Charter Panel May Conclude Work In November

By John Voket

Judge William Lavery, chairman of the Charter Revision Commission, told The Bee this week that he does not see any reason why deliberations among his commissioners would extend beyond the end of November. And to that end, Commissioner Eric Paradis requested tentatively scheduling a public hearing ahead of making final recommendations to the Legislative Council.

If all goes as planned, that hearing could occur December 6, and a commission recommendation could be on track for delivery to the council for consideration and possible action by year’s end.

At the charter commission’s latest meeting October 18, Judge Lavery also said that he supported an idea to add language for consideration that would affirm the Board of Finance’s role in advising the council about possible budget revisions in the event a budget referendum was to fail. Currently, once the finance board makes its budget recommendations, there is no statutory provision locally requiring that board to be involved, even if multiple budget failures occur.

While current Legislative Council Chairman Jeff Capeci did hold a joint meeting with the finance board last spring following the proposed budget’s first failure, he did so voluntarily, albeit with the full council’s blessing.

At the commission’s meeting, Judge Lavery said since “95 percent of the work that is done on the budget is done by the Board of Finance,” he supported the idea of creating a charter stipulation requiring that group’s involvement when and if local budgets fail at referendum.

“I’ve been doing this budget thing for a lot of years for the [Booth] library board. And nobody is more knowledgeable than this Board of Finance. I have a great deal of respect for them,” he said. “The Board of Finance seems to retain its members, and they have an incredible depth of knowledge about the finances in this town. They know every 35th decimal point of what’s going on.”

His suggestion was to amend the charter to require a nonbinding recommendation from the finance board in the event of a budget failure.

“I think it’s important,” Judge Lavery said, adding that the finance board not only has a handle on the operating expenses, but it also factors in the future implications of debt service as far as 20 years in the future, and already try to control debt related expenditures through a ten percent cap on borrowing.

“What does the town have to lose by having these knowledgeable people make a recommendation after a rejected budget?” he asked.

In regard to the charge of deciding on budget questions, Judge Lavery indicated he liked the “third version” of the proposal, which was to consider a budget ballot requiring each voter to (a) approve the budget, or (b) reject the budget because it is too high, or (c) reject the budget because it is too low.

That provision would provide for one choice only, and would render any other advisory questions unnecessary. That proposal seemed to win consensus among most of the commissioners.

In relation to the first charge, about bifurcating or splitting the budget between the town and school sides, Robert Duero was the sole commissioner who said he “respectfully disagrees” with an apparent consensus to reject that proposal.

“When I hear divisiveness, I think ok, there’s an issue there,” he said, adding that the issue causing the divisiveness needs to be talked about and “beaten to death by everybody who is going to be divided.”

Mr Duero said his concern was an inordinate focus on getting the budget passed on its first try, versus talking about and resolving issues causing the perceived split among taxpayers.

“I don’t want to use the word ‘hide,’ but we’re trying to shove some issue under the table so we don’t resolve it,” he said. “The focus should be finding out what the issues are.”

During discussion, Mr Duero suggested that maybe the entire budget process should be started earlier, so that the necessary amount of time could be devoted to fully airing public concerns.

Mr Paradis said that he does not want to “tie the hands of a legislative body,” but he also did not want to “dishonor” what the voters were requesting. Mr Paradis also suggested that the complexities inherent in the town carrying all the debt service for projects including educational projects, could create substantial challenges in clarifying certain aspects of a split budget.

The commission agreed to continue discussion on the charge, as well as the idea about integrating the finance board’s nonbinding advice in the event of budget failures at three future meetings on November 5 at 6:30 pm; on November 20 at 9 am; and on November 22 at 6:30 pm.

Contacted after the meeting, finance board Chairman Kortze acknowledged that his board does the majority of the work in recommending initial budget proposals to the council, and that absent of a council chairman’s invitation, it would be appropriate for the finance board to weigh in with recommendations or suggested revisions upon any budget vote failure.

“In that situation, the finance board should at least have a voice,” Mr Kortze said.

If the charter panel were to wrap up deliberations by the end of November and schedule its required public hearing in early December, as proposed, it would fulfill the request of the council to supply a draft recommendation for discussion and possible action by December 15.

Council Chairman Capeci said if the issue can be deliberated and endorsed by his panel, a separate public referendum could be scheduled in March on the charter revision. If the public endorses any or all of the eventual recommendations, that would likely leave enough time to incorporate changes to the April 2011 budget referendum.