Three individuals, all town officials addressing the Charter Revision Commission July 15, have recommended the panel not rush the final steps of the process simply to get a proposed overhaul of Newtown’s constitutional document on this November’s Election Day ballot.

During a public hearing that was attended, as commission chairman Jeff Capeci noted, “by two members of the public,” both Legislative Council Chair Mary Ann Jacob, speaking for herself and not for the council, and First Selectman Pat Llodra, favorably acknowledged more than a year’s collective work over the course of more than 55 meetings.

Then, both encouraged charter commissioners to return to the drawing board over the course of the next few weeks or months to carefully consider several issues incorporated into their draft recommendations.

Later, during a follow-up meeting of the commission, Town Attorney David Grogins expressed concerns about not having enough time to thoroughly review and ensure proposed charter changes are legal and consistent, in time to get the document through the rest of the statutory required review process and onto a November ballot.

In her comments at the hearing, Ms Jacob said that given the immensity of the commission’s work to date, and the need for an exhaustive review of even the most basic elements of the proposed changes, the commission should take the time allotted by statute — until October 1 — “to finalize the process.”

The council chair said the town’s legal counsel not only needs sufficient time to do his part of the review, but so do the many boards, commissions, and town departments that may have been subject to minor or significant revisions in the proposed charter rewrite.

Ms Jacob also suggested creating more opportunities for the public to weigh in on recommendations.

“I’d encourage you to step back and review the changes you’ve made and compare them to the charge you were given last year,” Ms Jacob said. “Is the charter more readable? Can the average citizen, without legal counsel, understand how our government process works? Have we updated the processes outlined to reflect current, best financial practices?”

She suggested it may be worth waiting until the November 2016 Presidential election, which would not only draw the largest proportion of local voters to the polls to consider the revisions, but would also give town leaders a full year to communicate and educate citizens about the proposed changes.

Minority Makeup

Ms Jacob questioned whether one of the only controversial issues for the panel — recommending a 5-2 minimum minority party makeup for the Board of Education — serves the community’s best interest. She then asked the commission to strike down their recommendation in favor of codifying a 4-3 makeup of the school board.

She also believes a revision dealing with real property acquisition and disposal is “too detailed and not user friendly,” suggesting the level of detail proposed might serve better in a more malleable ordinance versus being drawn into the charter.

Ms Jacob agreed with the commission’s recommending the elimination of formal and binding Town Meetings, but questioned the move to reduce required referendum votes on town spending issues from $10 million to $500,000. She cited concerns that so many initiatives on an annual referendum might become unmanageable, suggesting a $1.5 million threshold might be a better alternative.

She also was pleased with suggested rewording of ballot advisory questions, saying new language could provide greater clarity of voter intent when casting local budget votes.

When asked by Charter Commission Vice Chair Robert Hall about her recommendation to postpone a vote from this November’s ballot, Ms Jacob replied that “changes proposed are complex,” and she wants to be sure the revision doesn’t “permeate the charter with convoluted references that don’t make sense.”

Mrs Llodra reiterated her concern about trying to “force fit” the remainder of the revision process into a tight timeline simply to move the proposal onto a November ballot, versus making enough time for a quality review of the sweeping number of revisions proposed.

Consider Ordinances

The first selectman also echoed the call to consider moving some proposed charter changes to ordinance status, and urged to commission to reconsider codifying ad hoc and appointed boards and commissions into the revision. Mrs Llodra said panels appointed for temporary purposes like the Medical Benefits Committee should not be enshrined in the charter.

Mrs Llodra also backed the return to a 4-3 majority makeup on the school board, and encouraged a long and strong outreach to be sure the public is both aware of and has sufficient time to voice opinions about the proposal to remove the Town Meeting form of government. She cited a recent gathering about the high school auditorium project that she said drew more than 100 attendees, proving that form of government does give voice to a segment of citizens when they are motivated to attend.

She also concurred that the $500,000 threshold for referendum authorization is too low, and could have the effect of increasing voter apathy or participation versus enhancing it.

During the brief meeting of the commission after the hearing, Mr Grogins said that he may have delayed the ability to begin reviewing proposed changes because he simply did not understand the way those changes were represented in the draft, against the original document. He also expressed concern about “internal consistency of the draft,” and the future prospect of “confusion over the intention of certain changes.”

A motion during that session by Mr Hall to return the draft to various officials for final review and to plan a second hearing in early August, with the intent of trying to get the revisions on this November’s ballot, was defeated on a 4-3 vote with Commissioner Deborra Zukowski absent.