Cramer Seeks A Clarification—

Commissioner’s E-Mail Rips Charter Chairman For Misrepresentations

By John Voket

A local Charter Revision Commissioner who is running for a Legislative Council seat on the Independent Party of Newtown (IPN) committee ticket declined to discuss aspects of a highly critical e-mail he sent to the commission’s chairman when the issue was raised at a meeting of the charter panel Tuesday night.

Guy Howard, a registered Republican who is among petitioning IPN candidates, dispatched the e-mail, which was obtained by The Newtown Bee as a public record under the provisions of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act. Full text of the lengthy document appears on The Bee’s website, www.newtownbee.com.

In a special meeting Tuesday, Charter Revision Commission Chairman Al Cramer explained to the full board that he provided the e-mail to the newspaper, and asked Mr Howard to clarify points on a number of assertions in the e-mail.

“Guy sent me a letter which was critical of me, critical of the first selectman, critical of the town attorney, critical of the finance director, critical of the Board of Finance chairman, critical of the chairwoman of the Board of Education, and critical of the chairman of the council, also two additional commissioners on this panel,” Mr Cramer said.

Calling the assertions “a rather significant issue,” Mr Cramer said he wanted to get more information or clarification on the concerns expressed in the e-mail, which was sent on September 5.

The charter chairman referred to Mr Howard’s assertion that Mr Cramer supplied summary materials presented to the Legislative Council that were not representative of the discussions that took place among the charter commissioners.

“What materials should have been presented?” Mr Cramer asked.

“The e-mail I sent — I support every word, and I would send it again,” Mr Howard told the chairman. “It was a response to issues that came up in the meeting. I left these kind of alone, but as materials got presented to the council, and I realized how they were being misdirected and mishandled… because you were the one taking on the role as the single communicator to the council, in responding to questions and responding to the nature of discussion, in my judgment, they were not accurate.

“I don’t think any of them were accurate. And so I gave some examples there in the note, and I think it is self-explanatory,” Mr Howard answered.

Mr Cramer asked which materials were misrepresented. “I don’t understand,” Mr Cramer said.

Mr Howard said summary descriptions provided to the Legislative Council by the chair were presented differently than what he understood represented final resolutions of proposals resulting from discussions among the charter panel as a whole, prior to the final draft of proposals being first presented to the council.

That draft was subsequently withdrawn by Mr Cramer to provide the charter commission’s attorney the opportunity to review recommendations, and vet them for legal and statutory discrepancies.

“I might have been out that day that we discussed the final language and [now] we’re done,” Mr Howard said. “I think you brought up on several occasions that we are going to be having dialogue with the Legislative Council on these topics because they were not absolutely clear on what their understanding was, what they are requesting…”

Mr Cramer asked to move on to another question about the e-mail, at which time Mr Howard asked whether or not the charter commission should vote to conduct the line of questioning.

“Is this pertinent to the other folks…is this an inquisition? What exactly are you looking for Al?” Mr Howard asked. “I was under the assumption that you were going to provide more material in the summary than the one-line phrase on each of those [proposed charter changes].

“I was surprised that there were no other materials, notes, that was it. But hey, you were leading the parade, and running very fast, and at that point I ran out of gas,” he continued. “On your responses to questions by the council, you mischaracterized on a couple of key points the recommendations that were made by the commission.”

Mr Howard cited the proposal to change the Board of Finance to a locally controlled advisory board (see related story), and referenced how Mr Cramer had dealt with the proposal as more of a housekeeping issue.

“You mentioned to the council and the public that it was not your intention to change the board from policymaking to advisory,” Mr Howard said.

At that time, commissioner Carolyn Signorelli reminded Mr Howard that the particular proposal was passed by the commission as proposed.

As Mr Cramer sought to clarify some other points in the e-mail, Mr Howard asked the chairman to write his questions down, copy them to the commission, and then he would entertain providing further answers.

“If this was a conversation I would be glad to have it, but it’s obviously not going to be one,” Mr Howard said, making note of the public forum in which Mr Cramer was seeking his answers. “In this format I’m not going to respond to what you are asking for.”

Ms Signorelli then moved the meeting to public participation saying she did not think it was an appropriate format to continue. Mr Cramer then moved to adjourn, as there were no members of the public in attendance.