Charter Revision Commission (CRC) Chairman Andy Buzzi felt his good experiences serving on an evenly split Board of Education could be brought into the present to help the BOE serve in a non-partisan fashion. However, his fellow CRC members disagreed, expressing concerns about how an evenly split board could lead to gridlock.

No CRC member made a motion to consider the proposed revision that would have increased the membership of the Board of Education to eight, while maintaining a provision that no more than four members could be from one party.

Buzzi, who suggested the revision, said he thinks that “education should be apolitical” and that “no one party should have control.”

“This is one area in government that should not be governed by the majority,” said Buzzi. “It needs to move forward by consensus.”

Buzzi served on the BOE from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2010 to 2011. During his second term, the board was six members and evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

He said that the board he served on accomplished many things, and had to “work together with respect for each other.” He felt with majorities changing, things can happen that have “radical impact on education” and that children “get shifted one way then the other,” and boards can “lose sight of what education is.”

CRC member Tony Filiato said that “any corporate board will tell you that you need an odd number to get things done.”

“Being able to have some movement is better than having things lock up,” said Filiato. “I’m concerned [an even split] will not drive consensus but freeze the board.”

Not A Perfect World

Filiato said that he understood Buzzi’s reasoning in a “perfect world” but “we’re not in a perfect world.”

CRC member Prerna Rao said she had similar concerns to Filiato, and that an even board does “not reward working together” but instead “rewards the side that doesn’t want to work together.”

“They can play chicken,” Rao said.

With a majority, it allows “something for voters to have feedback on,” if they disagree with the way the majority is voting they can vote for the other party.

CRC member James Gaston said he might have agreed with Buzzi “if this were 10 or 12 years ago.”

“These aren’t those times,” said Gaston. “These are very political times. This rewards the ‘let’s burn the house down’ people.”

Gaston pointed towards a board in Bridgeport with a 4-4 split, saying they “couldn’t even approve their minutes.”

“I’m convinced without a majority everything will be locked up and decisions will not be made,” said Gaston. “I’d rather see decisions made, even ones I don’t like; at least that’s progress.”

Gaston said that an even split could be addressed during a future charter revision “if things calm down” politically.

CRC member Scott Davidow said he was “conflicted between the two,” as both made sense. However, he felt decisions needed to be made and politics on a split board could prevent that.

CRC member Elias Peterson said there “was not much upside to the change and a fair amount of downside.”

CRC member Dennis Brestovansky said he would like to see the removal of politics from the BOE, and an even split could be good. He said that most people would “act on their conscience,” and not create gridlock for the sake of gridlock.”

‘Good Things Can Happen’

Buzzi said that the issue was important to him and based on his experiences.

“It’s based on knowing if we elect the right people, whose first goal is the best education for the kids, and give them an environment in which they can and must work together, then good things can happen,” said Buzzi.

The CRC made no motion and took no action on the change.

The CRC also considered changing section 8-01(a)(1) to increase the amount of $20,000 as the threshold for town property purchases to require the need for three appraisals.

Town Attorney Dave Grogins said the town “does not buy property often” and that “$20,000 is such a small amount” that to go through “substantial steps” for property of that value “makes no sense.”

“It’s almost an insult to the leaders of the town,” Grogins said, who felt that $150,000 to $200,000 would be a more reasonable threshold.

Gaston expressed concerns about property seizure through eminent domain, saying he trusts “the voters more than politically driven officials.”

“This is a valid safeguard; I don’t see a reason to change it,” said Gaston.

Filiato said that any number in the town charter should be “indexed to inflation.”

Rao said that “the process means something” and that “transparency and accountability” in the process were important. She also noted that the change to a threshold of $20,000 was made in 2016; and since it was done so recently, she thought it likely there was a good reason the threshold was so low.

Buzzi said the issue “had two faces,” one about eminent domain and the other about the town purchasing property, which happens rarely. However, he said that any purchase of land could affect other landowners, and the threshold affects whether those landowners have a chance to speak on the matter and vote.

“If we raise the threshold too much, we’re taking away the voice of any people affected,” said Buzzi.

The CRC took no action on the change.

Reporter Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.