Child Protection Ordinance, Authority Amendment Adopted

By John Voket

Following a brief public hearing where only one local official spoke, the Legislative Council approved a new town ordinance implementing criteria and practices designed to better protect local children from sexual predators and others who may seek to do them harm.

During the 7 pm hearing, Police Commissioner Bruce Walczak appeared to remind the council it was he who first suggested the child protection ordinance in his capacity on that elected board. Mr Walczak, who is also chairman of the Independent Party of Newtown, thanked the council for bringing the new policy to fruition through the Ordinance Committee, and requested the ordinance be adopted as proposed by the committee.

The ordinance was later approved unanimously by the full council.

(A full text of the adopted ordinances from the July 6 council meeting is available for review at Newtownbee.com)

During the hearing Mr Walczak also called for the council to delay consideration on an amendment to the Fairfield Hills Authority’s enabling ordinance, suggesting the wording of the proposed change be modified to specifically identify circumstances where the town may negotiate so-called negative leases, without a direct transaction of cash payback to a lessee.

He cited several circumstances where amendments modified lease terms to affect payback reductions for the Newtown Youth Academy in lieu of providing additional court time for the town’s Parks and Recreation Department, the engineering and installation of a parking lot, and the demolition of a building on the town-owned campus.

Mr Walczak also noted that enacting the amendment would not end or prevent the practice of negotiating negative leases, but would change the process by which a potential negative lease arrangement might be accomplished.

Following an earlier report in The Bee, Council Chairman Jeff Capeci noted that the Board of Selectmen always has the ability to bring negative lease proposals forward. But he said the amendment would specifically direct any proposal related to land or buildings at Fairfield Hills be vetted through a multistage review by the Boards of Selectmen and Finance, the council, and then face approval at a public town meeting, or possibly in a referendum if payback to the lessee was enough to trigger such an action by charter.

During the break between the hearing and the council meeting, Mr Walczak conferred with fellow IPN member and Councilman Kevin Fitzgerald, who during the subsequent meeting continued urging his colleagues to consider retracting the proposed amendment to add specific circumstances to the language that would trigger the multistage review and public vote.

Mr Fitzgerald argued that based on Mr Walczak’s new information, the council should provide greater specificity than just applying the phrase “expenditures by the town” to trigger an extended review similar to what is now used for emergency or special appropriations.

But most of the other council members in attendance, as well as First Selectman Pat Llodra, countered that the more general language provided broader opportunity for interpreting the word “expenditures,” and that the protracted process of reviewing any such proposals would clearly define any type of compensation back to a lessee, whether it was a direct cash rebate or some other considerations in exchange for in-kind services or labor from the town or any of its departments.

Mr Capeci said, “Expenditure is a pretty broad word,” and assured Mr Fitzgerald that the Ordinance Committee crafted the amendment with confidence the language would cover all scenarios involving town compensation back to a potential lessee.

Councilman Richard Woycik said any such situation would come to light during the review process, and colleague Kathryn Fetchick agreed that the broad definition of “expenditures” would serve the town better than trying to assert specific circumstances into the ordinance modification.

Councilman Ben Spragg, who first suggested the modification, said the circumstances outlined during the hearing were all crafted to save the town money in the long run, but “there were many who thought [the negative lease arrangements with the NYA] should have involved more people.”

“Closing this loophole is pushing us in the right direction,” Mr Spragg said.

Mrs Llodra said the council must be careful about the extent it regulates the ability for the town to negotiate lease arrangements, and assured the council that “anything that involves funds, time, or anything is regarded as an expenditure.”

“To predetermine and restrict discussion would not be in the town’s best interest,” Mrs Llodra said.

In calling the vote, Mr Capeci added that the information brought before the council was not new, and that the points Mr Walczak brought during the hearing were all brought up during Ordinance Committee discussion leading up to the pending action.

The council then voted 8-1 to pass the ordinance amendment, with Mr Fitzgerald opposing. Council representatives Jan Andras, Gary Davis, and James Belden were absent.