Town Officials Struggle To Interpret Town Vote On Charter

By Steve Bigham

The debate over charter revision was mainly black and white in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election. Supporters of the proposed changes urged residents to vote “yes” on all five questions. Critics, on the other hand, were calling for a complete rejection.

This week, town officials find themselves navigating gray areas as only two of the five questions were approved.

Newtown voters Tuesday approved several major changes to the town government, including the creation of a Board of Finance. Some proposed charter changes detailing the Legislative Council financial powers and prerogatives were rejected by voters, creating challenges for those who must now interpret the public will.

Others, however, argue that the budgetary process under which the Board of Finance will operate was approved and that’s the bottom line, they say.

“I think the people of Newtown voted with their wallets. I think they voted for the Board of Finance because they wanted to see more effective management of the town’s financial affairs,” noted Charter Revision Commission Chairman Bill Sheluck.

Still, the fact that the Charter Revision Commission’s changes were only partially approved creates a “fiasco,” according to First Selectman Herb Rosenthal, who had recently advocated their rejection.

“We now have created a Board of Finance and also kept all the other powers in the government with the Legislative, Board of Selectmen, and so forth. I’m sorry the Board of Finance was created without any real clear sign of what its powers are now. It was very unfortunate the way it turned out.”

Earlier this week, town officials were still trying to distill what the charter vote results all mean. The answers will have to come quickly. The changes go into effect in 30 days.

Mr Sheluck this week called the results a major victory for the improvement of the town’s budgetary process.

“A Board of Finance has been created to manage the town’s financial affairs. The budget process has been adjusted to include the Board of Finance and a second referendum before going to a town meeting. Many of the council’s powers have been removed and given to the Board finance,” he said.

Mr Sheluck said it still remains up in the air as to whether the first selectman will have veto power since that proposal was mentioned in both Questions 1 and 2. Question 1 was rejected Tuesday, while Question 2 was approved.

Also approved was a new rule that requires a second budget referendum when the initial budget is rejected in a townwide vote. Other changes that would have abolished the Board of Selectmen and accorded the first selectman wider latitude to dismiss town employees were rejected.

“We were very pleased,” Mr Sheluck said. “We felt that all the work we had done was not done in vain. I want to congratulate the voters for making informed decisions. I think our campaign to educate the voters was an important factor.”

Mr Rosenthal had endorsed a plan that would recommission the Charter Revision Commission to raise the questions again in the 2002 election. An oversight put the charter questions on the ballot this year without an effective date. The Charter Revision Commission had intended for the charter changes to go into effect in 2003, at the next local elections. Without the effective date, however, state law would have forced the changes to take place next month, which many candidates agreed was simply too soon.

Local voters apparently took another view at the polls on Tuesday, implementing the most controversial change by creating a finance board.

Mr Rosenthal must now appoint a six-member Board of Finance by December 1. He blamed the Legislative Council for breaking up the questions into five parts, but placed most of the blame on the Charter Revision Commission itself.

“I think it was very unfortunate that the they chose to campaign so hard to get it passed because it would have been much cleaner if they had gone along with getting it defeated,” he said. “I think ego got into it. Ego was involved all the way through on both sides. We’ll make the best of it, but this was one of the worst possibilities if one of the questions passes without the other.”

Mr Sheluck disagreed.

“I think it’s unfortunate that the first selectman would label the people’s desire to improve the financial management of the town affairs as a fiasco. What I would hope the first selectmen would have said is that the people have spoken and the Board of Selectmen would do everything in its power to ensure that their wishes are incorporated into the town’s charter as efficiently and effectively as possible.”