Charter Panel Would Retain Council As Final Arbiter Of Finance Issues

By Steve Bigham

The Charter Revision Commission last week finally gained consensus on the balance of power between the Legislative Council and the newly proposed Board of Finance. And the winner is… the council.

Following a lengthy discussion on the town’s annual budget process, the panel agreed that the Legislative Council should have the final authority prior to sending the annual town budget on to the voters.

There had been some discussion as to whether that final authority be given to the council or to the newly proposed Board of Finance. As it stands, the Board of Finance would be in charge of number crunching, while the council would be responsible for overall policy on fiscal matters.

  “We spent a lot of time on that,” noted Chairman Bill Sheluck. “The question was whether the Board of Finance or the Legislative Council should have the authority. We felt that because the Board of Finance would be more involved in the finances on a continuous basis, it would be better suited to deal with the details of the budget. The council would actually get the ‘nay’ or ‘yea’ vote.”

The charter panel also agreed that the council could increase the proposed budget with a two-thirds  vote of its membership, but that it could not exceed the originally submitted budgets of the first selectman and Board of Education.

Two months ago, the charter board agreed to give the first selectman veto power over council budgetary decisions. It also gave the council authority to override that veto with a two-thirds vote. Last week, it concluded that should the council override the selectman’s veto, then the budget approved by the council would be sent to the referendum. If the council fails to get a two-thirds vote, then the budget submitted by the Board of Finance would be submitted for vote at a referendum.

So how does that improve the town’s current budget process?

“The Board of Finance we hope would be closer to the finances of the town and therefore when it received the budget, not as much work would have to be done,” Mr Sheluck explained. “Secondly, it provides for two public hearings: one at the outset of the process where the public can comment on budgets submitted by the first selectman and Board of Education before the Board of Finance makes any adjustments; the second public hearing would then occur after the Board of Finance has approved the budget, but before the council has made any adjustments.”

The Charter Revision Commission believes having two public hearings is critical because it allows the public to provide input early enough in the process so that changes can be made to reflect taxpayers’ input.

“We’ve also lengthened the time frame for discussion for the budget, which was a concern of the council’s,” Mr Sheluck explained. “They wanted the approval of the budget to be sometime in May. Under our proposed process, the initial referendum would be sometime in mid- to late May, as opposed to April.”

Town officials have complained that the current charter requires them to complete the budget process far too early, long before there is any indication of what the final state budget is going to be. That forces the town to make educated guesses as to what they will and will not be receiving from the state in aid.

“We think under this scenario the budget process will be efficient and streamlined, while also allowing for timely input from the public,” Mr Sheluck said.

The charter panel must also still decide on a process should the budget be voted down at the initial referendum.

“In other words, how far back into the process do we go? Do we go back to the Board of Finance, back to the Legislative Council, and do we allow the first selectman to still have veto power?” Mr Sheluck said.

The board is expected to begin discussion on interim financial decisions, such as special appropriations and transfers. Still to be determined is whether that power will be given to the council or the Board of Finance.

Split Vote Issue Tabled

In other news, the Charter Revision Commission agreed to table all discussion on the question of splitting the budget after hearing of a court case involving the Town of Naugatuck and the Naugatuck Board of Education. In that case, the Naugatuck school board sued the town for amending its charter to allow for a split vote (as well as giving the mayor voting status on the school board). That case remains in appeals court after the school board won in trial court.

It is the school supporters in Newtown who are often calling for a split vote, saying they are willing to pay for large increases in the Board of Education budget.

The charter panel is also expected to discuss an amendment to the charter that would allow the town to submit large capital expenditures to the public at the budget referendum. Currently, the town must hold a special town meeting to get these approved, and, as in the case with the proposed 5/6 school and Fairfield Hills, residents will be asked to approved a bonding plan two months before actually approving the overall expenditure.

The council is slated to meet with the Charter Revision Commission March 22 for what Mr Sheluck expects will be a “healthy exchange of ideas.”

The council is expected to examine the charter panel’s rationale for suggesting that: the first selectman’s term be increased from two to four years; a Board of Finance be created; and veto power be given to the first selectman.

Other decisions still looming are whether or not to add an at-large component to the Legislative Council, whether to split the Planning & Zoning Commission, and whether or not to eliminate Newtown’s town meeting form of government.