Financial Issues Discussed—

Panel Pauses Before Starting Charter Rewrite

By John Voket

It appears Newtown’s Charter Revision Commissioners are nearing the end of the preliminary fact-finding phase of their work. This week, Chairman Al Cramer announced intentions for the panel to begin the rewriting process — but not for another month.

The reason for the delay is two-fold. The charter group will not meet October 31, due to the annual Halloween activities on Main Street, nor will they meet on Election Day, November 7.

At the next scheduled meeting November 14, some final discussions will occur on a few “housekeeping” elements of the charge, and the charter commissioners will host Newtown selectmen William Brimmer, Jr, and Joseph Bojnowski. The selectmen will presumably address the commission on its recent discussions about either expanding or eliminating the Board of Selectmen.

Intermittently since the Charter Commission began meeting in the summer, there have been discussions on whether to retain the three-member Board of Selectmen, which has a range of specific governmental powers and functions in accordance with the current charter. In September, the panel reached a consensus — without taking a formal vote — to retain the mayor/council form of government that is in place now.

Commissioners at that meeting agreed to try and retain the leadership title of first selectman, although by state definition, a top elected leader would technically be empowered with virtually all the same duties and responsibilities as a mayor. The charter panel also agreed that night to eliminate the three-member Board of Selectmen, thereby streamlining the government process somewhat by eliminating two selectmen meetings each month in favor of having the first selectman receive public input and report on official business during biweekly Legislative Council meetings.

Suggesting that the combination of a board of selectmen/town meeting form of government was somewhat archaic for a community the size of Newtown, Charter Revision Commission Chairman Cramer quickly polled the remaining commissioners and determined there was no support for endorsing a town manager executive to lead the community.

At this week’s meeting, discussion on fundamental changes in Newtown’s government configuration continued, with Commissioner Carolyn Signorelli revisiting one of the options suggested by State Representative Julia Wasserman when she appeared before the panel October 10. At that meeting, Rep Wasserman tendered an option that would delete the Legislative Council and keep the Board of Finance.

She said under that scenario, the charter would have to shift ordinance powers to the Board of Selectmen, and give the finance board policymaking capacity instead of only advisory status as it has today. This week, Ms Signorelli said the charter panel might want to consider the idea of eliminating the Legislative Council.

In that configuration, she said the charter might “make the Board of Finance our legislative body and make the Board of Selectmen bigger.” Noting the difficulty political parties in town sometimes have finding and endorsing appropriate candidates for top leadership consideration, she said the selectmen/finance configuration might be a way to “get the best people into the best positions.”

Commissioner LeReine Frampton countered that, in her opinion, making the finance board the town’s official legislative branch would fundamentally shift the value they currently bring to the community.

“By making the Board of Finance the legislative body, we would turn it into a political group,” she said. Currently, by charter directive, the finance board is a review and advisory body with no policymaking authority.

Ms Frampton previously said that the finance board/council configuration works well because, by definition, the finance panel can function without being affected by the emotional sway of special interests advocating for particular projects. But once the finance board recommendations are made to the full council, its members can take into account the emotions and advocacy of particular constituents before pronouncing final judgment on whether or endorse certain projects for debt service.

In further discussion about the legislative and finance configuration, Mr Cramer pointed out that the council appears to delegate some portion of its statutory power to the finance board. He also stated that the Board of Finance may at some future point seek to exercise all of the rights and powers it is entitled to by statute, effectively and legally bypassing charter directives.

“The Board of Finance is really important, but I don’t want them drawing more power from the statutes than they deserve,” the chairman said. He then suggested the charter could become the sole legal directive over financial directives simply by renaming the Board of Finance.

“We can change the [name of the] Board of Finance to the Financial Committee so the charter can direct it, versus creating conflict with the general statutes related to a Board of Finance,” Mr Cramer suggested. Ms Signorelli then suggested changing the Board of Finance to a Finance Authority.

During this week’s meeting, the charter panel revisited a charge to examine whether the Board of Education should have more or fewer members. Vice Chairman Joseph Hemingway said he favors increasing the number of school board members.

“They cover so many items, and the meetings go on so long. I think they would be better off with more members — as many as 12, but it could be nine,” he said.

Ms Frampton said she would consider supporting an increase in the school board to nine members.

Commissioner Guy Howard said he agreed that the Board of Education always seems to have a lot of work to do.

“But I was thinking about comments Elaine made when she was here,” he said referring to school board Chairman Elaine McClure. “Would there be a benefit with having more or less members?”

Ms Signorelli reminded the charter panel that according to Ms McClure, the school board typically seeks to act by consensus, and that adding members would not necessarily change the amount of work each member would have to do. Mr Howard then suggested a benefit of increasing or decreasing the school board by a single member.

“I’m a fan of odd numbers,” he said, suggesting that the addition or subtraction of one member might help the board expedite certain decisions.

“I know they’ve been having trouble moving business through,” he said. Commissioner Joan Plouffe agreed, saying she was thinking the same thing.

Mr Cramer said the discussion certainly inspired consideration to increase the number of school board members by one. He said in his position with a statewide school association of active and retired principals, he understood the odd number school board was the norm rather than the exception.

“If you added one to the school board, that will get into the second charge [from the council],” Mr Cramer said. “In Connecticut, there are many more school boards with odd numbers…it’s important for voting.”