Proposal To Change Authority Ordinance

Going Back To Drawing Board

By John Voket

A request from freshman council member Po Murray regarding her suggested revisions to the Fairfield Hills Authority’s enabling ordinance was initially rejected by the full Legislative Council August 6. After about 15 minutes of discussion, it was determined that Ms Murray’s suggestions might be better received by the full council if she provided some ideas about why she was proposing the changes.

Ms Murray then asked that further discussions be tabled until she is able to refine her proposal, adding her specific justifications for her ideas. She agreed to e-mail the revised proposal to her fellow council members for review prior to the matter coming up again on the full council’s agenda.

In order for the ordinance subcommittee to reopen a review process pending possible revisions, the ordinance has to be sent back by a majority vote of the full council. Then, if revisions are passed by the subcommittee, the revision would then have to pass the full council to conclude the process.

While the introduction to Ms Murray’s proposal states that she is requesting a subcommittee review of the enabling ordinance, her reasoning appeared to be viewed by several other council members, including Vice Chairman Francis Pennarola, as too general. Mr Pennarola, who also chairs the ordinance subcommittee, directed Ms Murray to “give the committee something to react to.”

Ms Murray’s initial submission asks to evaluate the existing ordinance to determine “if the current guidelines…are responsive to the citizens of Newtown; adequately address the current and future needs of Newtown; and is consistent with the Town Charter guidelines for lease agreements and capital project approval process.”

The initial proposal asks the subcommittee to determine if voters should approve and adopt an updated master plan. This despite several legal opinions and clarifications over the years that have repeatedly indicated the master plan is an instrument of regulation that is exclusively part of the Planning and Zoning Department’s oversight of the campus, and is not subject to change by voters.

According to Selectman Herb Rosenthal, there is no legal instrument in Connecticut State Statutes that permits voters to legally change or approve such a master plan, or any revisions to it.

Ms Murray’s proposal also asks the ordinance committee to recommend whether or not authority members should be elected versus being appointed as they are now. And also asks whether or not the authority or any other management entity should continue to operate in its current capacity once the campus is “fully designated for use.”

The proposal goes on to ask that the subcommittee clarify whether or not lease agreements at Fairfield Hills should be subject to the approval process outlined in the Charter Section 7-90; whether or not the Board of Selectmen or other town entity should be charged with employing staff; and determine if expenditures beyond the 2001 bond appropriation “should follow the fundraising guidelines in the Town Charter Section 6-70.”

Ms Murray also requests the ordinance committee to determine if monthly financial reports to the Board of Finance, the council finance subcommittee, the finance director and/or the full council is necessary for adequate oversight.

During discussion on the matter, council member Patricia Llodra said she struggled with Ms Murray’s proposal because there was “no recommendation of ideas to replace these concepts.”

Ms Murray said she did not believe it was her responsibility to assert why she though these substantive changes to the enabling ordinance were merited.

“I thought it would be more appropriate for the [subcommittee] to do that,” she told the council.