One of the final issues up for deliberation among local charter revision commissioners before wrapping up their yearlong overhaul of Newtown’s constitutional document involves the complicated task of determining voter intent as directed by budget questions, and whether a failed referendum, either in full or in part, should trigger Legislative Council actions currently not permitted by charter.

Discussion and a decision on those matters will occur Tuesday, June 16, in a meeting set for 7:30 pm in either the lower courtroom or meeting room at Edmond Town Hall, according to Charter Revision Commission Chairman Jeff Capeci.

While deliberation on the budget questions and how the council should handle failed budget votes was originally planned for Wednesday, June 10, Mr Capeci said two of the commissioners on a subcommittee that researched budget issues were absent, so Mr Capeci decided to postpone the discussion until next week.

He and the commission are also eager to hear from members of the public, about whether they feel the council should be empowered to appropriate more money than either the school district or town leaders requested, or the Board of Finance recommended — if advisory questions indicate the measure failed because the proposed budget was too low.

The issue is open for interpretation since the last charter commission recommended, and voters endorsed, splitting or bifurcating the town budget between the school district’s request and the municipal operations request, which also includes all debt service costs for town and school capital projects.

That revision also added budget questions to help direct the council in the event either or both parts of the budget failed, which ask the voter if the request they were voting on was “too low.”

Mr Capeci said the current charter only permits the council to add money back into a failed budget in excess of the finance board’s final recommendation by supermajority vote, and that the council is not permitted to add money back in excess of the original request by the school district or Board of Selectmen.

“Before the advisory questions and the split vote, the council always followed those same rules — adding money back by supermajority, and not above the [originating] agency’s requested amount,” Mr Capeci said. “Now it’s unclear if those rules apply after a failed referendum, or if voters request a desire to put more money back than either the board of finance or the agency requested.”

He said without some clarity or directive in the charter, there can be confusion over whether the outcome of the original split vote should stand if a subsequent budget proposal is modified.

Mr Capeci said once the commission reaches consensus on that issue June 16, he is planning to wrap up the revision process, hold a final meeting to review any last editing points, and to get the revised charter recommendations to the town attorney. As long as the town attorney approves the draft recommendation, Mr Capeci said he will set a public hearing either Tuesday, June 30, or Wednesday, July 1.

Once the public hearing for the charter commission is concluded, the commission’s major work will essentially be done, and Mr Capeci will go through the process of presenting proposed revisions to the council. Then the council has an opportunity to discuss, amend, accept, or reject commission recommendations.

Upon a council vote either dismissing in total, or endorsing a final revision proposal, all recommendations would be scheduled for referendum vote on the November 3 Election Day ballot.

Mr Capeci said it is not yet clear whether the revisions will be presented as a single, all-encompassing referendum question, or whether certain aspects of the proposed revision will be broken out for separate consideration, leaving all the foundational work involving “housekeeping,” language modifications and streamlining of charter chapters as a standalone question.