Amid Legal Questions—

Charter Chairman Rethinks

Finance Board Issue

By John Voket

One week after Board of Finance Vice Chairman James Gaston cited myriad concerns and possible legal ramifications tied to a charter revision proposal instituting a name change for his elected panel, Charter Revision Commission Chairman Al Cramer said he would likely move to retract that specific proposal.

In the final minutes of an August 22 Legislative Council hearing where council members began reviewing proposed charter revisions, Mr Gaston spoke for almost ten minutes citing statutory references, existing charter provisions, and his assertions that renaming the Board of Finance to the Finance Advisory Board as proposed might be illegal. He also asserted concerns that by changing the name, the new group’s elected volunteer members might somehow become personally exposed to legal actions that would otherwise be protected by governmental immunity if the panel remained a Board of Finance.

Mr Cramer said Wednesday he is hoping to gather a quorum of four to six commissioners for a September 25 meeting. That meeting would be the final opportunity to study all modifications, suggestions, and clarifications on draft proposals his group submitted to the council in July, which were recently passed on to the town attorney for review.

The meeting could also serve as an opportunity to retract the finance board name change proposal.

Mr Cramer maintained throughout the current charter revision process that a conflict occurred in the last charter revision, which created and empowered two boards of finance, one by title that is vested with full-time oversight and advisory responsibilities, and the second — the council’s finance subcommittee ­— that refines or validates the advisory board’s input before recommending or rejecting budget actions and other significant appropriations legally authorized by the full council.

This apparent conflict between the advisory and policy-making bodies on these two elected boards is troubling to Mr Cramer, and was the driving factor behind his support of what first seemed to be an innocuous fix of an unintended outcome of the last charter revision vote five years ago. At that time, an 11th-hour petition forced a breakout question on the ballot, which passed, creating the current Board of Finance with all statutory powers and privileges.

In the same referendum, a large package of other charter revisions, including the removal of financial policy making powers from the council’s finance subcommittee, failed, leaving the town with two financial committees. In the ensuing months, language was crafted to accommodate both entities in the charter, each having specific powers and duties, but neither having sole oversight and legislative control of the community’s financial business.

The creation of the Board of Finance, as it is currently empowered, also created another layer of budgetary processes, including a finance board exclusive public hearing and several nights of meetings during which finance board members review and question particular aspects of both the school and town-side budget proposals.

From day one, members of the charter commission, particularly Joan Plouffe, Guy Howard and to a lesser extent Mr Cramer, expressed strong feelings about streamlining and simplifying the budget process. This translated into several avenues of discussion over the nearly one-year process of crafting the first draft of charter revisions.

One of the most contentious issues revolved around Mr Howard’s proposal to eliminate the Board of Finance completely, in favor of creating an 18-member Legislative Council with six members specifically elected to handle all finance duties outlined in the charter. By eliminating a separate Board of Finance, he contended the budget process could be shortened by weeks, and be simplified, encouraging more public participation in the process.

That proposal was backed by members of the Board of Education, most vocally by Andrew Buzzi, Jr, who attended more than a half-dozen charter commission meetings to advocate for that proposed revision.

The proposal also received public support from Po Murray, Gary Davis, Ruby Johnson, and Desiree Galassi. Ms Murray and Mr Davis advocated for the dissolution of the finance board as co-founders of WeCan, a local special interest educational advocacy group of which Ms Galassi and Ms Johnson were supporters.

In the interim, Ms Murray, Mr Davis, Ms Galassi, and Ms Johnson all declared political candidacies under the Independent Party of Newtown (IPN) banner. Ms Johnson has since broken from the IPN slate, opting to run for a council seat as a petitioning independent.

Early on, the idea to abolish the Board of Finance was opposed by other officials, from First Selectman Herb Rosenthal and town Finance Director Ben Spragg, to every member of the current finance board who also attended numerous charter meetings to speak on the matter.

Accommodating arguments on both fronts, the charter commission rejected the idea of spinning the finance board back to the council, while endorsing the idea to rename the Board of Finance. Mr Cramer maintained that on one hand, he did not want another charter revision to pass incorporating two legally vested boards of finance.

On the other hand, Mr Cramer remained concerned that sometime in the future, either or both groups might seek to exploit the powers provided through state statutes to forward or manipulate a partisan or political agenda.

Mr Gaston pointed out that lacking specifics on exactly what the powers and duties of a finance advisory board are, he was concerned an abrupt dissolution of the Board of Finance would be premature. He also took issue with what he described as an agenda to remove the finance board by deceptively labeling the initiative as a simple name change.

“I think this is the most significant [charter] change the review panel has proposed,” Mr Gaston told The Bee this week. “If they want that, it should be clear — it’s not simply a name change but a creative way to turn the finance board into elected financial consultants.”

Mr Gaston also questioned whether the ramifications to such a name change would dissuade the best-qualified candidates for such a board to come forward to be elected.

“I’m comfortable that as a Board of Finance member I have governmental immunity from legal action. As a Finance Advisory Board member, I’m not sure,” Mr Gaston said, adding that in his reading of the state statutes on boards of finance, the charter revision would have to plainly label such an action a dissolution of that board.

“If they want the Board of Finance to be abolished by referendum, as stipulated in the general statutes, it should be done with transparency, candor, and clarity,” Mr Gaston said. “That dictates the charter question should be: ‘Do you want to abolish the Board of Finance?’”

After being presented with these and other points this week, the charter commission chairman said he was loathe to recommend a question that might dissolve the Board of Finance as it exists today.

“I’m not willing to back language asking the public to dissolve the Board of Finance,” Mr Cramer said.

Mr Cramer agreed that he would not to risk any interruption in the function of the finance board as it is today, and would not support a measure that could cause elected volunteers possible personal legal exposure in the future.

“If a statutory situation causes members to be placed in jeopardy of legal action [because they lack governmental immunity], I would ask the commission to reconsider that,” Mr Cramer said, adding that any move causing qualified finance board members to reconsider or possibly resign their service at this time would be a travesty.