Calls Election Day Deadline ‘Meaningless’ –

Chairman Says Council May Not Meet Its Charter Deadline

By Steve Bigham

Legislative Council Chairman Pierre Rochman this week said the proposed changes to the town charter may never reach the November 6 ballot… and not necessarily because the council will vote them down.

Mr Rochman said his board simply might not be able to meet its deadlines in time. And that would not be such a bad thing for some on the council who say they oppose the proposed changes to town government that were recently presented to the council for review. They would prefer the whole thing get shelved, or better yet, removed altogether.

“November 6 is a meaningless date. I’m not concerned with whether we meet it. It’s very possible it may not get on the ballot,” Mr Rochman said Tuesday. “We did originally set November 6 as a target date, but because the proposed changes are so complicated, that may not be possible.”

According to state statutes, the council’s failure to meet the deadline opens the door for the Charter Revision Commission to petition the questions onto the ballot. However, as Mr Rochman pointed out this week, the charter panel “ceases to exist” once it presents its final report later this summer. That would force the 11 members to run a petition drive as individuals, if they choose to do so.

“Any petition would have to be done by a member, not the commission. Obviously, they could do it as private citizens, but not as an official act,” Mr Rochman said. He has also stated that there is no formal intent on the part of the council to “intentionally delay” the process.

Mr Rochman said he has made every effort to keep an open mind on the proposed changes, which include a stronger first selectman, creation of a Board of Finance, and, some say, a weakened Legislative Council. He admits that he and others are taken aback by the Charter Revision Commission’s disregard for the council.

“We created the commission and then it goes and minimizes the Legislative Council down to something that rubber stamps things. I mean, what would you expect the council’s reaction to be? We’re saying, ‘Wait a minute, we’ve created you and now you’re trying to eliminate us.’ It’s a natural reaction,” Mr Rochman said.

This week, Charter Revision Commission member Bill Sheluck said it was his understanding that town officials were here to do “the peoples’ work.”

“If the commission’s recommendations affect the current role of the Legislative Council, Mr Rochman’s response should be whether or not those changes will improve town government and not how they affect the council itself,” he said. “Should the council reject the recommendations and there is a successful petition for referendum, any attempt by the council to prevent the voters from voting on these decisions would be shameful. It is one thing for our elected officials to act on our behalf in a representative form of government. However, it is another thing for these same officials to prevent the voters from exercising their right to vote on these questions at a regularly scheduled election.”

Last week, council member Melissa Pilchard asserted that the Charter Revision Commission was created illegally last fall. The allegation, had it been accurate, would have thrown nine months of thorough study of the town charter out the window. The claim was eventually refuted after Town Attorney David Grogins ruled that the council did in fact take a legal vote to create the Charter Revision Commission last September.

Council member Ruby Johnson suggested that the charter revisionists failed to complete their job properly. She claimed that the board’s report, presented to the council June 1, was incomplete because it did not follow the exact charge of the council. Mrs Johnson said the report should have included the board’s reasoning for its suggested changes, “not just ‘we believe’ or ‘we think.’”

Mr Sheluck this week suggested the council stop wasting time on technicalities and nit-picking and begin serious discussion of the issues.

“We believe that the current schedule that is in place will be sufficient to meet a November 6 voting date. Statutes define the amount of time that the council has to deliberate over suggestions by the commission. Regardless of the nature or substance of the changes being recommended, there is a specific number of days that the council has to discuss our recommendation. Once that process has been completed, there should be no reason why the changes should not be placed on the ballot either by the council or by a petition for referendum,” he said.

The council has never taken a formal vote or even held discussions on the proposed charter changes. And while some members vehemently oppose the recommendations, others have commended the board for its work.

The council will conduct a July 11 public hearing on the proposed charter changes.

This week, the council also voted to retain former Newtown resident David Chipman to serve as its attorney. The council agreed that using Attorney Grogins might be a conflict since he has already worked with the Charter Revision Commission.