Charter Commission Conducts Final Hearing, Files Recommendations

By John Voket

Newtown’s Charter Revision Commission’s duties ended somewhat unceremoniously as Chairman William Lavery dropped a several-inch-thick blue file folder onto the desk of Town Clerk Debbie Aurelia Wednesday afternoon, which included the committee’s final recommendations to the Legislative Council.

“There, we’re done,” Judge Lavery said with a smile. “And we were told to have it by December 15, so we have met the deadline.”

The action of the Charter Revision Commission’s (CRA) chairman was the final statutorily required step in an accelerated process that saw the panel interview officials, hear ideas from interested citizens, and entertain a short but potent charge that would, pending council and voter approval, change the way Newtown votes on its budgets.

One week earlier, on December 8, the commission sat poised to finalize recommendations on fundamental changes to Newtown’s constitutional document. The group’s narrow charge reflected only two issues, which have been cited in recent years as cause for contention among voters who wanted to see a ballot providing more information to the council, particularly in the event of a budget failure.

The CRC charge honored promises made by elected officials, including Council Chairman Jeff Capeci, to address concerns of residents calling for the town to split its budget vote, and to provide certain questions as a better means of assessing voter preferences in the event of a budget failure at referendum.

And the charter commission’s final document reflects a recommendation against bifurcating or splitting the budget between the town and school sides, while modifying budget ballots requesting each voter: (a) approve the budget, or (b) reject the budget because it is too high, or (c) reject the budget because it is too low.

The full panel’s final act was to hold a public hearing December 8, which saw only a single resident and two public officials in attendance.

Resident Robin Fitzgerald, joined by her husband and Legislative Councilman Kevin, and First Selectman Pat Llodra turned out to comment on the two primary issues in the commission’s charge.

Ms Fitzgerald first expressed her disappointment that the CRC scheduled its final hearing at 6 pm, during a period of time she said Newtown families are typically at their busiest between mealtime, school, and other demands.

“That’s why nobody is here,” she said. “It’s really hard if you’re a parent who is an education supporter, or a town supporter to get to a meeting at 6 o’clock, which is kind of the witching hour at home.”

She said if the CRC really wanted public input, the panel should have scheduled a later meeting.

On the matter of advisory questions on the budget referendum ballot, Ms Fitzgerald said she “applauded” the charter commission for drafting and recommending them. But she countered that the questions proposed for budget ballots do not go far enough.

“They limit public intent,” she said, because “they only tell you [town-side budget supporters] don’t want to pay more taxes, which none of us really want to pay.

“Somebody who is an education supporter cannot tell you ‘I want you to scrutinize the town budget and take money out to put into education.’ They can only tell you to put more money in the budget,” she said. “It’s not beneficial for the public because, again, the public will be conflicted when they [vote], and they will not be able to say exactly what they think.”

Reopen Considerations?

Ms Fitzgerald said she hopes if the current revisions prove to be frustrating to budget voters, a future charter commission will reopen considerations to expand the scope of budget questions further — including bifurcating the budget into separate votes on school and town spending.

“I really think you missed the mark on that,” she said, adding that many other Connecticut towns split their budgets. And in those communities, “It has brought the town together because people can vote for exactly what they want.”

In the event of a split budget, Commissioner Eric Paradis asked Ms Fitzgerald, along with Councilman Fitzgerald, how the council might proceed if taxpayers endorsed a town-side spending proposal but turned down the school budget request.

The commission looked at what other towns were doing, and they either go back to the side that passes to cut — dishonoring all the affirmative votes — with the only other alternative of cutting services or raising taxes.

Mr Fitzgerald said that his stance is reflected in a letter distributed to the charter panel by himself and fellow council members James Belden and Gary Davis, supporting bifurcation, expanding the number of voter questions on the ballot, and additionally rejecting a motion by Judge Lavery to mandate Board of Finance consultation with the council in the event of a budget vote failure.

He also cited 174 letters sent to the council last budget season; among them, about 30 contained references to splitting future budget votes.

“We’d all like to think that folks can afford, even in a difficult economy, to provide the best of everything from a town side and a school side. We know that’s not the case, and unfortunately what you’re considering doesn’t help the education supporter who can’t afford more, but who wants to make sure funds for education are appropriated, whether that means a change in town services,” he said.

Mr Fitzgerald also stated that those who support more spending for things like police services, or better town road maintenance, who might telegraph their wish to see funds shifted from the school proposal, could not do so under the currently drafted budget questions the commission is recommending.

After some additional discussion among CRC members and the councilman, Mr Fitzgerald said, “I do believe that bifurcation is what the public is asking for.”

Mrs Llodra pointed to the efforts being made in her administration to foster more collaboration between the town and school district, to minimize extraneous costs so that more funds might be directed to departments and programs that maximized public and student benefits.

And she said given the progress she has already seen and achieved to that end, “I’m not sure at this point how to unpack that.”

The first selectman also stated that bifurcation in strained economic times “exacerbates animosities” between segments of the community competing for diminishing resources.

“We need to communicate our needs as partners, not adversaries,” she said.

After closing the hearing, Judge Lavery affirmed that he would draft and circulate a letter to the council discussing all the other charter-related issues that have come to light as his panel entertained its narrow charge.