Tensions Erupt At Charter Meeting

By John Voket

For the second time in recent weeks, Charter Revision Commission Chairman Al Cramer was forced to shout objections to fellow commissioner Guy Howard after Mr Howard ignored the rules of order that were adopted on the day the charter panel was seated. Eventually raising his voice to a shout and slamming his hand on the table, Mr Cramer called on Charter Commission Vice Chairman Joseph Hemingway to direct Mr Howard from engaging audience members during the public participation segment of the weekly meeting.

The outburst was witnessed by more than a dozen audience members, including the entire Board of Finance, State Representative Julia Wasserman, and several former town officials, all who turned out to comment on issues the Charter Commission has been discussing about the future possible structure of town government. The incident marked the third time since the charter panel was seated that Mr Howard was reminded to defer to the chair in the event he wanted to clarify, question, or address issues or points of discussion.

Mr Howard apparently began initiating his interaction with one of the members of the Board of Finance, who attended the meeting to rebut the charter commissioner on points he had made the previous week (see related story). On October 3, Mr Howard commented about issues directly and indirectly related to the finance board, and its role in the town’s budget and capital improvement process.

This week, he began engaging one of the finance board members stating that he had emailed someone with questions so he could clarify his thoughts and position on the finance board, but he received no response. After the meeting, Mr Howard told The Bee that he became frustrated because it appeared Mr Cramer was attempting to censor him.

“The rules [of order] we apply change from time to time as others participate,” Mr Howard said, referring to fellow commissioners Hemingway and LeReine Frampton. “Joe was [interacting] tonight, and there was no admonishment. Maybe I’m just oversensitive to people trying to control the dialogue.”

This week’s meeting was well attended. During the first of two public comment sections, former Charter Commission chair and state representative Mae Schmidle told the panel she was concerned about discussions of changing the town’s form of government from a board of selectmen to a single mayor/selectman situation.

“Having a strong mayor/selectman provides a slippery slope,” Ms Schmidle said. “It could bring big city problems to our small town.”

Ms Schmidle countered that the charter panel might consider increasing the Board of Selectmen to five members, so a minority party member would never be shut out in attempting to introduce a motion that might be opposed by the majority party, which is currently a two-to-one configuration.

Robert Morolla commented on several panel members’ insistence that eliminating the Board of Finance, or rolling it into a special subcommittee of the Legislative Council, would streamline the budget process and make it more accommodating to taxpayers.

“If we put forth an appropriate budget in the first place it wouldn’t have to streamline it,” Mr Morolla said, referring to a significant budget reduction he had made during the 2006 budget hearing earlier this year. “The finance board is critical,” he added.

Rep Wasserman brought handouts outlining the statutory guidelines for local legislative and executive structure, and briefly commented on the prospect of Newtown restructuring. She suggested several options to consider, saying that combining the council with a special finance subcommittee would be “…adding an unnecessary layer” to local government.

“Leave the Legislative Council in place with a Board of Selectmen and no finance board, but find ways to be sure the council does what it’s supposed to do in terms of finances,” Rep Wasserman said. “Another option would be to delete the Legislative Council and keep the Board of Finance.”

She added that in the second scenario, the charter would have to shift ordinance powers to the Board of Selectmen, and give the finance board policy-making capacity instead of only advisory status as it has today.

Former selectman Michael Snyder agreed with Rep Wasserman, saying he would support eliminating the Legislative Council, and increasing the power of the finance board.

“The Board of Finance works 12 months a year keeping an eye on our money and our spending,” Mr Snyder said.

School board member Andrew Buzzi, Jr, attended the charter meeting to reassert his support for rolling the Board of Finance back into the Legislative Council as a special subcommittee, and increasing the council’s ranks to 18 members.

“Please don’t confuse layers of government with accountability,” Mr Buzzi said. “Less government with fewer layers is most accountable to the people who elect them.”

After the first public portion of the meeting closed, Charter Commissioner Carolyn Signorelli complimented the participants for their suggestions and took issue with the idea of eliminating the finance board.

“So far, only one person has said the Board of Finance should be done away with,” Ms Signorelli said. “I’m disturbed [at the suggestion] we need to streamline government by eliminating the Board of Finance. Maybe we should broaden our focus and streamline by [simplifying the budget] hearing process.”

Mr Cramer said he supported keeping the six-member finance board and 12-member council intact, but combining the public hearing on the budget before both boards on the same night.

Mr Hemingway agreed, saying the charter could streamline the process by holding a single budget hearing.

“It’s an easy step and still allows for checks and balances,” Mr Hemingway said.

Ms Frampton, who also serves as a town Registrar of Voters said she hears from people all the time at the polls, who say they see the finance board as enhancing the local government’s accountability.

The Board of Finance is doing a great job looking at things objectively with no politics involved,” Ms Frampton said.

Charter Commissioner Joan Plouffe restated her support of rolling the finance board duties back into the full council.

“I think I am very comfortable with Andy’s proposal,” Ms Plouffe said referring to Mr Buzzi. “It would significantly streamline a process where people could participate comfortably.”

Later in the meeting, Ms Plouffe suggested the Capital Improvement Plan process should also begin with the Legislative Council.

“[Determining] the CIP should be a Legislative Council function which is then brought to the finance board for review,” Ms Plouffe said. “We need to be looking long-term at the needs of the town, and that is not being done.”

Mr Cramer said that order of CIP initiation and review might not work.

“If the council postpones or rejects [a CIP proposal] there’s nowhere to go. But if the finance board rejects or postpones something, there is still somewhere to go,” Mr Cramer said. “The finance director should be the one [initiating] the CIP, and the finance board should be crunching numbers with the approval of the Legislative Council.”