Council Says Charter Vote Will Be In Nov.

By Kaaren Valenta

Charter revision questions will be on the November 6 general election ballot.

Legislative Council members voted 9 to 3 Wednesday evening to place on the ballot five questions, which together encompass all changes proposed by the Charter Revision Commission, including those previously rejected by the council.

The council vote came at the end of a lengthy discussion and an impassioned appeal by members of the public during the public participation portion of the meeting. Of the dozen people who spoke, most, including First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, a Democrat, and Republican first selectman candidate Owen Carney, urged the council to vote to put charter revision on the November 6 ballot.

“I think it is crucial to put the questions to as many voters as possible,” Mr Carney said.

“I agree with Mr Carney and others,” Mr Rosenthal said. “I chose not to sign the petition because in four years as first selectman I haven’t signed any petition, but I believe that 1,900 people have spoken and should not be ignored. We always have the opportunity in the future to change the charter again if it doesn’t work out, but there is no valid reason not to have these questions on the ballot in November.”

“I am astounded at the situation,” said former Charter Revision Commission member Jane Sharpe. “We have been working toward November 6. It is incumbent upon you as representatives of the people to do this.”

Petitions signed by 1,900 registered voters were submitted by Bill Sheluck, chairman of the now-disbanded Charter Revision Commission, to Town Clerk Cindy Simon last week, but the council had to act by September 6 to get the questions on the November ballot.

Despite the yes vote by nine of the council members, many said they hadn’t changed their opposition to some of the proposed charter changes and would have preferred to have the vote take place in a special election.

“I’d prefer to see a stand alone referendum because a voter who comes out just for this vote probably would be better informed,” council member Will Rodgers said. “However there is the 15 percent [voter turnout] requirement and ironically that probably wouldn’t happen, so I don’t have a problem sending it to the November 6 ballot.”

Council Attorney David Chipman told the council that the question on the petition did not comply with the state statutes because it called for adoption of the Charter Revision Commission’s proposed revised charter. The petition should have called for a referendum only on the four proposed changes that the council rejected, he said.

“The petition is not in compliance with the statute to only put on the ballot those four rejected issues,” he said. “I recommend nevertheless that the petition intended to put on the ballot the four rejected issues and it is up to the council to decide whether to put them on the ballot in November or at another time.”

The first question on the ballot will ask whether the revisions proposed by the Charter Revision Commission and approved by the council should be adopted. These revisions, which were extensive, included the abolishment of the Board of Selectmen.

The four other questions will take up those proposed changes that the council rejected:

ŸCreation of a Board of Finance consisting of six members elected at large for two-year terms.

ŸRequiring a second referendum on the annual budget instead of a town meeting if the budget is rejected by the voters.

ŸGranting the first selectman authority to veto ordinances adopted by the council. The council could override the veto by a two-thirds vote of its entire membership.

ŸGiving the first selectman the authority to dismiss, with or without cause, any employee of the town or officer or member of any appointed board or commission, except as otherwise provided by statute. The dismissed person would have the right to appeal to the full Legislative Council.

Council Chairman Pierre Rochman, Vice Chairman Melissa Pilchard, and member Ruby Johnson voted against the motion to put the five questions on the November ballot, indicating they felt it would not be in the best interest of the town.

“The public should know that a majority of the council had problems with these four [rejected] proposals. They will not benefit the town,” Mrs Pilchard said.

“Our responsibility is to decide yes, this is a good idea, or no it isn’t – not just to get out of the way and let the people decide,” Mr Rochman said. “I think we are insulting the public, putting blinders on them. It will be a popularity contest. They will be poorly informed and it will be up to another Charter Revision Commission to clean it up.”

Peggy Baiad didn’t agree. “I don’t think we are just passing this along. We had a lot of discussion and made changes [in the charter],” she said.

“I don’t think you can force an electorate to be informed,” she added.

Under state law, the council must publish the proposed amended charter, but not the four rejected items, within 30 days after August 15. The four rejected items must be published within 30 days after August 28, the date that the town clerk certified the petition.

Mrs Pilchard asked whether an explanation will be provided at the polls so that voters know that approval of the first question will mean the elimination of the Board of Selectmen. Attorney Chipman said state statutes do permit the town clerk and the town attorney to write an unbiased explanation of the questions and these could be published, but they would not appear on the ballot.

“I don’t think an explanation should be included,” John Kortze said. “Our job is to do what we just did and leave it at that.”

Mr Chipman said the question of whether to authorize an explanation could be addressed at a subsequent council meeting.

The council approved an expenditure of up to  $5,000 for publication of the proposed revised charter. It also authorized up to $13,500 for Attorney Chipman’s fees. The money will come from contingency funds or by a transfer within the budget. Mr Chipman said he was owed $10,906 through the end of August and still had more work to do. The council had originally only approved $7,500 for attorney fees.

“I hope when I overspend the council will be as understanding,” Mr Rosenthal said.

“We knew up front that this would cost up to $15,000,” council member Doug Brennan said. “We just approved $7,500 as a start.”

Brian White asked why the town attorney, David Grogins, who is on a retainer, shouldn’t do the rest of the work.

“Mr Grogins was the attorney for the Charter Revision Commission,” Mr Rosenthal said. “He is on a retainer for the town but would charge extra for the [upcoming] charter revision work, except for assisting the town clerk.”

Ms Sharpe said the entire attorney and clerk fee for the commission in its year of work was only $6,000.