A Council In Step With The Town

In a week that started with nearly all of Newtown marching together down Main Street, the Legislative Council finally fell into step with the community Wednesday night when it took the necessary action that would place the proposed changes to Newtown’s charter on the November ballot this year. A narrow majority on the council, most of whom are not seeking reelection this year, has led the opposition to the changes to the charter proposed by the now-disbanded Charter Revision Commission. But in the end, only three – Chairman Pierre Rochman, Vice Chairman Melissa Pilchard, and Ruby Johnson, each a lame duck – favored derailing a townwide vote on the issue this year, despite strong public support for the charter changes voiced at a public hearing in July and a successful petition drive to force a town charter vote over the objections of the council.

We offer our thanks and gratitude to the members of the council who heeded the call of the public for a vote on the charter proposals this November. We especially appreciate the decision by those members who are strongly opposed to some aspects of the proposed charter changes – John Kortze, Tim Holian, Doug Brennan, and Will Rodgers – to direct the council’s chairman to get the charter issue on the ballot. They advocated the defeat of some of the proposed charter revisions, but in the end they recognized and respected the will of the people in Newtown to vote on the charter in November. It is easy to put the town’s interests first when they coincide with your own. It is a higher order of duty that calls on an elected official to put the town’s interests first when they are at variance with your own. And this is what this small group of council members did. Because of their action this week, their voices are likely to carry extra weight in the coming public debate on charter issues in the next eight weeks.

The Legislative Council was within its legal rights to delay a vote on the charter questions for up to 15 months. That leeway gave opponents to the charter the opportunity to scuttle the proposed charter changes altogether. By scheduling a “special election” on the charter changes, the council could have easily defeated those charter provisions that offended them – particularly the creation of a Board of Finance. State law requires at least 15 percent of the town’s electorate to vote “yes” on charter changes in a special election, whereas a simple majority vote in a general election suffices. (We cannot recall a referendum in which 15 percent of the electorate approved anything.) It would have been the kind of raw political power play we have come to expect in big cities. It is a relief to know that Newtown is not yet that kind of place.