Last Charter Revision Meeting

To Examine Four Late Proposals

By John Voket

The final public hearing of the Charter Revision Commission only drew a single resident, but it provided a forum for Chairman Alvah Cramer to announce the panel will consider four late proposals before shipping off a draft document for preliminary legal review, or to the Legislative Council for an initial review.

That final meeting, at 7 pm Tuesday, June 26, in the old courtroom at Edmond Town Hall, will examine and possibly endorse a proposal to increase the number of members on the Parks & Recreation Commission, an appointed board, by one member. Acting Chairman Ed Marks appeared before the commission in recent weeks appealing to the charter commissioners to consider the action in view of the expanding scope of the parks and rec panel and the department it oversees.

“There’s a growing amount of responsibilities as more residents take advantage of park services and facilities,” he told the charter group during an April meeting. “And with the recent addition of the management of town trails, our commission could use additional assistance.”

Mr Cramer said this week the charter panel’s approval of this proposal would also permit the parks and rec commission from naming additional ad hoc subcommittees to further assist with special projects as needed.

The second item of final business for the charter commission will be to consider whether the newly formed Culture and Arts Commission will become part of the charter.

“There’s already an ordinance for that [commission], so we just need to decide if that will go in the charter or not,” Mr Cramer said. “If we agree to add the Culture and Arts Commission, it would probably follow the same type of language we proposed for the Conservation Commission. Their power would still come from the ordinance.”

The charter would simply recognize the powers conferred by the ordinance, and validate the existence of that new local commission, he added.

A third proposal concerns an existing provision that requires any voter-approved charter initiative to be enacted within 30 days. Mr Cramer explained that the commission has to deal with this provision because of the previous proposal to increase the Parks & Recreation Commission, as well as already approved measures to decrease the Legislative Council districts to two, and to increase membership on the Board of Education to seven members.

“If these changes are approved without a stipulation, it would wipe the board clean within 30 days of the public approving the revisions,” Mr Cramer said. This means in the case of the school board and council, both panels would have to be reelected within 30 days of voters passing the approved revisions.

Mr Cramer hopes his fellow commissioners will endorse language that would stipulate these and other specified changes would conform with either a longer period before enactment, or if a new election is required, it would occur consistent with other local, state, or federal elections the November following the public approval of the revisions.

The final consideration, and perhaps the most controversial, was suggested by commissioner Guy Howard during the public hearing. He was presumably acting on repeated criticism of frequent resident attendee Ruby Johnson, who is also a co-founder of a grassroots group called Friends of Fairfield Hills.

Ms Johnson has been appearing at numerous board and commission meetings, including charter commission meetings, offering frequent criticism of the Fairfield Hills Authority. She and other residents, as well as Mr Howard and charter commissioner Joan Plouffe, have commented on the authority, which was created through special legislation, but whose powers have been fundamentally altered by the local ordinance permitting the management panel for the former state hospital.

Mr Howard told fellow commissioners at the hearing that he wanted to propose removing the legislatively conveyed powers of the Fairfield Hills Authority, and transfer its status to an elected board or appointed commission with exclusive oversight within the community.

Strictly speaking, a state-authorized authority has broad independent powers to tax, secure, and maintain the properties or entities within its purview. But initial concerns in the case of Fairfield Hills management precipitated the town removing policy-making powers of the local authority in both the language of the state legislation, as well as in the ordinance.

As such, all matters regarding the Fairfield Hills Authority’s finances, facilities management, security, and development come under the ultimate oversight of the Board of Selectmen, the first selectman and/or the local purchasing authority. The Fairfield Hills panel cannot autonomously levy taxes to supplement its existence and related costs to operate the town-owned campus, and its budget is developed in concert with the finance authority, receiving final approval of taxpayers during each annual budget referendum.

At press time, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal and town attorney David Groggins were researching whether or not language in the legislation precluded any charter or ordinance from infringing upon the legislative boilerplate in the state statute authorizing the Fairfield Hills Authority’s formation.

Unless the legal review or subsequent legislative council deliberations result in a need to further refine suggested revisions, the Tuesday meeting may be the panel’s last in its capacity to craft proposed revisions. There will be two public participation opportunities at this meeting at the beginning and end of the session.