RETURN DATE:

OnOBER!!. 2016

SUPERIOR COURT

MARIA PEREIRA,
PLAINTIFF

J.D. OF FAIRFIELD

v.

AT FAIRFIELD

JOESPH P. GANIM,
CITY OF BRIDGEPORT,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
SEPTEMBER 12,2016
DEFENDANTS

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

1.

Though there is no evidence that Spanish-American philosopher George

Santayana ever visited Bridgeport, he nonetheless could have been speaking for
the City when he opined that "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it." The defendant here, Mayor Joseph P. Ganim, for
whom the past is a constant shadow under which Bridgeport and her citizens
must operate, seems oblivious to the wisdom of Santayana, and thus destined to
prove Santayana a prophet once again as he follows, impetuously, in the lawless
missteps of his recent predecessors. And so, once again impelled by her
convictions that pupils should come before politics, that Bridgeport and its
students deserve better, and that they are entitled to better under the law, the
Plaintiff, Maria Pereira, brings this action to remedy violations of the Plaintiff's
civil rights to Due Process , Home Rule, and Free Suffrage under Article First, 8,
Article Sixth , 4, and Article Tenth, 1 of the Connecticut State Constitution, and
related Connecticut General Statutes.

2.

The Plaintiff Maria Pereira, a duly-elected member of the Bridgeport Board

of Education , was at all times relevant to this complaint, and remains, a resident,
taxpayer and voter of the city of Bridgeport.
3.

The Defendant Joseph P. Ganim (hereinafter referred to as "Ganim") was

at all times relevant to this complaint, and remains, the Mayor of the City of
Bridgeport.
4.

No later than June 2016, the Defendant began to clandestinely enact a

lawless plan to usurp the Bridgeport Board of Education 's sole authority, per
Connecticut General Statutes 7-107, 10-219, and City Charter 15 I(d), to fill
vacant Board seats by making his own appointment. Contorting the General
Statutes and ignoring their plain language as well as that of the City Charter,
Ganim sought cover for his coup in a twisted , self-serving reading of Connecticut
General Statutes 7-107 which he claimed simultaneously created a thirty day
deadline for filling the vacancy and gave him the power to do so if the Board did
not. He sought to replace a duly elected member of the Bridgeport Board of
Education who had resigned , Dave Hennessey, with his own appointee, Annette
Segarra-Negron , in violation of the Connecticut State Constitution , The Charter of
the City Of Bridgeport, and Connecticut General Statutes.
5.

Proceeding under his apocryphal theory, Ganim appointed Segarra-

Negron , a Republican , in late July 2016 to fill the Democratic seat vacated by
Hennessey.
6.

On August 22 , 2016 , at the first "Regular" meeting following the unlawful

appointment of Segarra-Negron , the Plaintiff moved to have the Board's attorney

file a lawsuit against the Mayor over the illegal appointment. Rather than follow
rules of procedure, the Board Chairman adjourned without further discussion of
the Plaintiffs main motion .
7.

Presently, another Board seat is vacant, following Andre Baker's

resignation on August 15, 2016. The Mayor has indicated by his actions that he
intends to also fill Baker's vacancy no later than September 14, 2016, via the
same unlawful process and under the guise of the same bogus thirty day
deadline, and despite notice from the Board of its intentions to fill the vacancy on
its own , per state law and City Charter.
8.

Board policy requires that a Board vacancy can only be filled at a Regular

Board meeting , by a majority of the Board votes, and the second Regular
meeting of the Board was scheduled for September 12, 2016. But in an effort to
thwart the Board's proposed action and even its very ability to act, a cabal of
certain Board members orchestrated their absence in an attempt to deprive the
Board of the necessary quorum so that the second Regular Meeting of the Board
-orig inally scheduled in December 2015 and agreed to at that time by three of
the four members whose absence was orchestrated- was cancelled on
September 6,2016.
9.

That meeting was since reinstated; however, per an Agenda delivered to

Board members on September 8, 2016, the vote to fill Andre Baker's vacant seat
is now listed under Chairman's Report, rather than as New Business where it
should appear. Not coincidentally, the illegal appointee, Segarra-Negron, has
reversed her earlier unavailability for the September 12, 2016 meeting , and has

now indicated that she intends to attend and cast a binding vote, despite lacking
legal title to the office that would giver her such a right.
10.

These acts of the Defendants , purportedly on behalf and under the

authority of the City of Bridgeport, deprived the plaintiff of due process of the law.
VIOLATIONS OF STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

11 .

Defendants' actions clearly violated the provisions of C.G.S. 7-103 , 107,

' 10-219, and the Bridgeport City Charter Section 151 (d) .
12.

The newly appointed member of the Bridgeport Board of Education, and

any other member so appointed , would have no legal right to hold their offices ,
and their appointment unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff and the Board of its right to
fill any such vacancy.
13.

The Plaintiff is likely to prevail upon the merits of her claims of violation of

state constitutional rights by the Defendants, including :

(a)

failure to provide meaningful hearing on the motion to file a legal

action against the Mayor for his usurpation, in violation of
procedural due process;

(b)

taking action to appoint a new Board member of a different party

affiliation than that of the elected seat, an action beyond the
statutory authority granted to the Defendants and in violation of the
Bridgeport Board of Education bylaws;

(c)

unlawful appointment of a Board member, thus violating

constitutional Home Rule and denying voters free suffrage and the
right to have their elected members of the Board fill the vacancy;

(d)

failing to observe the methods and procedures mandated by C.G.S.

1 0-219 and reliance on inappropriate procedures , for
purposes of oppression .

14.

Plaintiff has no other speedy and adequate remedy at law.

15.

Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the reconstitution of the

Bridgeport Board of Education by virtue of being effectively disenfranchised in

violation of her right to free suffrage and forced to endure the rule of appointed
officials, denied her state constitutional right of Home Rule, and denied the right
to due process afforded by her liberty interest in filling the vacancy by Board
action.
QUO WARRANTO
16.

Paragraphs 1-15 are hereby incorporated as paragraph 16.

17.

Plaintiff is likely to prevail upon her claim of quo warranto in that, by virtue

of the illegal acts performed by the Defendants in appointing the new Board
member, the Defendants have no valid claim to any authority for their actions and
cannot possibly shoulder their heavy burden to show a valid title to the office in
dispute.
18.

Plaintiff has no other speedy and adequate remedy at law.

19.

Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm as a result of having to act with an

invalid Board member, as well as having to undo any actions taken by the false
board Member that could bind the Bridgeport Board of Education or its
constituents.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff seeks relief and damages as follows :

A.

A declaratory ruling that the appointment of Segarra-Negron is invalid , as

are any Board decisions decided by a vote of Segarra-Negron ,;

B.

A temporary injunction preventing the Defendant Ganim from taking any

further action with regard to appointing Board members, including any action
purporting to be on behalf of or with the authority of the Bridgeport Board of
Education ;
C.

A writ of mandamus ordering the seat held by Segarra-Negron to be

vacated immediately;
D.

Injunctive relief enjoining the Defendants from preventing or hindering the

Plaintiff from performing the rights , privileges, powers and duties of her duly
elected office;
E.

Compensatory Damages;

F.

Punitive Damages;

G.

Any other damages that the Court deems appropriate under law and
equity.
Respectfully submitted,
THE PLAINTIFF
MARIA PEREIRA

BY ~~~
HER ATTORNEY
KEVIN SMITH, ESQ.
PATTIS & SMITH, LLC
383 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
T: 203-393-3017

F: 203-393-9745
E: Kevinsmithlaw@Gmail.com
Juris: 427828

Plaintiff, Maria Pereira

Personally appeared before me Maria Pereira and made oath to the truth
of the matters contained in this Verified Complaint.

Respectfully submitted ,
THE PLAINTIFF
MARIA PEREIRA

BY ..d
.. ~~~~
RNEY
KEVIN SMITH , ESQ .
PATTIS & SMITH , LLC
383 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
T: 203-393-3017
F: 203-393-9745
E: Kevinsmithlaw@Gmail.com
Juris : 427828