Public Urges Council To Get

Charter Changes On The November Ballot

By Steve Bigham

The Legislative Council got an earful Wednesday night from townspeople who demanded that the proposed changes to the town charter be on the ballot in November. Any attempt to “bury” those changes would be a disgrace, they said.

About 45 people turned out for the public hearing to have their say on the Charter Revision Commission and the significant changes to town government it has recommended. The commission’s draft report is now in front of the council, which has the power to reject it altogether or send it on to the voters. The council leadership has been outspoken in its opposition to the proposed changes.

 “We created the commission and then it goes and minimizes the Legislative Council down to something that rubber stamps things. I mean, what would you expect the council’s reaction to be? We’re saying, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve created you and now you’re trying to eliminate us.’ It’s a natural reaction,” Council Chairman Pierre Rochman said two weeks ago.

But residents at the hearing Wednesday night urged the council not to act simply in its own self-interest, but to allow the big issues addressed by the charter revision proposals to be decided by the public at large.

“This is too big a decision for the council to rule on by itself,” said Ray Ruzek of 17 Maltbie Road.

Dennis Dougherty of Pocono Road agreed. “If is doesn’t get on the ballot, that would be a disgrace. Whether the council likes it or not, the public should have a choice,” he said.

A dozen others echoed those sentiments.

Some council members have taken issue with a proposal to create an independent Board of Finance and a stronger first selectman. This, they say, would reduce the current power given to their own board.

But townspeople at the hearing said they welcomed change in a growing town and urged the council to let the voters decide the direction it wants its local government to go in.

John Folger of Huntingtown Road said he had read about the charter issues in the newspaper and it had piqued his interest in local government and has created a lot of dialogue around town. “It would be a mistake not to have this out in front of the public,” he said.

The lone voice in the crowd to take issue with a major component of the proposal was Julia Wasserman of Walnut Tree Hill Road. She spoke at length about her opposition to the Board of Finance concept, saying it simply adds another layer of bureaucracy.

Tony Chamberry of Hattertown Road sees it more like another layer of due diligence. The charter panel maintains that the finances of the town need to be monitored by an independent body, a body that is elected by the voters. Currently, charter members say, the council chairman appoints five members to a finance committee, which makes a recommendation, then needs just one more vote in order to get it passed by the full council.

As for a stronger first selectman, council member Melissa Pilchard has stated that it might create a dictatorship-like position. The Charter Revision Commission says a stronger first selectman would provide a better balance of power and gives the town a more accountable figure that can more easily set the agenda for Newtown. Giving the first selectman veto power (also part of the proposal) requires the council to gain a larger consensus, rather than approving or rejecting a key issue by a small margin, charter members say.

Robin Fitzgerald took issue with recent comments made in The Bee by Mr Rochman, suggesting townspeople might not be informed enough to understand the consequences of the proposed changes. Mr Rochman was quoted in the July 6 edition of The Bee as saying, “For the public to know what was being proposed, they would have to go to town hall and pay for copies of the draft report because it is so extensive. Most people are not going to go through all that work… They won’t be educated enough on it. It’s a wasteful public hearing because the public will not be in any position to make any comments.”

Ms Fitzgerald said she read the Final Draft Report of the Charter Revision Commission on The Bee’s Web site and found it clear and easy to understand.

Mr Rochman was quick to deny the comments, and accused The Bee of inaccurate reporting. He reminded residents that all their information comes from the newspaper and that the council has its own version of the story to tell. This week, he was hoping to get the council minutes on the Internet.

The council’s clock has been ticking ever since it received the Charter Revision Commission’s draft report June 1. It now has just two weeks to decide if it wants to approve or reject the recommendations. The council will meet again next Monday to take up charter revision and will then hold a joint meeting with the Charter Revision Commission on Wednesday (see related story).

Ted Ruddock urged the council not to violate the “trust the public has placed in you.”

Many favored holding forums to educate the public and to allow the public to engage in debate. But Mr Rochman reminded voters that his board is up against some pretty strict deadlines that must be met under state statutes. He pledged to do his best to meet those deadlines in order to get it on the ballot, but could make no guarantees. It was not completely in his hands, he said.

Cathy Lombard of 6 Hundred Acres Road said anything short of meeting the deadline would simply be “another ploy at sand bagging.”

Jill Beaudry of Queen Street supports the proposed charter changes and would hold council members from her district accountable for whatever happens.

Charter Revision Commission Chairman Bill Sheluck said his board plans to respond to the council with its final report by August 9. From that point on, the council will have 15 days to make a final decision. That takes the process to August 24. If at that time residents opt to begin a petition drive to get the questions on the ballot, they would have 12 days to get 1,400 signatures, which would need to be filed with the town clerk by September 6.