Despite Successful Petition Drive –

Council May Keep Charter Off Nov. Ballot

By Steve Bigham

The Charter Revision Commission appeared to have won a major battle in its efforts to get its proposed changes to town government to the town voters November 6. Its successful bid to get the signatures of 10 percent of the electorate was certainly cause for celebration, and Chairman Bill Sheluck was in good spirits Monday morning as he turned the final signatures in to the town clerk’s office. He felt strongly that his board had the backing of the people.

But Monday morning also brought with it the reality that some Legislative Council members are still working to keep the proposal from reaching the November ballot. Some are calling it “stonewalling.”

Legally, the council has until the end of 2002 to put the questions on the ballot, and those members who oppose the revised charter – particularly a provision for the creation of a Board of Finance – indicated that they are in no rush to get things done in time for the upcoming municipal election.

And, they add, council attorney David Chipman may not be able to finish his analysis of the proposed changes in time for a November vote. As Council Chairman Pierre Rochman points out, the proposed charter has practically been re-written, making it difficult to put individual questions on the ballot. Complicating matters, the council does not meet again until next Wednesday, one day before the questions (as they are to appear on the ballot) are due in the town clerk’s office. Mr Rochman has even been hesitant to put the issue on the agenda.

Odds are, Mr Rochman said this week, the proposed changes will not be on the November 6 ballot.

“We always worked on the assumption that we would like to do this for the November 6 election, but whether we can do it or not is still uncertain,” said Mr Rochman, who has been a leading voice in opposition to the charter panel’s proposal, particularly with respect to the Board of Finance.

Mr Sheluck called Mr Rochman’s actions “outrageous,” saying the chairman is hiding behind his attorney. Delaying a vote would make it very difficult for the proposal to have any chance of passing, particularly at a “special election,” which requires 15 percent of the electorate to vote “yes” in order for the revisions to be enacted.

“There’s no reason for Mr Chipman to re-write what has been submitted. The petition drive has been successful. We collected over 1,900 signatures and people want the commission’s recommendations in their entirety placed on the ballot,” Mr Sheluck said. “It’s out of our hands, but it’s clear to me that the chairman of the council is hiding behind the attorney in order to justify his actions… in an effort to prevent the people of Newtown from voting on these recommendations in November.”

Mr Sheluck called Mr Rochman’s actions “totally irresponsible” and not worthy of an individual on a legislative body representing the citizens of Newtown.

The Charter Revision Commission is trying to get as many people as possible to attend next week’s meeting.

“I’m focused on Wednesday. We haven’t lost the war yet. It’s our hope that the other members of the council will respect the wishes of the people who signed our petitions,” Mr Sheluck said.

He won’t get any help from Will Rodgers, Ruby Johnson, or Melissa Pilchard. They say the proposed charter changes can just as easily be presented to the voters at another election sometime down the road, maybe a year from now. State statutes require the questions to reach the ballot within a 15 month time period. Mr Rodgers said trying to get the questions on the November ballot is an “artificial rush.”

Mrs Johnson believes the town should not rush into voting on something so important.

“This is an extremely important issue. Whatever we do, it’s a responsibility of ours to make sure that the electorate is informed and that they really vote on the issue, rather than just blindly voting. This is our constitution and they should give it a great deal of thought.

Mrs Pilchard agreed.

“There’s no great rush to judgment on this, other than some people’s personal preference. The important thing in my opinion is that it be done legally and properly,” she said. “If an attorney says we can’t do this or that, then that’s what will happen.”

Council member Peggy Baiad said she was shocked to hear there was a chance the question would not reach the November 6 ballot.

“That bothered me because I thought all along that’s what we were shooting for. That was the deadline we used and we were working backwards from that,” she said.

Council member Tim Holian, who voted against the Board of Finance, said he believes the question should be on the November ballot if at all possible. “If it’s workable, we’ll do it. I’d like to see it placed on the ballot, but if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work,” said Mr Holian, who did sign the petition.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, who declined to sign the petition, called it “incumbent” that the council makes every effort to get the charter questions on the ballot November 6.

“Clearly, the questions would have the best chance of being approved on the November 6 ballot because then you’d only need a majority vote,” he said. “The questions and the timing of when the vote is held should be based on fairness, not on whether or not they agree with the questions being asked. If they’re opposed to the recommendations, then the thing to do is oppose it and try to convince people not to vote for it, not by keeping it off the ballot.”

Mr Rochman dismissed Mr Rosenthal’s comments as possible “political posturing.”

Town Clerk Cindy Simon said she understands where both sides are coming from.

“From the standpoint of these people working so hard... They’ve done a lot of work. The goal was the November election,” she said. “On the other token, I don’t want to see it rushed for that main purpose. But it’s not fair to expect them to have to get 15 percent of the electorate to approve it at a special election.”

The town clerk has more technical concerns. She wonders how many questions will be on the ballot and how complicated it will be for people to understand.

“And what about the explanatory text?” she wondered. “Do I have to mail out a separate charter each time for absentee ballots?”

The Charter Revision Commission was forced to carry out a petition drive after the council voted, 7-4, against its proposed creation of a Board of Finance.