vision. Exchange is not forced to be constantly quantified and made concrete as an incentive for participation. In a city council that fostered reciprocity, members going about the work of moving the city forward would be looked at kindly. Counselors would find the ability to both applaud others' efforts and still offer reasonable critique. Majorities and collaborators would be easier to find. In extreme transactionalist politics, distrust is easy to sow. If the norms and the experience of people is that there is always a deal in the background, if you're not in on it, it appears like a loss. So when something emerges built more on reciprocity, not perfect, but a chain reaction of genuine intentions, which produces a result, naturally, there is no processing for it. Its imperfections are seen as evidence of the political culture rotting the effort from the inside. It is my belief that these three candidates made it to this meeting today for the right reasons and will fulfill their roles honorably. That is why I'm asking you to confirm them to serve on the Ethics Commission. Thank you.

Thank you.

I also would like to submit to the record a public statement signed by 20 residents to the public record, if I may.

You can put it on this table and we'll take it. Thank you. Kelly LaRolle.

Good evening, council and residents of Bridgeport. My name is Kelly Laroor. I propose the practical solution to maximize, I'm here for adult education. I'm proposing a practical solution to maximize the city's resources and benefits our community, in our community by consolidating our local adult educational program to a single facility. Currently the program is split between two separate buildings to accommodate day and night students. I request that the city council allows a program to occupy one of recently closed buildings or school buildings that are served to unify these services under one roof. I apologize, I don't do a lot of public speaking. Consolidating the adult program offers several different or distinct advantages. Reducing overhead, operating one building instead of two, lowering utilities maintenance and administrative costs. Improved collaboration and resources, sharing staff and staff can collaborate more easily and resources such as libraries and computer labs can be shared efficiently. Community revitalization, reopening a closed school prevents neighborhood blight and keeps the property secure. student success, a dedicated central campus creates a stronger sense of community and stability for all adult students. Because the closed school buildings already feature the classrooms, desks, and infrastructure required for an educational environment, the transition would require minimal minimal reconstruction or refurbishing compared to a standard commercial space. Many local students and staff members support this initiative and agree to see a positive change in our local city progress. And I say this as an adult student, it would be beneficial I believe to see that one of the properties that are currently closed as from from being a previous school to be used for us to have on that one campus because from what I understand it's a substantial amount of money that's being put into paying rent for a building, and that's separate from the cost of the liability of insurance. It's not handicap accessible. I'm 51, there are students that are older than me that have challenges to get up and down the stairs, and it is difficult. And so that is a big part of it. So many local students and staff members do agree, and I just, to see the city progress. And I do agree that, like other members had mentioned, we are being looked at, not just in the state, but the nation in general. So thank you for your time and consideration, and continue to dedicate your services to the city.

Thank you very much.

Maria Pereira. Good evening, Maria Pereira, 80 Granfield Avenue. I'd like to read a section of the charter under ethics, section two, general provisions D, the workplace and city operations. The charter promotes mutual respect, civility, and orderly conduct among elected officials and the public in the workplace and other official interactions. Yet, we have the councilman from BlackRock and several of his colleagues who altered his own personal letterhead to make it look like it was the official city council letterhead representing five members. I don't know how anybody uses a city council letterhead when we don't have at least a majority of the members agreeing to do that. Because it looks like an official correspondence from the council when it is not. And apparently, I'm part of the small anti-ethics reform group. I'm pro-ethics, and I have the right to disagree with any commissioner who's been nominated. An applicant for a board of commission is not entitled to that seat. They're an applicant. If you're a job applicant, you have an entitlement to that job. And I have voted against more commissioners than anybody here, probably all of you combined. And if you're a member of the Democratic Town Committee, you have a right to apply, but I'm a no. I'm not putting you on any board. I did it one time, somebody asked me to, that person resigned and had horrible attendance. And so that's a no for me, automatic, okay? So if I'm not voting for you, I have good reason to. First of all, we should know that the city attorney has now issued two legal opinions that Faith Sweeney is not eligible to serve. Everybody should have those legal opinions. She has put it in writing. She put it in writing on June 26. She put it in writing again today. As far as the other commissioners, you must be from the same political party for one year. We have a commissioner who was unaffiliated for five years, applied as unaffiliated, and three days after switched to an independent. That person does not qualify. They've been in their party three months, not 12 months, as required in the wonderful charter ethics chapter that these people so you know, espouses, so wonderful, follow the provisions that you supported, that you organized a political action committee, right, because you were the treasurer of the political action committee, John Hosier was the chair, Faith Sweeney was an officer. And now you don't want to follow the very provisions in the charter that you told people was the best thing since sliced bread. Now, the other issue is unaffiliated voters. I've asked this question. We got a two-paragraph email from the city attorney who used one statute. I mean, you look at this statute, you know what it uses 17 times? Political party. Unaffiliated voters, the whole point of an unaffiliated voter is they're not part of any party. So that's the statute you gave me to prove that they can serve, but that statute doesn't mention the word unaffiliated one time. It mentions political party 17 times. So those are why I'm a no. I'm proud to be a no.

I haven't heard from one constituent as to why I should vote yes.

And I've only heard one speak at the mic, and I respect that person, but I'm a no on all three. Take that to the bank.

Thank you. Jacqueline Cawthor. Jacqueline Cawthor. Jacqueline Cawthor. She's not here. James Mazzaro.

Good evening, Madam President, City Council members. My name is James Mazaros. I live at 354 Gregory Street, 61 years old. Board of Education employees for 29 years on the park on the Fire Commission. Also for 19 years. I'm here today to tell the. Alderman that the James O'Rourke statue has a home now at Seaside Park. We had a dedication on July 7th, I mean July 3rd, with the O'Rourke family that was there, Christoph's family was there, the Barnum baseball team was there, but they had their game canceled, so we couldn't do their normal throw out the fish pitch with regard to one of my former coaches, Frank Bouchard, that passed away. He was going to throw out the game ball. But the reason why I went after the statue, because it was housed somewhere else. I coach baseball out of Richmond, Virginia. It's Metropolitan Junior Baseball. It's a black organization. It's a black World Series down in Richmond. We go to the Bahamas. We go to, right now, they're in Fort Myers. We couldn't get a team because we just left Jackie Robinson Stadium two weeks ago. So we couldn't rebuild another team. But when I went to Fort Myers Fields, You walk into the gate and there's a monument with a gentleman that does a torso up and the object there is any team that comes into his property, you take your hat off and you take a picture. So you're playing on my field. So what this is, like I said, if you ever get a chance, I will send the pictures to the committees and you can see them. But when you walk into Seaside Park or Diamond One, you're walking on the walkway between the diamonds, he's facing you. and he's facing the park. So we had some kids there the other day playing. They were sitting down looking at the statues. Two ladies were there looking at the statues. So this is showing that we had a gentleman from Bridgeport, Connecticut in the 1800s that he is the only Major League Baseball that had the first hit. So again, we're in the record books for that. I try to get the Hall of Fame people to come down. They don't do that, so I am also sending the pictures to them so maybe they could do something in the archives. But again, we are marked on the world of baseball with Mr. Henry O'Rourke. So first, I'd like to thank the Park Department, John and his committee. I'd like to thank the... all the men, I'd like to very thank Louis Burgos with all his staff that moved the statue from Steel Point over to Seaside Park, put the foundation. If you look at the pictures, see they put nice stuff down to look at better and they're gonna put some cement. But again, it's a beautiful site. So if you're ever at the park, we have free park stickers. You're more than welcome to go to the park and see the statue. Thank you very much to the board and Bridgeport Park Commission.

Thank you. Jess Restro.

Good evening, Jess Restro, 110 Jennings Avenue. I'm speaking about the Ethics Commission appointments and the explanation that votes were based on concerns with the process. In municipal government, process cannot be used as a general explanation. It must point to a specific requirement under the charter ordinances or council rules. Process refers to defined steps such as committee review, referral, vetting, and confirmation. So when council members stated they voted no because of concerns with the process, independence, or inflammation of the charter, the question has to be, What specific requirement was not followed? What specific action compromised that independence? And what charter provision was violated? What ordinance, requirement, or procedural rule was broken? These appointments followed the established legislative path, committee review, and placement on the council agenda following a voter approved charter revision process. I understand that the Ethics Commission was created to be an independent body, separate from political influence, and that independence is essential to the trust voters place in this reform. However, if there was a concern that the Commission's independence was compromised or that inflammation did not reflect the intent of the voters, residents deserve to know the specific action or requirement that created the concern. Raising concerns only at the final vote without identifying what needs to be corrected leaves residents without a clear understanding of what went wrong or how it can be addressed. Saying it's not about the individuals, it's about the process does not resolve the issue. It still requires a specific explanation of what part of that process was improper. So my request is simple. If there was a violation, state it clearly on the record. Cite it and name it. If there was concern about independence, explain what specific action compromised that independence. Residents deserve transparency that is specific, not general statements that cannot be verified or addressed. Thank you.

Thank you. This concludes public speaking.

council meeting and all others we welcome and announce that this meeting is as council members are making their way back to their seats we are calling the meeting I am calling the meeting as noticed to order and asking that all in attendance pay attention so that we can conduct a meeting without Confusion. This is the Monday, July 6th regularly scheduled meeting, am I correct? I know we had a complication over a meeting that had to be canceled, but this is regularly scheduled meeting, 7 p.m. City Council Chambers. And as we do in a normal protocol, I would ask all to, with deference to anyone who is in the process of anticipating that they could lead us in a prayer, we'd all stand at this time. And I don't know whether... Yes, I'm going to recognize...

Did you say a name? I didn't hear a name. What was the name?

I don't... Is someone going to... Yes. Anyone who wants to lead us in a prayer can, and we can have more than one prayer, and it's one after another. Yeah. Yeah.

In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful, all praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the beneficent, the merciful, master of the day of judgment in which we now live. To thee alone do we serve, to thee alone do we beseech for aid. O Allah, guide us on the right path, the path of those upon whom thou hast bestowed favors, not the path of those whom thy wrath has brought down on, nor those who go astray after they've heard thy teachings. O Allah, we ask that you bless this council member, We ask that you bless this council as they convene to oversee the affairs of your people. We ask that you bless them with courage, with strength, and with integrity. We say amen.

Amen. Thank you. Mary Lee, did you want to be? Did you?

I don't know.

We'll get the name. All right. Did you want to say something, Mary Lee, with regards to a prayer?

I know it allowed her son, but he passed that now. So since he picked somebody, that's good, Mayor. Okay.

With that then, with that then, Rich, would you lead us in a pledge?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

We're going to take the roll call and we have one other matter we may take up at that point or after the public hearing, I'm not sure. But Madam Clerk, you have the floor to take the roll.

Thank you.

Kelly Murray?

Here.

Nicole Nelson? Denise Delamoye. Present. Jorge Cruz. Present. Dasha Spell. Present. Rolanda Smith. Present. Akin Boyd. Present. Janet Herron. Present. Lorena Dupak.

Present.

Mary McBride Lee. Present. Richard Ortiz.

Present.

Aiden Nieves. Present. Maria Valle. Present. Kayla Medina. Maria Pereira. Anita Martinez, Ms. Newton, we have a call.

Thank you. Point of personal privilege was requested by Councilwoman Anita Martinez. If there's no objection, Councilwoman, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. At this time, I would like to ask for a moment of silence as we honor a powerful woman in the state. born in the state of Massachusetts, traveled from state to state, who passed away June 27, 2026. First Lady Mother Khadija Farrakhan. It takes a special kind of woman to be his wife, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. In fact, when Khadija Farrakhan was made, they broke the mold. She is often imitated but never duplicated. She came to Islam with her husband, then Louis Eugene Welcott, in 1955. She was Betsy Ross, and they had only been married a brief two years. As Minister Farrakhan enrolled in the fruit of Islam, his wife also enrolled in the Muslim girls training and general civilization class under the direction of Sister Captain Anna Louise Muhammad in New York City. The sisters in Mother Kadee's class would include many important figures such as Sister Betty Shabazz, the late wife of Malcolm X. Mother Farrakhan, as she is often called, was an eager student and quickly rose to the top of her class. She was trained by none other than the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Sioux minister Farrakhan was promoted to the minister of Boston Temple, number 11. Since they both had Boston backgrounds, they were right at home and worked tirelessly to build the New England area into one of the nation Islam key development from 1956 to 1965. In 1965, after Minister Farrakhan promoted to the national representation of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and relocated to MAS 7 in New York City, this husband and wife team went to work immediately bettering the quality of life for New Yorkers from Harlem to New Rochelle. Under the leadership of Sister Captain Amaya Rasul Muhammad and First Officer Medina Farrakhan, the former wife of the late Alvin Farrakhan, Minister Farrakhan's older brother New York City MGT had one of the country's largest assemblies of Muslim women in the United States. By 1975, she and her family located to Chicago. After Minister Farrakhan decided to rebuild the nation of Islam under the teaching of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad in 1977, she became the new nation's first treasurer and secretary when the couple opened their home to host study group meetings in Chicago. She shared her skills in office system and communications, particularly in developing the secretarial department that invaluable help launch many of the nations of Islam programs and trusts that have become so popular in the mosque across the globe. As Minister Farrakhan popularly grew, her responsibility expands to fundraising, registration of new members, a free food distribution to the homeless family, humanity aid for the flood victims in the south-heading Nation of Islam delegation overseas at the opening of the mosque. School's Historic Foreign Policy Missions in Africa. Addressing the Million Woman March in 1996, receiving and hosting visit First Lady of African Countries and directly helping one of the century's most important figures, her husband, Minister Louis Farrakhan. As a savior day believing meeting, the minister described her as his best friend. Quite a compliment from one of the most... revered men on the planet. That same love and affection that warms and comforts the minister in his best and worst times is shared with all who met her. One of Mother Farrakhan's special skills was sewing. She started as a child and had been sewing ever since. She is responsible for elevating the style of dress for Muslim women. She designed the military uniform worn by vanguard class. This uniform had received a worldwide acclaim for its military look combined with its feminine appeal. Her fashions have been featured in shows in America and Africa. Her designs have wide appeal that are adored by women everywhere and can be purchased from her own factory. She, unlike any other, wears the crown of the First Lady of the Nation of Islam. In doing this to our women, we have to constantly educate ourselves on the powerful women that we have in the state No matter what nationality, race, creed, we all learn from different women and the power that they carry throughout the state. So today, we are honoring our First Lady, Khadija Farrakhan. She passed away on June 27th, and I asked our Muslim sisters and brothers to come before us today as we celebrate the First Lady who educated and taught a lot throughout the United States. So, Mayor, at your permission, if I can ask everyone to come up so we can take a picture together. Please. And we honor her on today. Thank you.

Please, come on up. I have, as you come up, I have two other council members that wanted to be heard on points of personal privilege. Councilman Newton and Councilwoman Nelson, in that order, if it's acceptable.

Thank you, Mayor. I am honored to have had the privilege of meeting the Honorable Minister Farrakhan and his wife. As you all know, the minister attended Winston-Salem Teachers College in the 60s. When I got there, it was a university, Winston-Salem State University, and had the privilege of being in Chicago to honor Big House Games, who was one of the outstanding football coaches, basketball coaches. And when I met the minister, And I got a picture to prove it. He welcomed me as if I was his son. And I know this for a fact. He don't let everybody sit at his family's table. He allowed me to sit there. And I felt like I was definitely in the presence of royalty. And he said to me, and Brother Webb is here, If you ever need the minister, you go to any one of my lodges and you tell them to get in touch with me. And the code was Big House Games. And so we have lost a beautiful woman. I had the pledges of meeting her and she was so warm. That mother figure, I will never forget that because they didn't know me from Adam and Eve. But they must have known that I had a good spirit because the minister don't let everybody get that close to him or sit at his personal table. And I was honored. And I just want to say, we lost a gem. But you know what? She's in a better place. And I know. that heaven is happy that they got a queen of a mother. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Councilwoman, for recognizing, recognizing someone who had the power to change other women's lives. Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Nelson.

Thank you, Mayor Gannon. My statement is reserved for unfinished business.

Oh, it's for some different topic? Yes. I'm so sorry. Okay. Why don't we do this now and then, actually, let's take your topic. I don't want to interrupt you. Please, go ahead.

I'd rather wait. Rather wait? Yes. Okay. Councilwoman?

Yeah. Please come up.

Yeah, I need to put her on my agenda.

Thomas will be eight.

Great.

There you go.

She's like ducking down. I don't think that's her.

It looked like her dad had done that.

Public, thank you.

Returning to the last, thank you. Thank you for doing that. Thank everyone for coming. Councilwoman Nelson, you wanted the floor. You have the floor if there's no objection on the point of personal privilege.

Okay. I just wanted to make some clarification. I've had members of the council, some members of the council and some constituents come to me to inquire about information that has been put out in regards to applicants for the Ethics Commission. And I just want to clearly state that any information that has been put out as it pertains to the Ethics Commission, I have had no knowledge of and had no input on any information that was put out publicly. So moving forward, I will get into more of a practice of being able to work with those so that any information that reflects the district or the city, specifically the 130th District, I will make sure to have more of an input on whatever information so that everyone understands that any information that is being put out that is a reflection of the 130th District, it comes from both parties. and I just wanna make that clarification. Some of the information that may have been put out, I had no knowledge of, and I just wanna make that clarification on that.

Move on with the agenda. 7625 is a public hearing. I'm going to call public hearing at this time. It's been assumed to be duly noticed. Proposed resolution granting a permanent easement to United Illuminating Company. It's listed as number 76-25. In the normal course, I would have the record reflect at this time, 7-33, that we open the public hearing. Anybody who would like to speak in favor or against or in any way, form, they have a right to come up and speak for abbreviated time. If there's a number of speakers, anyone... Consider the public hearing open at this time. Okay. Councilwoman's indicating no one has signed up. Regardless of that, I'll make the announcement again. This is a public hearing on the proposed resolution for permanent easement to the United Illuminating Company for installation and maintenance of underground electric vault and related infrastructure located beneath Baldwin Plaza, AKA 1130 Broadway. Again, seeing or hearing no one, get an indication after opening a public hearing, announcing it repeatedly. I'm gonna close the public hearing at this time and move on if there's no objection to the next item on the agenda and have the minutes reflect that we did the public hearing. And the next item, as the city clerk has duly pointed out, is the approval, potentially, of the minutes from the June 4th, 2026 meeting. And seeing that on the agenda, I'm listening whether someone might want to make a motion to approve. Maiden, is there a second? Does anybody need to be heard? Did I say? I said Jude, I will be corrected. And let the record reflect, I meant what says here is correct, May 4th. The second was made by Denise Taylor Moore. She's putting her finger up. I assume it's for the purpose of being recognized as the second. I remind everyone, not only do we have the audience here, but hopefully we have a live audience that can listen in and all that. So I think it's... It's good. So with that, it's approval of the minutes of May 4th is written and printed on the agenda as made seconded by two council members. No one else caring to comment? All in favor indicate by saying aye. Any opposed, give me an indication. Otherwise, it'll be recorded as unanimous. Thank you so much. Communications. I made a second. Does anyone see any discussion? All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so they're referred. We have the consent calendar. Let me just read the, before we go into it, you know, the city clerk's going to have to read the consent calendar into the records. It looks like a long one, so we're going to give her a minute to do that, but any council member can, without reason, state, or anything, move anything from the consent calendar. Is there an indication of an item that wants to be council member value? Just give me the council, the number. Okay, you don't need to state any reasons. Anybody else want to remove anything from the consent calendar? Looking left and looking right, I don't see any. Knowing that, we will remove that item and we'll read the rest of them. The city clerk will read the rest of them into the record. And with that, we will vote on them. Do you want to remove an item? Okay, so with that, Madam Clerk, and that clarification, Madam Clerk, you have the floor to begin reading the remaining items on the consent calendar, 67-25 being the first one. Madam Clerk.

1825, ordinance committee report amendment to the municipal code of ordinance chapter 10, 12, stopping, standing, and parking generally. 2625, ordinance committee report proposed amendments to the municipal code of ordinance title 10, vehicles and traffic. Amend chapter 1020, towing and repeal, charter 1022, heavy duty towing, and charter 1026, municipal accident towers withdrawn. 6725, Economic and Community Development and Environment Committee Report, grant submission, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Taxiway A and Taxiway D Rehabilitation, number 27260. 6825, Economic and Community Development and Environment Committee Report, Grant submission, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, obstruction removal, tree clearing, number 27334. 6925, Economic and Community Development and Environmental Committee Report. Grant submission, National Outborn Society, Outborn Wildlife Guards, number 27617. 7325, Economic and Community Development and Environmental Committee Report, grant submission, Connecticut State Library, FY2027, Target Grant for Historic Documented Preservation Program number 27213. 7425, Economic and Community Development and Environmental Committee Report, grant submission, U.S. Department of Energy. Microgrid configuration FY26CDS Murphy Blumenthal number 26229. 7025, Miscellaneous Matters Committee Report, Full and Final Workers Compensation Stipulation Settlement with Claimant Chabriel Johnson for the total amount of 85,000 less specific permanent partial disability WC benefits previously paid to the date of settlement approval.

Thank you. I understand that there was a motion made in second. Is that correct for the consent calendar? Is that correct, or do we need one?

I think we have.

Did somebody want to move the consent calendar? So it's moved in second. If there's no discussion or debate, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, give me an indication. It'll be unanimous. So it is. Councilwoman Maria Valle, the remaining item 7625. Is there a motion on that?

We'll make a motion to table the item. There are some questions that have come up from several council members, so at this time, I would like to make a motion that we table that item 7625. Is there a second? Second.

Second. Motion's made, second. All in favor, you keep by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? So noted. All right, so now we're on unfinished business. Okay, miscellaneous matters committee report appointment of. And we have three matters here. Let me just state, and I'm going to open the floor as we move forward to appropriate motions, which I assume, Madam City Attorney, are the equivalent of that being on the agenda. In other words, somebody can make a motion on them as they could any other matter. Shaking your head in the affirmative, let the record reflect that I'm convinced that that's correct. All right. So there are three items. We'll deal with them individually. I know there was discussion on this. I wasn't here, and I appreciate that there was some discussion last council meeting. And I wasn't a party to it, and I was frank with one of the members of the council that I didn't read some maybe correspondence or exchanges. But regardless of that, thank you. People want to, we're going to, if matters are going to be moved and people want to speak again, certainly you have that right. But I think, you know, do it, let other council members have their say, and then let's get the matters voted whatever way they get voted from there. If anybody has anything else, if not, why don't we move forward with 5225, Miscellaneous Matters Report, Committee Report. Does somebody want to move that, be recognized on this? Okay, there's a motion to approve. I'm accepting a second at this point. Okay, is there a second? Motion's made and seconded, okay, Madam Clerk? I will open it up to discussion. Councilwoman, I will, and I know you're the most animated with your catching my attention, I appreciate that, but I'm gonna take it in the order that the microphones are lit up for anyone who wants to speak at this time on this matter. And so you know the mechanics of it. It says next speaker, so it's objective as to the timing. And so with that, I'm gonna hit that speaker and see what happens. And it sounds like it's Councilman Newton.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of this committee. I want to preference my remarks real simple. I think that it's a shame on how this process has worked itself out. Never did I think, and let me state for the record, I campaigned for ethics, stood at the polls and asked my constituents to vote for it. but I never thought that I would witness what I've witnessed. We had four active committee members on ethics. They should have been the ones leading the charge because they were there. And I doubt if they had any input or any say so, but they were there. But what happened, other folk got involved. And I heard from some of these members around this circle, that's what we always do. We have a right to get involved. But this was ethics. Not political, but ethics. To stay out of the political realm of what we do every day. And I take great exception of people having the audacity to question those who have had questions and may not vote for it, because that's our right. Yes, I believe we should have an ethics commission, but I don't like the politics that was played. When the last meeting we had and these names came up, and this is I've got to address our city attorney, When our council president went to the bathroom, I had made a motion to reject. It was second. And guess what happened? The council person moved the table and it was tabled. That was wrong. and the record should show that I made the motion to reject the name and it was second and then out of nowhere, Councilwoman moved the table.

Councilman, the only thing I would ask is I'm not gonna be able to revisit procedures from a prior meeting, but your substantive comments are certainly accepted.

I think it's important, Mayor, because we need to know what happened at that meeting. And that was wrong because the motion was made, second it, and we moved to table it. Let me say this, Mayor. I'm voting against them because you want to talk about politics being played. I've never seen so much politics being played on this ethics commission. And it's wrong. PACs were set up. People who were involved in putting it together, serving on committees to make up their PACs to get this through. That's not why we set up an ethics commission. It was supposed to be separate from the day-to-day politics. that we wanted to move it out of that realm. And that's not what happened. And shame on us, the ones who believe in good government, you all tainted it when it shouldn't have been done that way. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Councilman.

Next speaker is Councilwoman Pereira.

First of all, I just want to make sure we're going to do a roll call vote, and it has to receive 14 votes tonight, correct?

That's correct. So her point is, and I would certainly announce this at the time. If I need to repeat it, I will, but I'll announce it now. It is the requirement of these approvals is two-thirds of the whole. In other words, 14 votes. If I'm right, 14.

Yes.

My math is right. So it's 14. It doesn't matter how many individuals are present and voting.

Correct.

So even though it looks like one, two, I see a couple empty chairs, it's still 14 of 17 that are here or 16 that's here, but it's a point of clarification. Yes, I do. Do you have a fair comment?

I just want to explain that I voted for this commissioner in committee, and then I was reading an article how there was a legal challenge about unaffiliated voters qualifying on boards and commissions in this state. And so we raised this question at the meeting before last, and we got a response on June 9th from the city attorney, which had the question, and two paragraphs to respond. No case law, right, has just been adjudicated that an unaffiliated who's not, they've made a decision not to be aligned with any party. They're not a minority party, they're not a majority party, they're not registered with any party. So we had no case law, and the only statute that was referenced was Connecticut General Statute 9167A, which you all have a copy of in your folder. The word political party is referenced 12 times. The word party is referenced five, 17 times. You know what's not said one time in the statute? Unaffiliated, unaligned. So if this is the evidence that unaffiliated meet the criteria to serve on the minority status of any board or commission, I don't accept it. There's no case law here, and all that statute references is political party, political party, political. Unaffiliated are not a member of any political party. So even though I voted for it in committee, I will be a no this evening. And I will be a no on every unaffiliated commissioner who comes before us until we get absolute clarification.

Thank you. Next speaker's microphone should have just gone on. Councilwoman Nieves. Heidi.

Thank you very much, Mayor. I just want to clarify what Councilman Newton stated. He's not in the room, but he can read the record and watch the video. The fact remains that I think he's a little confused in his storytelling because the PAC was not created about the ethics commissioners. The PAC was created because the council nor the city can pay for when a charter revision is done. So that's what the PAC was created for. It wasn't about the ethics commissioners. It was to educate the community about the charter vote. So that is some misinformation. I just want to clarify that for the record. The second thing I want to clarify for the record that there was a miscellaneous matter meeting and there were members on, only about seven members of the council showed up, four of them being the committee members and three two noncommittee members and then two online and Councilman Newton was one of those members who was online during that meeting. So there was ample opportunity and I believe that since this is such an important part of our charter, that if there were any questions, And past practice is that most council members would have shown up or we could have caucused about this. And we haven't had a caucus about this where we can air our grievances internally amongst each other. And that's just as important as debating it on the floor. The importance of a caucus is so that we as a legislative body can have the debate and it doesn't have to come to where it is. I mean, unfortunately, I know people are upset about the memorandum or the letter, but we can do it as a body just as three council members can send a letter to the mayor to ask for a special meeting on city council letterhead. And I just want to remind everybody that it is part of our ordinances when we want to require a special budget meeting because we don't have to do it individually. When there's a consensus of four to five people, we can use our letterhead. And I think our pictures, though our signatures are not on there, our pictures affirm our confirmation of agreeing with the memo. So if it offends anyone that we did use the letterhead, that is a consensus letter of four to five members using the letterhead as we can do. It has previously been done before. Thank you. That's all I have to say.

Yeah, listen, I'm going to take the council, I'm going to just address Councilman Cruz. I know you want Councilwoman Denise Taylor Moore to speak. However, I'm taking the microphones in order, so Dasha is next. And then if it's all right, Denise, if you can hear me, I know you can. Just give me a minute, okay, Denise? I'll take them in the orders that the microphones have been, it goes by the computer. So give me a minute. Dasha has the floor. No, tell Denise to wait a minute. Dasha has the floor. Councilwoman Spelman, you have the floor.

Good evening, everyone. We have been talking about this topic for a little while now. At this point of... this particular term, and I'm thinking about the future of Bridgeport. We talk about change, we talk about growth, we talk about making moves to improve our community. Realistically, we need an active ethics commission. There's things that happens We're getting sued back and forth because of unethical things that are happening that at times involve elected officials or city employees. At this point, these three persons step up and they wanted to be a part of this process, not because anybody had conversations. or they could have, but because they wanted to step up and do something. They wanted to be a part of the process. Everyone that's sitting at these tables, you stepped up and you wanted to be part of the process. You got in the ring, you went out, you got signatures, you spoke to people, you stood at the polls and you had conversations. You know what it takes and what you had to go through to get to where you're at today. And we have three women three women, and if I'm not mistaken, minority women, who wanna do something in their community that happens to have either an educational, professional background to actually help move the Ethics Commission to a different level where we're actually doing what we're supposed to be doing. They actually doing what they're supposed to be doing, holding us accountable, making sure that we aren't spilling millions of dollars because people are doing what they're not supposed to be doing. I have heard everyone's opinion, thought process, views. I get it. We can agree to disagree. I'm perfectly fine with that. But I support this process because guess what? It's a process moving forward. We have been stagnant for how many years? I've been part of council for two terms. We have to start moving forward. I have traveled several different communities, the movements that they're making, the growth, the changes, how they're improving. We're not making any movement because there are issues that we have. And with an ethics commission, I think that can help balance out some of the other stuff that's going on behind the scenes. And that's my perspective. So I support the idea of us moving forward with voting. And you know what? If we had... a non-dem or a Republican sitting at one of these seats, it's okay. So for a person who is unaffiliate sitting at the table as a commissioner, that should be okay as well. And that's my perspective. Thank you.

Thank you.

Where's the law that says it's okay?

Okay. Next speaker is Mary Lee.

Yes.

Councilwoman McBride, you have the floor.

You know, it's okay to go forward with the ethnic committee, but we shouldn't go forward on shaky ground because the reason that I said that is that the people that we put on this committee, they have a lot of power, you know, and I had to really look because when I came in today, I had decided I wasn't going to vote for a period. I wasn't going to do a yes or I wasn't going to do a no, even though we should have it. I do think that it should not be political. And to me, the way that we are talking here tonight is very political because, you know, this one don't like that one and this one don't like that. So when they start voting on our future and whatever else they're voting on, You know, it'll make me scared to walk down the street because they might not like me or might prep up something on me or whatever the case might be. You know, I don't know how we can fix this, but I certainly do feel like politics shouldn't play in it at all. And listening to tonight, you know, I hear a lot of political stuff going on. That's what I have to say. Thank you, Councilwoman.

So let me do this. I know Denise Taylor Moore wants to speak. If you haven't, and Councilwoman, if you've spoken before, I'm not going to recognize you again. And if you, we're going to, with three more, and I'm going to let, you know, we're not going to do the same, if it's a speech about the ethics commissions in general, I'm going to recognize the fact that you've already spoken on the next two. I think the next one we're going to have a separate issue from the city attorney. So let's do this. Denise, go ahead. Why don't you take the microphone? Jeanette, if you want it after that. And I know Councilman, if you want to be heard. Anybody else? Oh, Councilwoman Medina, too. And then we'll close out, okay? Denise, you have the floor. Councilwoman Taylor-Moye. Good evening, everyone.

I just want to say in general, when we as city council people became city council people, when we became members of this municipality, you know, we came here so that we could make the correct decisions, so that we could speak up for the people, the people not just in our communities, but also in the city of Bridgeport. I am not against the three women who people keep speaking about. This is not about the women. This is about the process and this is about the way that it is going about being done. Number one, there's a couple, I'm not a fascist. I don't do things like that. I speak with reality within the real world. And I know that we want things to be done. We want things to be changed. And if this is what we want to happen, Why are we stuck in this place instead of trying to correct, get whatever needs to be changed, changed so that we can all move forward and make the correct vote that we need to make? We shouldn't be stuck here. We shouldn't be stuck here with the residents feeling that some city council people are totally against this. We shouldn't be in this place. You know, and the second thing that I do want to say is if we all was going to be thinking alike, they wouldn't need 20 of us. They wouldn't need 20 of us to say the same thing. You know, there's freedom of speech. My mind is my mind, how I think and what I need to think and what I need to do for my city of Bridgeport and for my constituents in my district. This is what I do. And this is how I do. And I'm just gonna say this here. I know I'm a good councilwoman because I humbly respects everyone. And I want everyone to humbly respect the decision that I make in regards to this ethics committee. I don't think it's being moved the correct way. And I will be voting no on this. That's all I have to say.

Actually, Councilwoman Medina is next up by microphone. Councilwoman, you have the floor.

Thank you. This vote and this ethics thing has been weighing extremely heavily on me, but it's been one of the hardest decisions that I've had to make. And I've spent a lot of time listening to people and not just to my colleagues, but to the residents, reading articles, following conversations and trying to understand Every side, every issue, right? We can't ask people to trust us if we haven't earned it. That's why this vote weighs so heavily on me because when these nominees came before us, I was at that meeting. I was on the phone. I'm not part of the committee and I was all for it. But what happened afterward is what made me change my mind. I started getting calls. I started getting residents stopping me in the community and sharing their concerns. Some wanted to remain anonymous because they didn't want to feel the pressure of being singled out or pointed out. And the message I heard over and over again was if we were creating an ethics commission, the process itself has to be held with ethical standards. So the perception for many of the residents was that we lacked transparency. And I'm talking about all of us. As a community, we have failed in that area. I don't know about the rest of my colleagues, but I know we have failed and it just feels like way too much and a lot of people feel that this has turned into something that Bridgeport always does, working behind closed doors. We have to stop working behind closed doors because it continues to give us that bad name, that bad rap. There's 20 of us. We're all going to be different, but we have a lot more of you than there is of us. You all elected us to do the right thing. This room today should have been standing room only. We have a little bit over, I don't know, maybe 153,000 people, maybe 40 people in this room, right? But when we hear people in the community saying the city doesn't do this, the city doesn't do that, how do they get their information? How do they get educated? By Facebook, by only in Bridgeport, by different things that people say here and there. But when you start connecting the dots, they're not matching, right? They're not here in the room. It's our job to educate the community and we're failing at that. And I think that's why this ethics commission is failing, not because of the people that want to be appointed. I think they're great people, but I think everything that has happened in the middle is what messed everything up, right? Imagine we have 10 districts. Imagine 10 people from each district show up. How many people will we have in a room? You can have all those people go back to the district and inform everybody. I know my vote tonight may disappoint a lot of people, And I'm truly sorry about that. But I have to be able to go home and know that I stay true to my conscience and my values. Does it mean that I don't want an ethics commission? No, I want it. Because Bridgeport is highly corrupted. And we need to make sure that we have you all holding us accountable. Whether you vote or not, we have a lot of people in this community that need to start coming more to our events, to our meetings, but they need to be educated. And we do a horrible job at educating our community. How can we expect our community to show up if we're not educating them? They find out things through headlines. So we have to communicate more. We have to be more transparent. We have to make sure that we make this building feel open, feel transparent, and feel like people could come in here and get involved, get informed, and be heard, and not left trying to figure out what happens after the fact. I don't think this ethics thing should end here, regardless of whatever the vote is. If it's yes, Kudos to everybody. Go for it. If it's a no, it doesn't mean that we stop. It means that now we have to take off running and make sure that we get information and get the feedback from the people so that they can come tell us exactly how they want it. But we have to educate and inform, even if we're late, because I know we're late. But it's our job to do it right, not do it fast. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Murray.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah, I wanna say that it is 49 days since we last came together and debated this. That's 49 evenings where we had the opportunity to come together in caucus and address people's concerns. That's 49 mornings where we got up and had the chance to talk to each other like everybody is suggesting here. And nobody did it. And believe me, if you've talked to me in the last 49 days, you've heard me say this. Now, the sad thing about this is we all agree at what the outcome is gonna be here. That if there is a vote, a no vote tonight, it signals to the entire city that this body is once again dysfunctional. It is not doing the work we were elected to do. And there are a lot, a lot of people who have been here a long time that seem very comfortable making very vague statements about a process. That somehow was not out in the open, even though it was a matter of public record for months. That we had an official process that follows the charter rules. that people did not show up. And the people who did show up, who even supported it, didn't bother to ask questions about these applicants' credentials, didn't bother to ask questions about how the ethics commission functions or has not functioned, which is what every single commissioner that was an applicant or a returning appointee noted it was not functioning. All it does and has done is screen the applicants for other boards and commissions. And yet this council felt comfortable making such a big issue about this. to say, oh, the process is muddied without any evidence. This doesn't feel right. We're legislators. We don't work on feelings. We work on facts. We work on informing ourselves, and this body is woefully behind in doing that. I do not like calling people out.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Council, hurrah.

Councilwoman, no, I think, Nelson, did you want to hear it, Councilwoman? And then Jeanette, and then we'll vote.

Go ahead.

Oh, I'm so sorry. It's my line of apologies. But I think your microphone is on, Council Member Nelson.

It is. So I just want to say I have had conversations with other council members and constituents, even up to this afternoon, had a constituent from another district call me to ask me for my input regarding the three candidates. So for the past 49 days I have had conversations with several individuals pertaining and initially I was in support of these three candidates because I do believe that they bring in vast experience and passion to to this work as being part of the Ethics Commission. In learning of some recent things, things that was not clear to me, we talk about transparency. We talk about transparency. And I feel that in some of the inquiries that I've had regarding these three candidates and the implementation of building this ethics commission, I feel like things were not quite clear and transparent to me. And that bothers me. And I still, in this moment, do not know how I will vote. Because I just learned some recent things that I feel like, as colleagues, we should have been clear on. And I don't want to say that that's being unethical, but It certainly wasn't forthright. And I just want to share that because, again, I believe that when information is being put out there, that somehow it is that of a collective. And I want to make very clear, it is not. So, I believe in these women. One, I know personally, and I know she can bring great insight into the work as being part of the Ethics Commission. And yet, I am here straddling the fence knowing that within, and possibly in less than five minutes, I have to make a vote. It is my duty to make a vote on this, and I do not know how I'm gonna vote on it. So, I feel like it was necessary for me to say that.

Thank you.

OK, I, yes. Thank you. I think we've reached a point where this discussion has become something it never intended to be. it turned into whether someone is for ethics or against ethics. And I don't think, I don't believe anyone on this council is against ethics. So that's why this is so troublesome and nobody is taking this lightly. No, not at all. So unfortunately, that's why this debate has started to sound, it's just like, it's missing the real issue. Ethics isn't always black and white. there's a gray area and I think that's where we are here today because it has nothing to do with the candidates that are not qualified or we don't believe in them. It's not a criticism of them. My concern is that the process has become so controversial that regardless of what we do tonight, these candidates could begin their work under a cloud of suspicion and that's not Fear to them. Whether those concerns are fair or not is almost beside the point. Public confidence is what matters. And once that confidence is questioned, it becomes very difficult to restore. For that reason, I believe the cleanest and fairest way forward is to wipe the slate clean and restart the process. Not because of the candidates, not that they're unqualified, not because anyone is against ethics, but because the public needs to know that this process was handled openly. And clearly, without any question, that anyone received special consideration or favoritism or that there was any secretive talking, any ethics commission has to begin with public trust. And there's already doubt before, even if it begins. So I believe we owe it to the public and to this council. to enter the nominees themselves to start over and get it right. And that's why my vote will be a no. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll do a roll call vote after your floor. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, a letter was written, I think it was, what people feel and that's okay. We have a right to make decisions for ourselves. It's come to a point now that people think that we're dictating who votes for what. I've made no phone calls to anybody. I've asked nobody to vote one way or another. I did not vote for the charter revision for my reasons and I gave those publicly. I will continue to say why I did not vote for him. There were captions in ethics commission that were left out per the city attorney that has to be corrected. There are a lot of things, it was rushed. I mean, you cannot do a charter revision in four months. You cannot do a charter revision in four months. Remember that. Look at the other municipalities. And I was one that wanted the charter revision done many years ago. We have to do things right. And this is not about charter commission, this is about ethics. You know, getting accused of fractions, I don't think people were here when they saw other people calling around asking for votes and doing votes. That's what you do if it's important enough. Ethics, we should be above reproach. This has to be people, and these candidates are good candidates. but we have commissioners going around saying they're ethics commissioners, we have phone calls being made, we have council people being told if they don't vote for this, they're gonna be put on Facebook and blasted. These are calls that I've received from my colleagues. So when we're said that we're being bullied or we're bullying people, we're not doing that. My colleagues have minds of their own. We all represent our districts and our districts are very different, very different. Not all of our districts want the same things. They have more concerns on other things than on some. Some worry more about the paving in their street or a street sign. Now we're worried about trees going down all over the city. We should worry about things like that as well. Let's get ethics right. We're being accused of not wanting ethics, and if we don't want ethics, just don't vote no. I'm not gonna just vote no because I don't want ethics. I'm voting no because the policies and the procedures have been violated. People have said things and done things, and we've just gotta stop. Stop making everything personal. If you don't get a vote that you want, move on and move forward. We all should be doing that. I don't take anything personal, and I'm hearing everything, and I'm getting all the attacks. As our past council president knows, she used to get the same thing. This is not a pleasant seat. I don't like this seat. I'm in this seat for now. This is not a lifetime event, and I don't want to hold onto it for a lifetime. So let's start working together. If you truly care about your community, start working together. Stop separating us. And that's what's happened. Stop fighting everything that's here. Move forward and work together. Let's get everything done right. Yes, our reputation out there is horrible because people are in there feeling. Stop. That's all I have to say, Mayor.

Okay, we're going to do a vote, and I'll reiterate, this is a roll call vote. It's been requested, but certainly would be appropriate under any circumstances in two. So to clarify for anyone who's interested in the results, that the requirement is that there be 14 affirmative votes in order to pass or to approve, in this instance, an individual that had been forward for appointment to these positions. So it's 14 votes of the body. It doesn't matter how many people are here. If you want clarification, Councilwoman, I'll recognize you.

because we started discussion at 52-25. Is that the first vote?

We are doing 52-25, and then we'll go to 53-25, and then 54. Okay, so we're doing one. The appointment of, has this been moved? My recollection, I don't think we, was it moved and was it seconded? And the city clerk verified. Okay, so it was moved and it's seconded. We have ample discussion on 5225. And I'm going to do a roll call vote. Madam Clerk, you have the floor. A vote of yes is to support the recommendation for the Ethics Commission. A vote of no is, of course, against. Madam Clerk, you have the floor.

Thank you. Gallimure.

Yes.

Nicole Nelson.

Yes.

Denise Delamoye. No. Jorge Cruz. No. Dasha Spell. Yes. Rolanda Smith. Yes. Akin Voi. Yes. Janet Herron. No.

No. She wrote it down.

Thank you. Loretta Duback? No. Loretta, no? I'm sorry. Michelle Lotton? She was not here. Mary Ann McRae Lee? Mary Ann McRae Lee. Mary? No, thank you. Abstain. Abstain. Richard Ortiz?

No.

Aiden Nieves? Yes. Maria Valle? No. Kayla Medina? No. Maria Pereira? No. Mayneida Martinez? No. Ernest Newton?

No. Okay, motion fails.

Nicole?

Oh, I'm sorry, Nicole.

Nicole?

All right, I'm just going to reiterate on an extension. I know there's some people that think that it requires or demands a reason and so on. My opinion consistently is if the vote is not going to impact the outcome, I'm not going to compel the issue. If a member wants to state the reasons, they could. I have heard. In the past, people avoided that, and I've not confronted that issue. Having said that, the motion fails, no matter what the abstentions are, because it needed a total of 14. So with that, the next one, 5325. And let me just short this one up a little bit, because I think the council's aware it had been provided a seven-page legal opinion by the city's legal department, which concludes with the following line. on a legal basis for the foregoing reasons referencing the included seven and a half pages, or six and a half pages, then Ms. Sweeney, who's the next appointment, Faith Sweeney, may not be appointed to the Ethics Commission, and then goes on to say that the existing members may be reappointed. So it would seem to be a motion to withdraw has been bantered about. Does that seem something appropriate for a council member to move? Does anybody want to make that motion? Is there a second? I'm not going to entertain. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Okay, so that's withdrawn. Now we're on 5425, which again is an appointment, unfinished business out of miscellaneous matters, appointment of... Kristen Manello, again, to the Ethics Commission. We've had ample debate, but I will take a motion in a second, and then we'll take a vote. It'll be roll call vote, and of course, the rules for voting is the same as it was on the prior, which is that 14 votes, a total of 14 votes, or it's called a two-thirds, is that what it's called, two-thirds of the whole? Two-thirds of the whole, and regardless of how many members are here and voting. Is there a motion to either approve or deny? Anybody want to make a motion?

Motion to approve, is there a second?

There's a motion and a second. All right, we will take a vote. Again, a vote of yes, as it was on 5225, is to approve, and a vote of no is not to. Madam Clerk, you have the floor.

Thank you. Colin Murray? Yes. Nicole Nelson? Yes. Denise Delamoye? No. Jorge Cruz? No. Dasha Spell? Yes. Rolanda Smith? Akin Voi. Yes. Janet Herron. No. Loretta Dubac. No. Mary McBride Lee. No. Richard Ortiz.

No.

Aida Nieves. No. Maria Valle. No. Kayla Medina. Are we at Pereira? No. And Aida Martinez? No. Ernest Newton? No.

Motion fails.

Oh no, I have to go back to Nicole. Nicole? Senora?

Last chance to vote. I'm gonna close the voting if you don't want to vote. No vote. What the record reflects, she didn't vote, and it's my understanding there's... I'm sorry? Well, I'm not going to leave the voting open with all due respect, so if you want to vote, you have an opportunity to vote now. If you don't want to vote, that's up to you. It's not going to affect the outcome, so I really don't have a preference on what you do. Hearing none, I'm going to close the vote. Is there a motion? The appointment fails. Is there a motion to adjourn? All in favor indicate by saying aye. Thank you so much.