The Council And The Charter

To the Editor:

Because there has been a great deal of incorrect information of late concerning the Legislative Council’s actions with respect to the charter proposed by the recent Charter Review Commission, I write to give at least one council member’s perspective on the issue.

First, I take exception to the statement in The Bee’s August 24 Ink Drops that “the Legislative Council chose to view the heart of the charter changes, the Board of Finance, as a threat to its power rather than an opportunity for the town to grow and adapt.” I don’t know of a single council member who is worried about a threat to the Council’s power. The council is a group of volunteers and has little investment in protecting its “power,” real or imagined. Most of those opposing the Board of Finance are outgoing council members, moreover, so I think they in particular are not overly concerned about the council’s future power. Instead, it is my impression that those who voted against the Board of Finance, myself included, did so precisely because they did not view such a body to be best equipped to meet the town’s future needs. I am disappointed that The Bee and many citizens do not proceed from the base that council members vote their conscience on this and all issues.

I opposed the Board of Finance for two reasons.

First, I heard no argument in its favor that could not have been addressed by less radical means. For instance, as to the argument that the present finance committee of the council is too powerful, the concern could be addressed by reducing its size or granting the first selectman a veto power (the latter a change the council approved). In response to the voiced concern that finance committee members were not elected to that position directly by the voters, a plan was proposed to allow for just that by designating council members to run as finance designates. Finally, as to the raised concern that the present finance committee is not sufficiently concerned with planning and proactive measures, although I do not agree with that assertion, it could easily be addressed with mandating further responsibilities in that area for the finance committee.

Second, I am dubious about the benefit of adding another level of government. To me the approach seems a type of overkill – creating a new system rather than refining the existing one. I envision perennial institutional fights between finance boards and councils, each blaming the other for unpopular decisions and stances. I also believe that it is beneficial for the town that individuals making financial decisions do so in the larger context of ongoing town concerns rather than solely from an economic perspective. Last, as both main parties have considerable difficulty in finding enough candidates to fill the current roster of volunteer positions, I am hesitant to create even more positions and I do not share the belief expressed by some then Charter Review Commission members that it will somehow be easier to fill those positions than it is to fill other existing positions.

These are my views on the matter of the Board of Finance. They are not necessarily right, but they are honestly and sincerely held. The charter revision process is set forth by state statute, moreover, and that statute directs the council to weigh in on the proposed revisions rather than simply pass them to the voters. Specifically, the statute directed that the proposed charter be reviewed by the council and that the council recommend changes. The commission then had a period to reexamine the charter and revise it before presenting it to the council in final. The council then was tasked with approving or rejecting the charter in whole, or approving it in part. The council did so, approving much of the proposed charter, including roughly 50 percent of the major changes.

Next, as to putting the matter to referendum, let me anticipate the uproar that will result if the charter is not put to referendum this November. By statute the council is charged with drafting the question for the referendum and it relies on legal counsel to do so. My understanding is that the job is more complicated than it might ordinarily be fore two reasons: first, by the fact that the commission revised the entire charter in its format rather than making changes from the base document, it is unclear how to proceed if any integral portion of the proposed Charter is not approved and this bears upon how the question must be formulated and what is required to be published; second, by petitioning that its entire final draft be adopted, rather than petitioning just the exclusion of the board of finance, for instance, questions have to be drafted that fairly encompass all the changes. In addition, explanatory text must be prepared. Simply put, regardless of how the council may feel about the wisdom of placing the matter on November’s ballot, it may receive legal advice that such is not possible or preferred.

Because there is a requirement that any changes adopted be by 15 percent of the electorate, charter change forces would like the referendum to appear in conjunction with a general election so they will meet that voter threshold. This November will not be the only opportunity to do that. Again by statute, the council is charged with scheduling the referendum at regular or special election anywhere up to 15 months from the certificate of the petition. That allows time for the referendum to be held in conjunction with a budget vote or even the state elections next fall. It would be ill-advised to rush this to ballot if the quality of the presentation is going to suffer.

Lastly, a response to comments I have heard frequently, to wit, that the council must pass the proposed charter on to the people for vote unchanged, or that because of the undeniably vast effort the commission put into the document, it should be approved. First, if the council were to simply pass the proposed charter on to the voters it would be ignoring its duty under statute to take action on it before doing so; more fundamentally, we are a representative democracy, not a direct one, and the representatives therefore have an obligation to take personal stances on issues. If that were not so, then government could best be run by boxes atop every television, measuring votes on each and every government issue. Second, while the effort of the commission is laudable, everyone must be able to summon up a personal instance where mere effort wasn’t enough. Just as the council should not be invested in its own power, so should the commission not be invested in pride of authorship. Each side should be (and I believe is) concerned with what is best for the town. All involved should recognize that reasonable minds can differ on that and elevate their discourse accordingly.

Will Rodgers

208 Hattertown Road, Newtown        August 29, 2001