🔒Hartford’s residency requirement misguided

During a Q&A session at the Connecticut Business & Industry Association's recent economic forecast event in Hartford, Chris Swift, chairman and CEO of The Hartford, talked about the competitive pressures to recruit talent, particularly at a time when the insurance industry is shedding 70,000 workers a year to retirement.

Wooing the best and brightest, no matter where they live, is one of the top challenges the property and casualty insurer faces, Swift said, mirroring sentiments of most other corporate and small business executives these days.

Indeed, the search for talent in the private sector often knows no boundaries; companies are willing to bring in smart and capable people, particularly when it comes to C-suite executives, regardless of where they live. Shareholders expect nothing less.

But that's not how the city of Hartford operates. Due to pressures from an ill-advised residency rule, which requires mayoral appointees to maintain a continuous residence in the city during their employment, Sean M. Fitzpatrick, Hartford's director of development services — a key position within the city — submitted his resignation Jan. 8, effective Jan. 31.

Fitzpatrick had come under scrutiny recently when it was discovered he was renting a room at the city's Town and County Club, a members-only social organization not typically known as a place for permanent residence. Fitzpatrick also owns a home in Simsbury.

The Internal Audit Commission promised to look into the matter at its Jan. 17 meeting; Fitzpatrick bowed out before then. I'll admit, I'm not sure Fitzpatrick adhered to the letter or intent of the law (he says he did), but it's a bad law at that and the city should eliminate it.

Any big city mayor, or small town leader for that matter, should be allowed to woo the best talent they see fit for top administration jobs. Voters and city residents should want and expect to have the most competent staff working on their behalf, regardless of where they reside.

I understand the sentiments of home rule run deep in this state, and that some may think an outsider may not have the best interests of the city in mind.

But that's the type of old-school thinking that often leads to vast inefficiencies in government, and it's certainly not up to date with 21st-century workplace norms.

The idea that government should operate more like a business is offensive and nonsensical to some. But this is another example where government should take a page out of the private-sector's playbook. The city of Hartford should reverse its residency rule so the mayor can recruit the best and brightest.

Elections must come down to substance over style

Following Oprah Winfrey's passionate speech at the Golden Globes, many people, particularly depressed Democrats still stewing over President Trump's election, are getting excited about the media mogul's potential presidential run in 2020.

Various media reports say Winfrey is seriously considering a run for the land's highest office and her remarks at the recent Hollywood awards event, in which she coined the phrase “A new day is on the horizon,” certainly sounded like a campaign stump speech.

But before voters get too excited about a Winfrey 2020 campaign, we must ask: What are her qualifications for the presidency?

She is clearly an American icon and an inspirational story we can all be proud of, but that doesn't make her fit to be president, arguably the most important and challenging job in the world.

Where does she stand on important issues like the nuclear capabilities of North Korea or the recently enacted federal tax reforms? Few people excited about a potential Winfrey presidency know the answers to those questions.

This country's celebrity worship has already spawned an unfit president, who has shown his ability to run an executive boardroom is limited to the pretend halls of his former reality show, “The Apprentice.”

All too often these days, Americans vote for personality or style over substance, which can lead to damaging consequences.

As we head into an important 2018 election year nationally and in Connecticut, voters have a responsibility to go below the surface, get informed about important issues affecting this state and country, and choose candidates not simply because they are likable but because they have ideas that will help solve problems.

If that is the standard for how Americans choose their political leaders, then truly a new day might be on the horizon.