Charter Plan Critiqued

At Hearing

By John Voket

Facing a statutory deadline September 6, the Legislative Council conducted back-to-back sessions Wednesday evening to solicit public comment, and then commenced deliberating on a proposed charter revision.

All members of the appointed Charter Revision Commission, except Carolyn Signorelli, attended both the public hearing and general council meeting. Independent council candidate Ruby Johnson was the first to speak at the hearing, calling attention to a suggested revision permitting the council to act without a town meeting, on financial transactions up to $500,000.

“Half-a-million is a large sum of money,” Ms Johnson stated, adding she was unwilling to suggest what spending cap might be appropriate.

Later in the hearing, charter commission chairman Al Cramer told council members that the $500,000 represented just half of one-percent of the overall town budget.

“We considered this action to cut down on town meetings,” he said. “It is a small sum.”

Ms Johnson then reasserted a position that was repeated frequently during charter commission meetings, calling for consideration of replacing the first selectman with a salaried town manager.

She accused charter commissioners of failing to study the town manager alternative, or bringing her idea to the public for consideration. But Mr Cramer later defended the panel saying the town manager suggestion was vetted thoroughly and was rejected unanimously in favor of retaining a selectman/council form of government.

Ms Johnson then told council members she was concerned that the town’s purchasing authority was the first selectman.

“The purchasing authority is the first selectman. We need some checks and balances. It’s not appropriate to give this much power to one person,” she said. But again, Ms Johnson was corrected during later discussion when First Selectman Herb Rosenthal read from the current charter, which essentially empowers the town finance director to head the purchasing authority, only involving the first selectman cooperatively, and at the finance director’s discretion.

“The finance director is the town treasurer — a fairly independent office. I don’t know where Ms Johnson gets her facts,” Mr Rosenthal told the council.

Ms Johnson then appealed to council members to present each of the dozens of charter revisions to voters in separate ballot questions, instead of in a single ballot initiative, saying previous charter changes were always presented individually. But she was later corrected again, this time by council Chairman Will Rodgers.

“Ms Johnson asserted that no previous charter voting was conducted en masse, but that is absolutely not true,” Mr Rodgers said, adding that he had been through several charter votes where large blocks or one ballot question incorporating all changes were presented to voters.

Former selectman James Smith questioned the logistics of reducing local voting districts from four to two, specifically noting that a large majority of residents are in a single state legislative district, while another small southerly section of town shares the 112th District with Monroe.

Later in the meeting, town registrar and charter commissioner LeReine Frampton explained that the reduction to two voting districts could be easily accommodated by opening polling locations at the neighboring Newtown Middle School and Reed Intermediate School. She said during state legislative elections, the Reed School cafetorium could be split into two separate areas to accommodate voters from both southerly state districts.

“Everybody knows to come to the middle school for budget votes, but if they show up during elections and are told they have to travel all the way back to Middle Gate to vote, they may not vote,” Ms Frampton said. “And we felt using Reed and the middle school would be better for the safety of the children.”

Ms Frampton said the move ultimately provides for greater local representation for voters.

Charter commissioner Guy Howard asked the council to reexamine his suggestion to mandate general provisions in the charter to require intermittent oversight of virtually all enacted initiatives.

“I think the interpretation of the word ‘oversight’ was not trusting, and there was a general resistance to the idea of making life more difficult,” Mr Howard said of his idea, which was voted down by the remaining commissioners.

He defended the suggestion, saying that by mandating an oversight process in similar fashion to an audit, residents would be assured that initiatives that were enacted in advance of local projects were being carried out as intended throughout the process.

School board Chairman Elaine McClure, who arrived later in the hearing, was provided an opportunity to speak and reiterated a position she and all the rest of her board had taken throughout the charter revision process regarding increasing the size of the Board of Education from six to seven members.

“I think an even number is the way to go,” Ms McClure said, adding that with six members, significant debate occurs on controversial issues before a tie vote defeats the proposal, or it ends up failing or passing unanimously, or at least by a supermajority.