Starts Work June 22—

Charter Panel Appointed

By John Voket

After some spirited discussion on three of the nine volunteers “short-listed” as possible candidates for the Newtown’s next Charter Revision Committee, a majority of Legislative Council members agreed that the panel would be comprised of just six candidates.

The vote brought an anticlimactic finale to a process that was initiated well over a year ago when the first of two attempts to initiate the state-mandated charter review process began.

That first attempt faltered when too few eligible residents tendered their applications to serve. With some subtle adjustments to the process, however, a renewed and somewhat more aggressive initiative this year yielded 17 interested individuals in the latest recruiting effort.

Those volunteers were interviewed by a selection subcommittee earlier this year, and the number was whittled down to nine primary candidates and several alternates who would be considered if any of the primary qualifiers dropped out before the panel was finally seated. But following last Monday’s special meeting of the Legislative Council, Town Clerk Cynthia Simon announced that the final six who were recommended all agreed to serve.

Those individuals are Alvah Cramer, LeReine Frampton, Joseph Hemingway, Guy Howard, Joan Plouffe, and Carolyn Signorelli. The new commissioners are scheduled to be sworn in next Thursday, June 22, at 7 pm, at the Booth Library meeting room.

Then at 7:15 pm that same evening, the first official meeting of the group will be held with Ms Simon serving as the acting chair until the panel endorses a chairman, vice chair, and secretary. The agenda for that special meeting also includes setting official meeting dates for the commission, and a general discussion of subjects relating to the Charter Revision Commission and its work.

The members will receive the official charge that was endorsed by the council last month. While the commissioners are not legally bound to consider any of the elements of the charge before rendering their final recommendations for revisions to the community’s constitution, they are expected to at least utilize the extensive charge as a guide to areas of the document that may face adjustment or deletion.

Regular meetings will be called by the chairman, and all motions and actions will be held on the record with a majority of a quorum prevailing. The panel will be required to review the final document with council, and will be afforded opportunities to do so in progress when needed.

The council’s chairman reserves the right to call for interim reports as the charter panel moves forward, and will expect the final revision proposals in time for review and placement on the November 2006 election ballot or no later than the 2007 budget referendum ballot.

Since the final number of commissioners was determined to be just six, one more than the state mandated minimum number for such bodies, all votes will either pass by super majority, or will result in a tie, which constitutes a failure. And since Council Chairman Will Rodgers will be absent for at least eight months due to military service in Iraq, it will be council vice chairman Timothy Holian who will call for the interim reports.

In a previous interview with The Bee, Mr Rodgers indicated that about 25 percent of the charge was related to relatively innocuous “housekeeping” points, and that the majority of the charge dealt with what he called “substantive issues” related to the community’s means of government and its processes.

Some of the items detailed in the council’s charge include: determining the future of a public building committee; whether the town will continue with its current budget referendum process; reviewing the number of voters required to petition referenda; determining the future size and political makeup of the Board of Education; considering elimination of the town meeting form of government; and determining if the addition of language to the charter permitting management of town surpluses is advisable.

Much of the discussion early on last Monday at the council’s special meeting revolved around whether a vote to seat an entire body, or individually endorse each candidate would be held. Councilman Joseph Borst, who also chaired the charter selection subcommittee, made a motion to endorse the nine-member slate individually.

During discussion on the motion, Mr Borst reviewed the party affiliations and it was noted that one candidate, Po Murray, had changed from unaffiliated to a registered Democrat since she interviewed for the panel. He also reviewed for the council the length of time each of the nine finalists lived in town.

When questioned by Mr Rodgers as to whether the question of length of residency was part of the original interview process, Mr Borst said it was. Councilman David Brown, however, who also served on the selection committee, contended that the issue was not part of that process, countering that it the question was not asked but volunteered by some candidates during the interview process.

Mr Brown subsequently amended the motion to vote on the entire panel, and not individuals.

He continued, saying he could not support a motion to endorse the full slate of nine because it had come to his attention that two of the finalists, Ms Murray and Gary Davis, were among a group of residents that established a local special interest group called WeCAN (We Care About Newtown).

As recently as the last budget referendum, members of WeCAN were engaged in a phone campaign, in part, endorsing the budget be passed. Both Mr Davis and Ms Murray were fixtures during the budget deliberation process, and participated speaking at numerous meetings and hearings in recent months advocating primarily for education initiatives including, but not limited to, building a new high school.

Mr Davis and Ms Murray’s names were the only ones that appeared as contacts representing the organization when it was officially announced earlier this year.

Several other council members shared Mr Brown’s sentiments about not supporting a panel that included leaders of such a special interest group. Additional discussion focused on another finalist, Audry Greenwood.

Mr Holian noted that Ms Greenwood had only lived in town for eight months, and that she had only participated in a single budget process and had not voted in the last municipal election.

“I believe…you might want to wait awhile before you serve on a charter review committee,” Mr Holian said. “I just think eight months — you’d still have to get a little bit wet with the process.”

In discussion of the motion, Mr Rodgers offered a comment he said was made by council member Patricia Llodra, who was unavailable to attend the meeting. Mr Rodgers mentioned that after the list of nine subcommittee finalists was made public, Ms Llodra had been taken aback when she was approached by an educational official “congratulating her for ‘packing’ the charter review commission, which led her to conclude there was a perception problem here.”

The council chairman said Ms Llodra told him she would not be in favor of endorsing the nine-member panel as recommended. A vote to support a nine-member panel was heard and failed seven to four.

Mr Brown then moved to endorse a slate of six, removing Mr Davis, Ms Murray, and Ms Greenwood. He pointed out by going to an even numbered panel, it would force all votes of support in revision issues to a super majority, which would send a strong statement to the full council once a final report was tendered.

Mr Brown also reminded his fellow council members that the Charter Commission was free to enlist the support or consultation on any other volunteers including anyone volunteering for the panel originally.

After further discussion on other matters related to the charge and related issues, the vote to seat the six-member Commission was held and passed seven to four with Mr Borst, Keith Jacobs, Michael Iassogna, and Stacie Doyle casting dissenting votes.