Council Will Try Again To Name A Charter Panel

By Steve Bigham

Next week’s Legislative Council meeting is expected to be an unusual one as members may be forced into publicly discussing the qualifications of individual candidates for the Charter Revision Commission.

Council Chairman Pierre Rochman this week admitted it may put some people in a position “where their feelings might be hurt.” He said it is unfortunate that the law requires the council to discuss people’s qualifications in public.

“It’s difficult and unfair that someone may be qualified, but may be less qualified than someone else, so that person may appear in a negative light. But we’re bound by the state statutes and the Freedom of Information [FOI] Act,” he said.

Earlier this month, a council subcommittee presented a list of nine volunteers that it had recommended for placement on the Charter Revision Commission. As far as subcommittee chairman Joe Borst was concerned, the nine names were the final cut, and he even invited Town Clerk Cindy Simon to swear in the eight men and one woman. However, council member Melissa Pilchard balked at the recommendation, saying she wanted more information on why those nine were selected, and, just as importantly, why the other 11 candidates were not.

Mrs Pilchard made it clear that she opposed two of the recommendations. A heated discussion among council members ensued. Some argued that the council should accept the subcommittee’s recommendation and simply approve or disapprove it. But Mrs Pilchard and others insisted that more information be provided. Council member Ruby Johnson raised questions about the process. Why should such a small group of people – council members Joe Borst, Peggy Baiad, Pierre Rochman, and Dan Rosenthal – be able to pick and choose who gets to deliberate the town charter? she asked.

“The council really doesn’t have a choice,” she said. “Did the 20 candidates come with an open mind or did they already have their minds made up?”

Council Chairman Pierre Rochman ruled that the issue be tabled until further information on each of the candidates could be obtained.

Since then, the 20 candidates have been requested to submit resumes, which were mailed out to council members late this week, although only 18 names remain. Two of the candidates have dropped out of the process. The next step, according to Mr Rochman, is to debate each candidate’s merits and then vote on each individual in public.

But Mr Borst this week said he would stand by his original motion for the approval of the nine original members: Republicans Owen Carney, Kevin O’Neil, Jane Sharpe, and Harry Waterbury; Democrats Michael Floros, Joe Hemingway, Ed Kelleher, and Jack Rosenthal. Al Cramer was recommended to serve as an unaffiliated representative.

That motion is expected to be challenged once again, opening the door for a public debate and vote on the field of candidates.

This week, Mr Rochman reminded his fellow council members that they do not have to accept the recommendation of Mr Borst’s subcommittee.

“I feel it is wrong to think that the council should accept the recommendation of any subcommittee without having all the information,” the chairman said. “Otherwise, we would have government by a subcommittee rather than by the council.”

At the September 6 meeting, Mrs Pilchard scolded Mr Borst for picking the nine people and then calling all 20 candidates to inform them of the vote. “Subcommittees make no binding decisions. The full council must vote first,” she said.

Member Will Rodgers pointed out that the council usually accepts a recommendation from a committee, entrusting that committee to do the homework and to make the prudent choices.

Mrs Pilchard also wondered if the code of ethics had been followed, pointing to a clause that states the officials should “avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.” She went on to accuse the subcommittee of concealing the names of those who had been selected. In addition, she pointed out that few of the nine people recommended had any experiences serving on town boards or commissions.

After the meeting, some of those who had been recommended to serve expressed their disillusionment with the process. Mr Hemingway speculated that Mrs Pilchard was opposing the recommendation of himself and Jack Rosenthal.