Council Expedites Charter Initiative On

Budget Balloting Changes

By John Voket

The Legislative Council seated a committee that is looking for members of a new Charter Revision Commission. A separate committee is concurrently fine tuning a charge to the prospective panel that will consider two items: splitting the local budget vote into separate questions on town and school spending, and adding ballot questions to determine why people vote as they do on the annual spending plan.

The charge committee, which planned to meet June 14 (after this issue of The Bee went to press) to initiate, discuss, and possibly ratify directives to the commission, consists of council members Dan Honan, Dan Wiedemann, George Ferguson and Kathryn Fetchick. The committee met briefly on June 11 and elected Mr Wiedemann as its chair.

The selection committee includes Robert Merola, Paul Lundquist, Phil Carroll and council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob. That panel is being chaired by Mr Lundquist.

The selection committee met June 13 along with council Chairman Jeff Capeci, and has requested that any registered voter who wishes to be considered for the next Charter Revision Commission contact Mr Lundquist via e-mail, lundquist.paul@gmail.com, by July 1.

They may also send a letter of interest to: Paul Lundquist – Chair, Newtown Charter Appointment Committee, 3 Primrose Street, Newtown CT 06470.

The deadline for submitting names for the commission is July 2.

During the appointment committee meeting, Mr Lundquist and Mr Capeci both said they want to get the revision questions on the November general election ballot. To meet that goal, the committee must be seated and complete its work by late August, so the council can meet its deadline of submitting the revision questions for the ballot by September 7.

“We’re looking for at least five rational, open-minded free thinkers who are willing to listen and weigh all considerations,” Mr Lundquist said.

Mr Capeci said he planned to meet with the charge committee and provide a framework so they could deliberate and possibly ratify the charge appointed commissioners will be asked to follow.

Meet ASAP

The appointees will be asked to hold an organizational meeting as soon as possible after their appointment, elect a chair, a vice chair, and appoint a secretary.

The chairperson will schedule meetings, which will be conducted as prescribed by, and in accordance with, Roberts Rules of Order. The panel may also adopt other procedural rules they deem appropriate for the efficient conduct of business.

A recent charter commission, for example, agreed that they would, if needed, poll members for consensus on certain issues before formally moving and voting on particular motions.

“No action will be taken except by recorded motion and recorded vote, with a simple majority of a quorum prevailing,” according to Mr Capeci’s suggested charge.

The committee will be requested to consult with provided counsel with particular concern for, at the very least, proper drafting, possible redundancy, avoidance of inconsistencies and conflict, either within the charter itself or within the charter or Connecticut General Statutes. The panel will also be required to seek review of its finished product by counsel before the document is submitted to the Legislative Council.

Progress Reports

Progress reports will be made to the Legislative Council when requested, and the commissioners are expected to review, report, and submit final product to the Legislative Council by September 5.

If passed by voters at the November presidential election, the outcome of the charter revision will be in effect, and should provide a vehicle for better clarity of voter intent for the spring 2013 budget referendum.

Mr Capeci said the panel will be asked to visit and consider the following issues and recommendations:

Consider including the requirement for a bifurcated budget, to include separate ballot questions for the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education budget.

Consider including nonbinding advisory questions as to whether a negative vote is due to the budget being too high or too low.

Consider a budget ballot requiring each voter to (a) approve the budget, (b) reject the budget because it is too high, or (c) reject the budget because it is too low.

The commission may also consider matters and issues of its own choice according to state law.