The brush with bankruptcy of Connecticut's largest city shows chapter 9 reshaping political power within municipalities and between them and the states. The court's decisions provoke questions about intergovernmental relations in a period of fiscal stress and demonstrate the importance of the legal system for urban politics. Frugality characterizes the group of states that affirmatively authorize municipal petitions. Because federal bankruptcy courts interpret access broadly, a state's political silence on eligibility and bankruptcy's conformity with state policies is tantamount to agreeing that urban policy shall be made in federal court.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations . 1973. City financial emergencies: The intergovernmental dimension. Report A-42. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations . 1981. Measuring local discretionary authority. Report M-131. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
3.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations . 1985. Bankruptcies, defaults, and other local government financial emergencies. Report A-99. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Barnes, J. A.1987. The city that privatized everything. The Wall Street Journal, 17 May, A18.
5.
Barrett, K. , and R. Greene. 1992. The state of the states. Financial World, 12 May, 26-55.
Blum, A.1991. It's harder to collect from cities. National Law Journal, 1 April, 1.
8.
Blumenthal, R.1991. Remarks by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal before the 65th annual meeting of national conference of bankruptcy judges. San Francisco: duplicated document.
9.
Bordewieck, D. , and V. Countryman. 1983. The rejection of collective bargaining agreements by chapter 11 debtors. American Bankruptcy Law Journal57: 293-336.
10.
Bridgeport, City of. 1986. Charter of the City of Bridgeport, Conn. as rev.
11.
Bridgeport, City of . 1991a (June 6). Voluntary petition, in proceedings for adjustment of debts of a municipality under chapter 9, filed with United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut.
12.
Bridgeport, City of . 1991b (July 2). Response of the City of Bridgeport to the objection and amended objection to petition for relief filed by the State of Connecticut and Bridgeport Financial Review Board. Bridgeport, CT: Office of the City Attorney and Zeisler & Zeisler, P.C., legal counsel.
13.
Bridgeport, City of . 1991c (October 31). On appeal from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court for the Judicial District of Connecticut, brief of the debtor, appellant City of Bridgeport, filed with United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut.
14.
Carpenter, V. , H. Glover, and W. A. Wallace. 1992. The mushrooming of state debt: A beast about to attack?Government Finance Review8 (5): 32-33.
15.
Cohen, J.1991. Declining health of U.S. cities raises new interest in chapter 9. National Law Journal, 5 August, 15.
16.
Cooper, P. J.1988. Public law and public administration. 2nd ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities . 1991 (November). Brief filed in re: City of Bridgeport with United States District Court, District of Connecticut. New Haven, CT: Author.
18.
Connecticut, State of, Office of the Attorney General . 1991a (June 12). Objection to petition for relief, filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut.
19.
Connecticut, State of, Office of the Attorney General . 1991b (July 8). Brief of the State of Connecticut and Bridgeport Financial Review Board in support of objection to chapter 9 petition filed by the City of Bridgeport, filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut.
20.
Connecticut, State of, Office of the Attorney General . 1991c (July 21). Objection to petition for relief. Filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut.
21.
Connecticut, State of, Office of the Attorney General . 1991d (November 15). Brief by the appellee/cross appellant, filed on appeal and cross-appeal from orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut.
22.
D'Ercole, S. F.1985. Remarks prepared for Connecticut Association of Municipal Attorneys seminar on home rule. Duplicated document.
23.
Dillon, J. F.1911. Commentaries on the law of municipal corporations. 5th ed.Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
24.
Faria, J. G.1991. Why not declare bankruptcy?Government Finance Review7 (4): 23-24.
25.
George, B. G.1985. Collective bargaining in chapter 11 and beyond. Yale Law Journal95 (2): 300-346.
26.
Gibson, R. H.1984. The new law on rejection of collective bargaining agreements in chapter 11: An analysis of 11 U.S.C. Section 113. American Bankruptcy Law Journal58: 325-348.
27.
Gold, S. D. , and M. A. Fabricius. 1989. How states limit city and county property taxes and spending. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures.
28.
Gold, S. D. , and S. Ritchie. 1991. State policies affecting cities and counties: Important developments in 1990. Public Budgeting and Finance11 (1): 33-46.
29.
Gold, S. D. , and S. Ritchie. 1992a. State policies affecting cities and counties in 1991. Albany: Center for the Study of the States, State University of New York.
30.
Gold, S. D. , and S. Ritchie. 1992b. State policies affecting cities and counties in 1991: Shifting federalism. Public Budgeting and Finance12 (1): 23-46.
31.
Griffith, J. C.1983. Connecticut's home rule: The judicial resolution of state and local conflict. University of Bridgeport Law Review4: 177-263.
32.
Jenkins, T. L.1992. Mayor of the city of Wellston, Missouri. Telephone interview with author, 9 May.
33.
Joyce, P. G. , and D. R. Mullins. 1991. The changing fiscal structure of the state and local public sector: The impact of tax and expenditure limitations. Public Administration Review51 (3): 240-253.
34.
Kearney, R.1992. Labor relations in the public sector. 2nd ed.New York: Marcel Dekker.
35.
Kirshbaum, D.1992. Treasurer's Office, State of Connecticut. Formerly executive director of Bridgeport Financial Review Board. Interview with author, February 18, Hartford Conn., and telephone interview with author, 12 May.
36.
Littlefield, N. O. , and J. R. Brown. 1984. Home rule in Connecticut. Storrs: Institute of Public Service, The University of Connecticut.
37.
Mackey, S. 1992a. Policy specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, Colorado. Telephone interview with author, 12 May.
38.
Mackey, S. . 1992b. State programs to assist distressed local governments. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, November discussion draft.
39.
Municipal bankruptcy, the Tenth Amendment and the new federalism . 1976. Harvard Law Review89 (8): 1871-1905, note.
40.
Myerson, A. R.1992. Soaring liability payments burdening New York. The New York limes, 29 June, B1-B2.
41.
Nasar, S.1992. How states wiggle out of tax increases. The New York Times, 4 October, E3.
42.
National Association of State Budget Officers . 1992. State balanced budget requirements: Provisions and practices. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
North Dakota town broke after its oil boom goes bust . 1987. Chicago Tribune, 29 December, 6.
44.
Olson, W., ed. 1988. New directions in liability law. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science37 (1): entire.
45.
Savitsky, L.1992. Director of Municipal Finance Services, Office of Policy and Management, State of Connecticut, and executive director of Bridgeport Financial Review Board. Personal and telephone interviews with author February-September.
46.
Scheffey, T.1991a. Bankruptcy trial: State's case deflates. The Connecticut Law Tribune, 29July, 1, 14-15.
47.
Scheffey, T. . 1991b. Bridgeport nicked by state's cross fire in bankruptcy trial. The Connecticut Law Tribune, 22 July, 17.
48.
Scheffey, T. . 1991c. A postmortem on Bridgeport's bankruptcy. The Connecticut Law Tribune, 25November, 1.
49.
Scheffey, T. . 1991d. Shiff lifts stay on suits against Bridgeport. The Connecticut Law Tribune, 16September, 7.
50.
Schwartz, R. E.1992. This way to the egress: Should Bridgeport's chapter 9 filing have been dismissed?American Bankruptcy Law Journal66: 103-134.
51.
Shiff, A. H.1991a (July). Bankruptcy Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Connecticut. Memorandum and order on the objection of the State of Connecticut to chapter 9 petition.
52.
Shiff, A. H. . 1991b (August). Memorandum and second order on the objection of the State of Connecticut to chapter 9 petition.
53.
Spiotto, J.1992. Municipal bankruptcy. Municipal Finance Journal14 (1): 1-38.
54.
U.S. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Division of Bankruptcy . 1992. Chapter 9 bankruptcy statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
55.
U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System . 1992. Flow offends accounts, financial assets and liabilities, third quarter 1991. Series annual revisions. Z.1, outstandings. Washington, DC: Author.
56.
U.S. Department of Commerce , Bureau of the Census, Economics and Statistics Administration. 1991. City government finances: 1989-90. Series GF/90-4. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
57.
U.S. General Accounting Office . 1992. Intergovernmental relations, changing patterns in state-local finances. GAO/HRD-92-87FS. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
58.
Winograd, B.1985. San Jose revisited: A proposal for negotiated modification of public sector bargaining agreements rejected under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. Hastings Law Journal37: 231-333.
