Pilchard Assails Charter Revision Panel’s Validity

By Steve Bigham

A Legislative Council member this week asserted that the Charter Revision Commission was created illegally last fall. The allegation, had it been accurate, would have thrown nine months of thorough study of the town charter out the window.

However, Melissa Pilchard’s claim was refuted this week after Town Attorney David Grogins ruled that the council did in fact take a legal vote to create the Charter Revision Commission last September.

While Mrs Pilchard questioned the validity of the charter panel, Ruby Johnson suggested that the charter revisionists failed to complete their job properly. She claimed that the board’s report, presented to the council June 1, was incomplete because it did not follow the exact charge of the council. Mrs Johnson said the report should have included the board’s reasoning for its suggested changes, “not just ‘we believe’ or ‘we think.’”

She also complained that the panel “had some nerve” presenting its report during the summer. Fellow members who said the complaints were out of order struck down both of Mrs Johnson’s assertions.

In the end, the council adjourned knowing that the Charter Revision Commission and its proposal for sweeping changes to town government are not going away. Council Chairman Pierre Rochman acknowledged that fact this week and went out of his way Thursday morning to call The Bee to say there is no formal intent on the council’s part to “intentionally delay” the process.

Mr Rochman did, however, voice some concern about the timeline for getting the Charter Revision Commission questions on the November 6 ballot. This week’s meeting underscored the council’s tight schedule for considering the charter changes. By early August, it will have had to approve or reject the new proposed changes to local government.

“If we’re going to get on the November 6 ballot, then we cannot take any more time than I’ve indicated and that may even be cutting it close,” he said.

Of course, some council members have indicated strong opposition to the charter panel’s recommendations and say they would prefer the questions never make it onto the ballot. The Charter Revision Commission does have the option of leading a petition drive to get the proposed changes on to the ballot.

Wednesday’s meeting also revealed the varied opinions of members on the suggested changes, which include the creation of a stronger first selectman (with veto power) and a Board of Finance, to go along with the elimination of the Board of Selectmen. Some council members have argued that the plan weakens the existing Legislative Council.

   The council has scheduled a July 11 public hearing on the proposed charter amendments.

The council also plans to hire an attorney to assist it in dealing with the charter issue. Mrs Pilchard recommended it retain Newtown resident David Chipman, who served on the Charter Revision Commission of the mid-1990s. That particular board recommended few changes to the town government, except a controversial measure to allow the finance director to be fired “without cause.” Mr Chipman is credited with coming up with that idea.

Charter Panel’s Validity Questioned

Melissa Pilchard sent a shock wave through town hall this week when she suggested that the Charter Revision Commission might be invalid. Under state statutes, she pointed out, the board must be created by a two-thirds vote of the Legislative Council or by the signatures of 10 percent of the electors. Last fall, the council voted 6-5 in favor of its creation, well short of a two-thirds vote.

Attorney Grogins agreed, until he discovered that the Charter Revision Commission had actually been created at a previous council meeting in September. At a meeting October 4, the council voted 6-5 to rescind the September vote after there was some question as to who should serve on the charter panel. Roberts Rules require a two-thirds vote to rescind a previous vote.

In Mr Grogins’ judgment (reported by First Selectman Herb Rosenthal), the October 4 vote to create the Charter Revision Commission was null and void because it never legally rescinded the original vote.

“Whether intentionally or not, you have created the board validly. Almost not, though,” Mr Rosenthal explained.

Peggy Baiad questioned why the issue was just coming up now.

“I just found it,” said Mrs Pilchard, who has vehemently opposed the Charter Revision Commission’s recommendations from the beginning.

Charter Revision Commission Chairman Bill Sheluck listened with interest to the council’s discussion Wednesday and left somewhat philosophical about the evening’s dramatic events. Mrs Pilchard’s allegation was shot down and, as he pointed out, Mrs Johnson’s complaint served only to underscore the council’s original set of instructions to his commission, instructions which he characterized as “an abomination.”