Charter Chairman Takes

On Election Concerns

By John Voket

After hearing several weeks worth of opposition, totaling more than an hour of overall commentary, Charter Revision Commission Chairman Al Cramer believes he may have a way to address a voting anomaly while maintaining a status quo with the school board.

Over the course of the charter panel’s last four meetings, a move to increase the Board of Education’s size, reduce its members’ terms of service and have members elected by district was approved, reopened for discussion, and finally reconsidered January 23.

During public comment at the charter commission’s last meeting, School Superintendent Evan Pitkoff appeared, adding fuel to commentary he offered during two previous sessions. Reading from a best practices publication for boards of education, Dr Pitkoff noted that public involvement on school boards was waning nationally.

He said the trend contributes to school boards that lack long-range planning experience because of the frequent turnover of members. He argued that by decreasing terms of service from the current four-year to two-year terms as proposed by the charter panel, the likelihood of seating individuals who would only serve a single term and depart was significantly greater.

School board Vice Chairman Lisa Schwartz observed that the charter commissioners were obviously concerned with correcting a perception that something was wrong with the existing makeup and terms.

“What exactly are you trying to fix?” she asked rhetorically. “There seems to be a disconnect between the concerns expressed and the fixes proposed.”

Ms Schwartz said she was concerned that if two-year terms were ratified, “People will breeze in, make decisions and disappear.” She also suggested that increasing the board number to nine, as proposed, would hamper the school board’s ability to expedite decisions.

“More people with more viewpoints means [a predisposition to] more dissention,” she said, adding that she understands voters are frustrated with a system that fails to promote true elections, and calling for a “creative resolution” to confusing language on local ballots.

Mr Cramer indirectly responded to her concerns after closing the public comments, referring to the recent practice of parties only putting up enough candidates to fill existing seats with no real competition or choices among those on the ballot.

“With the Board of Education there is no winning of seats — the winners are predetermined,” Mr Cramer said. “Voters can cast meaningless votes and one party can band together to determine support for a preferred [candidate] from another party.”

While he admitted there was still research to do and questions to be asked of the state and the Charter Commission’s legal consultant, he felt the concerns about ballot makeup might be addressed by adopting a charter stipulation based on Connecticut General Statute 9-167a.

That statute, in part, states: “…the maximum number of members of any board, commission, legislative body, committee or similar body of the state or any political subdivision thereof, whether elective or appointive, who may be members of the same political party, shall be as specified,” in graduating fashion based on a table relating total board membership to the maximum number of members from any one political party. For Newtown’s six-member school board, for example, no more than four members could be from a single political party, under the statutory guidelines.

Reading from a prepared statement, Mr Cramer said, “At each town election in which three members of a six-member board are to be elected, each for four year terms, each political party will have the opportunity to win two seats. Using CGS 9-167a and with the same charter changes, legitimate Board of Education elections will occur for Boards of Education be they odd or even in number. This is not only my judgment but also the judgment of the town attorney.”

Mr Cramer said he was satisfied that the concern that caused him to vote for the district election of board members has been resolved. 

“Four year terms of office, which seemed to be stumbling block, can be accommodated,” he concluded.

Charter commissioner LeReine Frampton, who also serves as an elected Registrar of Voters, said an informal canvass of residents who called her office in recent weeks reflected that voters want greater accountability from Board of Education members. But Ms Frampton said she was not convinced adopting the statute into the charter would be the best solution to voters’ concerns.

“The Board of Ed should have nothing to do with politics,” she said. “It’s true that 9-167a gives us an election, but it makes it political.”

Stipulating a plan to further examine the statutory option, the charter panel then voted to keep the school board makeup, terms, and at-large elected status as it is.

Discussion on the school board’s terms of office prompted a decision to reconsider terms of service for the Legislative Council, as well as the Boards of Selectmen and Finance, which were previously supported as two-year terms. Commissioner Joseph Hemingway, who is a former council member, has repeatedly argued that if the school board remains on a four-year term schedule, all other leading local boards and the council should also be elected in four-year cycles.

Individual motions to reconsider the terms of the selectmen, finance board, and Legislative Council were all subsequently approved for future discussion.

In further business, the charter panel agreed to a minute change in the charter’s language regarding the town’s ability to manage its fund balance. The approved change permitting management of any surpluses instead of applying any windfalls to the following year’s budget is anticipated to benefit the community in the long-term.

For several years, various local officials have pointed out that Moody’s Investment Service, which sets Newtown’s municipal bond rating, has suggested the town might enjoy a rating upgrade if leaders could manage that fund balance. If the proposal to revise the charter is eventually endorsed by the Legislative Council and voters, and results in a bond rating upgrade, it could save taxpayers millions of dollars on borrowing initiatives going forward, according to Finance Director Benjamin Spragg and finance board Chairman John Kortze.

The only dissenting vote on that pending amendment was cast by Charter Commissioner Guy Howard, who said he could not find any specific information indicating Moody’s decision to adjust the bond rating was related to the town’s ability to manage the annual surpluses.

Before adjourning until the next session, scheduled for February 13, the charter commissioners tabled two charges related to the Capital Improvement Plan and unanimously endorsed a change stipulating a role for the Public Building Committee.