Next Up For The Council: Charter Revision

By Steve Bigham

It has been a busy year so far for the Legislative Council, having already helped push through more than $120 million worth of town expenditures. It has not been easy and the work is far from over.

Next on the council’s agenda is the much talked-about charter revision. The Charter Revision Commission has proposed some significant changes to the town charter. The town charter prescribes the town’s form of government.

The council will begin preliminary discussions on the proposed revisions at its meeting next week (June 20).

“On the 20th, we’ll discuss the timeline and how we want to address the issues,” explained council chairman Pierre Rochman. “My timeline would start with a public hearing on July 11, with July 18 and 25 reserved for council discussion.”

A final vote will eventually be taken and, if approved by the council, the changes will be up for a townwide vote at the municipal elections November 6. The council may not go along with all the proposed changes, in which case the Charter Revision Commission does have the option to conduct a petition drive in order to get the proposed changes on the ballot.

Two weeks ago, the council was given the Charter Revision Commission’s entire proposal for review. Over the next month or so, members will discuss the various recommendations before taking a final vote.

The Charter Revision Commission has been in the headlines weekly since first being formed back in October. Members made it clear early on that they wanted to restore a balance of power within the town government. First, the board elected to create a stronger first selectman by giving the position veto power. It also chose to eliminate the Board of Selectmen. There was talk of extending the first selectman’s term of office from two to four years. However, town officials and residents opposed the move.

The commission has also recommended the creation of a board of finance, which would work with the first selectman and council, tracking the town’s finances 12 months a year.

The creation of the Charter Revision Commission itself made news last fall as the Legislative Council argued over who should and who should not serve on the board and what its charge would be. The council was then criticized, by its own chairman, for giving a hodgepodge of suggested changes to the commission.

“I don’t think the Legislative Council has helped out at all. They’ve thrown the kitchen sink and the toilet bowl at you,” he told the commission last October.

To date, the council has never officially discussed the charter amendments, although individual members have met with the charter board. The reviews thus far have been mixed. Some council members, like Don Studley and Joe Borst, have praised the 11-member board for its thorough review and progressive thinking. Others, particularly Melissa Pilchard, are completely opposed to the proposed changes. At a public hearing two weeks ago, Mrs Pilchard said she disagrees with “virtually every sentence” in the proposal, particularly the section that gives the first selectman more power.

“You are creating a character who will have no checks and balances,” she said.

Mrs Pilchard, a 30-year member of the council, said she knows best what works in Newtown and indicated others may not have the experience level that she has. She fears passage of the recommended charter changes will hurt the town.

At the May 30 public hearing, residents urged the Charter Revision Commission to push forward with its proposed changes. The board was praised for its creativity and effort in proposing a new government that provides a better system of checks and balances, more accountability, and a stronger chief executive.

One resident suggested that the proposed changes appear to have “hit a raw nerve with the council,” which would be significantly affected by the changes.

This week, Selectman Bill Brimmer indicated that he opposes the elimination of the Board of Selectmen, although he acknowledges that he is in the minority and “maybe too close to the issue.” He is quick to admit he had a proprietary interest in the work he does as selectmen. The same can be said for the council, which is directly impacted by some of the most substantive changes being proposed. The council’s conflict of interest, however, goes largely ignored as it is given full veto power.

The council has 45 days (from the time it receives the charter revisions) to review the proposals and to conduct a public hearing. The council will then provide comments to the charter panel, which will return to the drawing board one last time before giving the recommendations to the council for a final vote.