Most Charter Changes

Narrowly Supported By Council

By Steve Bigham

In the end, the Charter Revision Commission’s efforts to engage the Legislative Council in discussions about proposed charter changes finally paid off. During two days of meetings this week, the council approved nearly all of the proposed changes to town government, including three of the four most controversial issues. Such a scenario seemed all but impossible just two weeks ago.

The key votes came late Wednesday night when a group of council members made a last-ditch effort to eliminate the proposed creation of a Board of Finance. The attempt failed, however, just as it had the night before.

On Tuesday, a motion to eliminate all references in the proposed charter revisions to a Board of Finance was voted down as Peggy Baiad, Joe Borst, Tim Holian, Dan Rosenthal, Don Studley, and Brian White all voted against the idea. Doug Brennan, Ruby Johnson, Melissa Pilchard, Pierre Rochman, and Will Rodgers voted in favor. John Kortze did not attend the meeting.

The Board of Finance appeared to clear the hurdle… until Wednesday, when Mr Holian suggested another way to kill the Board of Finance plan – through compromise. His 11th hour proposal called for the election of three at-large council members to serve as the finance committee. And, thanks to some last-minute phone calling by Mr Kortze earlier in the day, the Holian plan looked like it would pass.

But the swing vote turned out to be Doug Brennan, who voted against the plan, saying he opposed the idea of having at-large members serve, even though he does not necessarily support having a Board of Finance. The final tally was six “yes” and six “no.” The motion failed.

The vote was one of a handful of small victories for the Charter Revision Commission this week. The council also voted to eliminate the Board of Selectmen (10-1) and grant veto power to the first selectman (7-4), two issues that some council members had opposed. The biggest triumph, however, came with the approval of the Board of Finance, which was fundamental to all the other changes.

“I wouldn’t categorize them as victories. The way I would define it is we were able to convince a majority of the council members that our proposal for a Board of Finance was a sound one,” said Charter Revision Chairman Bill Sheluck. “In the final analysis, it will be the people of Newtown who will decide this question.”

The council did reject a proposal to have three council members elected at-large. It also rejected a plan to require a second budget referendum if the first one fails. Under the current charter, the town goes directly to a town meeting after a budget fails at referendum.

Mr Rochman declined to comment on this week’s results, although he reiterated his opposition to the Board of Finance, even reminding the council that Finance Director Ben Spragg has opposed the idea.

“This town had a Board of Finance years ago. When you have a separate Board of Finance you’ve got people who are there just to keep the budget down. It’s a lot of planning just to say ‘no’ to expenditures. We’re repeating history,” he said.

Others agreed, saying a Board of Finance only deals with finances, while a council must consider the needs of the town as well. But Joe Borst, Don Studley, Peggy Baiad, and Brian White see a rapidly growing town that desperately needs long-term financial planning.

The council was under the gun to make its final decisions this week as its report was due to be submitted to the town clerk by 4:30 pm on Thursday. The issue now goes back to the charter panel, which will discuss the recommendations from the council before returning its final report to the council for one final vote.

This week’s discussions showed that there is no clear mandate or consensus on the charter issues, all the more reason to send them on to the people, supporters say.

 “The closeness of the votes is another reason why the voters should decide these issues,” Mr Sheluck said. “I as an individual have no problem with the council playing a vital role in this whole charter revision process in terms of filtering the recommendations from the commission before they get to the public. It’s a valid role. But when the council is so clearly divided, I think it’s to everyone’s benefit that the issues be placed before the voters.”