As the state Senate recovers from its DeLuca/Gaffey hangover, majority Democrats are pushing a set of ethics reforms they say will sweep the Capitol clean. At the same time, they chose to ignore an obvious conflict of interest, in part, because it helps them stay in the majority.
State Sen. Bill Finch, a Bridgeport Democrat, ran and won election as mayor of Bridgeport in 2007. But with his Democratic rival for the job appealing the results of the primary to the state Supreme Court, Finch is refusing to resign as a senator and is currently holding on to both jobs.
His decision to do so looks selfish and sets the wrong tone for his new administration in a city beset with previous mayoral hijinks. Finch’s immediate predecessor survived a scandal surrounding his use of cocaine, and the mayor before that — Joe Ganim is still serving a federal prison sentence related to his taste for expensive wines.
Finch argues that his reluctance to resign from the Senate will save the taxpayers the time, bother and cost of a special election. He says the upcoming legislative session is only three months and several issues affecting Bridgeport may come up for debate. It just makes common sense to stay on.
Â
Veto Power
In his rationale, he fails to mention the fact that if the Supreme Court orders a new election after he resigns from the Senate, he would be effectively unemployed. He also fails to mention that his seat was formerly held by a Republican and if he gives it up, Republicans might be able to regain it and remove the Democrats’ ability to override a gubernatorial veto.
The situation demonstrates bad form. It is reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani’s brief attempt to hold on to the mayor’s office following September 11 terrorist attacks despite term limits. At least Giuliani had a public safety argument.
Any way you look at it, Finch, as mayor and senator, has a conflict of interest. As senator, he will be allowed to lobby on behalf of Bridgeport and vote on issues related to Bridgeport at the same time. His oath to the citizens of Bridgeport might also put him at odds with his constituents from Monroe and Trumbull. Not only does Finch fail to address these conflicts, but the Democratic leadership has failed as well. It is in their political interest to look the other way.
The problem with the flourish of new ethics laws that follow any high profile case is that they tend to be very specific in nature. They are proposed to try to correct something that went wrong yesterday without considering what might happen tomorrow.
The issue of dual office holders came up in a big way in the late 1930s when T. Frank Hayes served as lieutenant governor and mayor of Waterbury at the same time. Corruption at Waterbury City Hall took down Hayes and a number of his colleagues, but steps were never taken to ensure it couldn’t happen again. The law and the state constitution itself are vague on the issue. This is a hole that needs to be plugged by whatever legal means necessary.
The DeLuca and Gaffey cases will almost certainly spawn new ethics legislation in the next session. If lawmakers are serious, they should close the loophole left open in the post-Hayes era and make it impossible to hold state and local office simultaneously.
Â
Â
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
