One of the many decisions facing Newtown voters on Election Day, November 8, are two revisions to the Town Charter — one of which will eliminate the Board of Finance. Voters will be asked to accept or reject each of the two revisions that will actually appear as questions #2 and #3 on local ballots.

(Question #1 is a statewide Constitutional proposal on early voting, which will be covered in a separate feature in the October 28 edition of The Newtown Bee.)

To provide local voters more information on the proposed revisions, The Bee produced a webcast featuring input from Charter Revision Commission Chairman Andrew Buzzi and Legislative Council Chairman Jeff Capeci.

Moderated by Editor John Voket, the 32-minute informational video available for voters to view on The Newtown Bee’s YouTube channel and Facebook site provided the officials an opportunity to discuss the proposed revisions and their thoughts on the measures.

To watch the webcast in full on YouTube, visit youtu.be/EKg_JEU4XdY — or, go to youtube.com/user/TheNewtownBee and click on “Bee Charter Revision Informational Webcast.”

“There’s more than just candidate names awaiting voters on this November’s local ballot,” Voket said. “And since one of the two questions for voters to consider involves the elimination of the Board of Finance, we believe it’s important for residents who will be considering those revisions to get as much perspective as possible.”

Voket said hearing directly from the leading officials representing the two panels that were most involved in developing and deliberating the proposals is an ideal way to help inform voters and residents. The two questions facing voters are first, if they would like to eliminate the Board of Finance, and second, to consider a number of “organizational, non-substantive, and substantive changes made to the document.”

Voket began the session by explaining how the current Board of Finance came to be. He briefly detailed how 22 years ago, Charter revision referendum questions were structured in a way that voters ended up approving the creation of a Board of Finance but rejecting giving it policy making power.

By only approving one related Charter question, the Newtown BOF became a hybrid panel that was vested to be just an advisory board.

Addressing a concern early in the Charter revision process about Buzzi assigning two-member groups that met in closed sessions to gather data and research issues related to the commission’s charges, Voket asked Buzzi about why they were not subject to open meeting laws.

Buzzi explained that the CRC had “a lot of work to do” and wanted small workgroups to do “background research” around three areas — the Board of Finance, the Board of Education, and the “many and various smaller items.” None of the workgroups had a quorum and Buzzi was in contact with Freedom of Information Commission Public Education Officer Thomas Hennick who said the workgroups were legal.

“All the work was done in public; everything the commission did, the debate we had and the language we actually used, reviewed, modified and approved,” said Buzzi.

Voket also gave Capeci a chance to address criticisms directed towards the council concerning elimination of the BOF, that it was a “political maneuver or power grab by the council with a Republican majority.”

Capeci noted that the CRC was actually seated and charged with its responsibilities by a previous Legislative Council, which was under Democrat control and chaired by Democrat Paul Lundquist.

“It’s the first CRC that’s spanned multiple councils that I remember,” said Capeci. “It’s not a power grab. Nothing they reviewed was not recommended by the previous council and came to us as recommended by the CRC.”

Buzzi further explained that his commission was bipartisan, made up of three Democrats, three Republicans, and one independent, and most of its decisions were unanimous.

“Everyone worked together,” said Buzzi. “Not that we didn’t have debate and disagreements — there was intense debate.”

Second Question Review

Voket then reviewed the second referendum question first, to expand a bit on explainer text that will be included with the ballot questions.

The second referendum question reads: “Shall the remaining Charter Amendments adopted by the Legislative Council on July 20, 2022 be approved?”

The approved explanatory text states that, “Approval of Question #2 accepts the rest of the proposed changes in their entirety, comprised of organizational, non-substantive, and substantive changes made to the document including but not limited to:

“a) Section 1-25(a)(7). This provision redefines the term “Town Department” as the term applies to the Board of Education by exempting the Board of Education from certain duties and functions of Town Bodies which would violate other provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes applicable to the Board of Education.

“b) Section 2-01(c). The Connecticut General Statutes shall prevail over the provisions of Section 2-01(c), which allows Town Bodies to make their own rules of conduct.”

Buzzi explained that these first two items were because the Charter does not override state statutes that govern Boards of Education.

“It’s a town department, except where state statute says differently,” said Buzzi. “Statutes trump the Charter.”

“c) Section 2-05(d) eliminates the Building Appeals Board from the Charter, as does Section 2-15(d)” and “h) Section 2-210 eliminates the Building Appeals Board.”

According to Voket, the Building Appeals Board has “not been seated or active in recent memory.”

Buzzi said that if someone needs to do a building appeal, there are mechanisms with the state that can handle that.

“The building appeals board is redundant and not needed,” said Buzzi.

“d) Section 2-25(a) excuses members of a Town Body from voting on the minutes of a previous meeting at which they were not in attendance.”

This one was passed over in the webcast as self-explanatory.

“e) Section 2-31(c)(1-5) describes the procedure for filling vacancies on the Board of Education.”

The change to filling vacancies for the Board of Education was made to be consistent with how it is handled for the Legislative Council.

“We look at them as equal boards, they should have equal rules,” said Buzzi.

“f) Section 2-135(a) states Town Clerk shall also be the Registrar of Vital Statistics.”

According to Connecticut statute, a registrar of vital statistics is “the registrar of births, marriages, deaths and fetal deaths or any public official charged with the care of returns relating to vital statistics,” functions already covered by the town clerk.

“g) Section 2-160(a) states Board of Police Commissioners shall also act as the Civilian Police Review Board.”

The Police Accountability board requires towns to have Civilian Police review boards, and this is a response to cover that need.

“We have a fantastic police commission,” said Buzzi.

“i) Section 3-15(e) describes the election process for the Board of Education.”

These are rules for filling seats that are vacated mid-term, said Capeci. Buzzi added that again, the BOE rules were changed to match the council rules.

“We also increased the time to fill vacancies,” said Buzzi. “It used to be 30 days and we expanded it to 45 days for all boards.”

“j) Section 6-20 delineates the duties of the Legislative Council relative to the Budget.”

This item becomes necessary if the question to eliminate the BOF passes; it moves the responsibilities of the Board of Finance to the council, said Buzzi.

“k) Section 6-20(f)(2) defines the process subsequent to a failed annual budget referendum.”

“This clarifies that our current practice is to go back to referendum,” said Capeci.

“l) Section 6-35(b) & (d) revises the requests for emergency appropriations.”

According to Voket, emergency appropriations have only been seen a handful of times, “mostly in response to catastrophic events.” Buzzi said that emergency powers would be with the first selectman.

“m) Section 6-35(g) modifies the procedure for emergency and special appropriations.”

Buzzi said that this modification makes it easier for the Board of Education to make special appropriations “without a gatekeeper.”

BOF Elimination Discussion

The conversation then moved to the first referendum question, which reads: “Shall the Charter be amended to provide the Sections 2-125, Sections (a) and (b) ‘Board of Finance’ be deleted from the Charter and all powers thereof to be vested with the Legislative Council.”

Approved explanatory text additionally states that, “Approval of Question #1 will eliminate the Board of Finance from the Charter as an advisory body. All powers of the Board of Finance would thereafter be vested in the Legislative Council. Any reference to the Board of Finance will also be eliminated [from the Charter].”

Given its importance, that one measure was created separately from the raft of other revisions that Town Attorney David Grogins described to the council as “administrative items, with few substantive changes.”

Buzzi said that over the years, the BOF has had many members who have done “fine jobs,” and that the process of looking at the BOF is “not a reflection on anything the BOF has done.”

“This is about efficiency, accountability, and how we want our town to run,” said Buzzi.

In Connecticut, all towns get their power through state statute, and state statute says towns must have a single fiscal authority, said Buzzi.

Buzzi told Voket that the CRC started by looking at what other towns do to handle financial matters, as well as asking everyone they could in town what they think of the BOF and what they want it to do. He also noted that members of the previous BOF approached the CRC and told them that they would prefer to do policy making and be removed from the budget and appropriations processes, in which they are one of three boards which need to approve the budget and which need to approve things like special appropriations and accepting grants.

The CRC looked at a lot of iterations of what a BOF could look like, including as an appointed, not elected board, or as a full fiscal authority. What settled the current direction, said Buzzi, was a letter from former council chairman Paul Lundquist noting that the council can by ordinance appoint a commission on its own to fill advisory roles.

“That was a great idea,” said Buzzi. “Let the council appoint a commission to do the policy work which the BOF said they want to do anyway.”

The new commission could be made up of the same members currently serving, and would eliminate the town having two fiscal authorities.

Capeci said the council’s ordinance committee has met once regarding how to structure things in the aftermath of a potential elimination of the BOF. They may meet again before Election Day, but they were targeting early spring before an ordinance may be brought before the full council and an eventual public hearing.

“That work is started now and ongoing,” said Capeci.

If the charter question fails, the BOF would stay with the same powers it has currently.

“The BOF can’t change itself, it must be done through Charter,” said Buzzi.

Buzzi said that this would be a better way for people to participate.

“We want meaningful participation,” said Buzzi. “With a single fiscal authority, if someone is upset, they are upset at the council.”

Also, without the Board of Finance, instead of department heads asking for appropriations before three committees, they will only have to go before two, the council and Board of Selectmen.

“This is about efficiency and accountability,” said Buzzi. “This makes it easier for the people of Newtown to hold commissions accountable.”

Buzzi said the CRC was a bi-partisan effort where all participants were concerned with making a “better and more efficient government in Newtown.”

Capeci noted that if people have questions concerning the revisions, they should feel free to email him or anyone on the council by email. Council members may be e-mailed through the town website and clicking on their name, at newtown-ct.gov/legislative-council. Buzzi can be reached at 2021newtowncrcchair@gmail.com.

Associate Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.