Selectman’s Concern About FFH Ordinance Addressed By Town Attorney

By John Voket

The Board of Selectmen learned September 6 that some questions posed by Selectman William Furrier regarding a recently enacted council amendment to the Fairfield Hills Ordinance were not specific enough to produce meaningful responses. However, several other questions the selectman submitted about a month earlier were addressed.

At an August 1 selectmen’s meeting, Mr Furrier, who has since declared his candidacy for first selectman, submitted a sheet containing eight questions or concerns about the recently enacted ordinance amendment. That action was intended to further protect the town from so-called “negative leases,” or leases where the lessee actually receives payment or other benefits back from the town for things like property improvements or related work that may benefit the community at large.

(The document is available for review at Newtownbee.com in “Source Files” under Board of Selectmen.)

“I came up with some considerable questions,” Mr Furrier said previously. “It’’s a complicated issue. The Fairfield Hills Authority ordinance is not a regular ordinance in that it was achieved through obtaining a special act through the state General Assembly, which had an expiration date associated with it.”

Regarding Mr Furrier’s first two questions, which address assumed or potential conflicts between ordinances and the town charter, or between ordinances, the charter and state law, Town Attorney David Grogins said there was not enough specific information provided for him to meaningfully respond.

In response to question three, Mr Grogins simply confirmed that there was a time limit set by the state legislature for the town to develop a Fairfield Hills ordinance after lawmakers voted to enable Newtown to establish its non-policymaking authority overseeing the town-owned campus, which was formerly a state hospital.

Mr Grogins also confirmed that all of the powers granted to the town to create that ordinance, except where otherwise noted, remain in effect until or unless that special legislative act is repealed. The town attorney also confirmed that the Legislative Council possessed the power to amend that ordinance, and doing so did not present any conflict with the town charter.

“Whether you like the provision or don’t like the provision, my analysis is since the Legislative Council in adopting the ordinance could have had a provision like that initially, there is no reason why it can’t amend an ordinance to provide for it,” Mr Grogins said.

The town attorney disagreed with a statement that was part of Mr Furrier’s sixth question, that suggested the enacting of an amendment to the Fairfield Hills Ordinance triggered all provisions in the charter be applicable to Fairfield Hills and its management.

“Since the Legislative Council has the authority to amend any ordinance, the amendment in question is legal and valid,” Mr Grogins wrote in his response, adding that he did not agree with Mr Furrier’s suggestion that Connecticut’s “home rule” precedents require a different conclusion.

At that point in the meeting, council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob, who serves on the Ordinance Committee, clarified that if anything, the amendment helped bring the Fairfield Hills ordinance more in line with requirements of the charter.

“I don’t know whether that was intended or not,” Mr Grogins replied. “It doesn’t have the effect of nullifying all that had come before.”

Mr Furrier then said his questions were attempting to get at whether the deadline to create the ordinance, which expired on December 31, 2005, prevented any subsequent amendments from being made by “cherry picking provisions from the charter.”

First Selectman Pat Llodra then referred to Mr Grogins response to question eight, which states the authority to “make, alter or repeal” ordinances is vested in the Legislative Council by Section 7-50 of the charter.

Selectman Will Rodgers sought to further clarify, saying there was a cost to the town that was “inbred” into a particular lease in question at Fairfield Hills.

“We don’t want to bypass normal public processes as far as normal costs go. But we’re not tinkering this time with the more fundamental structure...not necessarily because there was no endorsement of that formal structure at the time, but because it was not on the table,” Mr Rodgers said.

Ms Jacob responded that throughout the 2009 local election cycle, many critics, including the leadership of the Independent Party of Newtown (IPN), which includes Mr Furrier, believed there was a flaw in the ordinance that allowed the Fairfield Hills Authority to incur debt for the town.

“And that needed to change,” she added.

During the August meeting, Mr Furrier said that while he would listen to and consider the town attorney’s opinions in response to his questions, he reserved the right not to accept those opinions as the final ruling. Following the September meeting, Mr Furrier said, “I have not decided if I will seek further legal opinions at this time.

“Actually, no further legal opinions would be necessary if town government would treat Fairfield Hills like any other town property, subject to the rules of the town charter,” Mr Furrier continued. “What I would really like to see is for the town charter to be applied to land conveyances at Fairfield Hills as it is for all other town property conveyances in Newtown. We could do that if the Board of Selectmen chose to support such a change. Currently, I am the only member of the board who does.”