Hearing July 6 On Ordinance To Protect Children, FFH Revision

By John Voket

Residents who wish to comment on a new ordinance designed to better protect children from possible sexual predators or others who may seek to do them harm are invited to a public hearing at 7 pm, July 6. That hearing will also solicit public comment on a revision proposed to the Fairfield Hills Authority Ordinance, that will, if enacted, prevent the non-policymaking panel from entering into so-called negative leases on the town-owned campus.

The hearing is just ahead of the council’s regular July meeting, where the officials will likely consider action on both issues.

The Ordinance To Protect Children, as proposed, would identify a number of “Child Safety Zones,” specifically any park, school, playground, recreation center, bathing beach, swimming or wading pool, gymnasium, sports field, or sports facility under the town’s operation or otherwise sanctioned for use or leased by the town or any of its departments or agencies. All parking areas and land in the immediate vicinity of those locations would also fall under the ordinance, although public sidewalks and streets adjacent to those areas would not be included within the “safety zones.”

The proposed ordinance goes on to identify specifically individuals who would be subject to enforcement. They include anyone with a record of a “criminal offense against a minor,” a “nonviolent sexual offense,” a “sexually violent offense,” or any felony determined by the court to involve a “sexual purpose” as defined in state law.

The ordinance would also apply to anyone convicted or found not guilty by reason of mental disease in any other state, in federal or any military court, or in any foreign jurisdiction — and which requires the individual to register as a sexual offender. Anyone on that list as of or after October 1, 1998, is subject to the enforcement of the ordinance.

Individuals identified under the proposal who are entering the established “safety zone” to vote, who enter the zone to pick up or drop off their own children, or meeting with a nurse, teacher, or regarding an educational issue, are excluded from enforcement. Those provisions, however, require the individual to depart the safety zone immediately once his/her business there has been completed.

Those removed from the state sex offender list would also be exempt from the ordinance.

The proposal would require local police, to the best of their ability, to provide said individuals with a copy of the ordinance and local safety zone locations in writing to the individuals’ last registered address in town. If enacted, local police would be empowered to issue an infraction for any applicable individual who violates the ordinance, whether or not they have received a copy of the notice.

The fine would be $250 — the maximum allowed by statute.

The ordinance would provide for signs to be posted in high traffic locations at or around the zones, warning and further reinforcing the provisions. The zone map would also be posted on the town website.

Anyone lawfully removed from the state sex offender registry would have their information removed form all local records, including a registry that would concurrently be available for public inspection at the local police headquarters. Those local records by ordinance would have to be destroyed and not stored elsewhere within the department — and no future reference to the individuals affected could be publicly disclosed by members of the local police force.

Ordinance Committee Chair Mary Ann Jacob said that this ordinance adds “another tool in the box for the Newtown Police Department to use to protect our most vulnerable citizens. All affected residents - convicted sex offenders - will be notified of the restrictions so there will be no confusion.”

The amendment to the Fairfield Hills Authority Ordinance is designed to close a loophole that would restrict the facility’s operating body from entering into a “negative lease,” or a lease arrangement that provides any payment from the town or authority back to the lessee.

According to the amendment, if the authority negotiates a potential lease that requires payment by the town, approval could only be granted through the Charter-stipulated special appropriation process which would require Board of Selectman, Board of Finance, and the Legislative Council and possibly a town meeting or referendum depending on the details and amount of money involved.

During the June 1 council meeting during which the group voted unanimously to send the provision to a public hearing, Ms Jacob said while the amendment does not restrict the authority from entering into any leases, it restricts the panel from entering into a negative leases, which means they would be encumbering the town. And since under the amendment, such a transaction is considered a special appropriation, the process appropriately refers back to the special appropriation section of the charter.

“I’m confident as our First Selectman moves through the process of Fairfield Hills Review we will continue to see the FFA place a smaller role in town until such time as all their functions are appropriately folded back into normal town operations,” Ms Jacob said. “Meanwhile, the change provides the proper oversight to their most controversial role.”