Charter Commission Bringing Current

Process To A Close

By John Voket

The Charter Revision Commission is wrapping up its current, abbreviated duties, setting its final public hearing for December 8 at 6 pm; laying some ground rules for that hearing — limiting speakers to an initial three minutes; and returning to the letter of its charge, dropping a proposal to require a finance board role in the event of a budget failure.

During its November 22 session, CRC Chairman William Lavery and the commissioners spent several minutes reviewing the legal language of previously approved recommendations which had been reviewed and refined by Town Attorney David Grogins.

Commissioner Eric Paradis was first to broach the subject of the proposed Section 14b, clarifying that the panel did agree the measure fell under the purview of its narrow charge. That stipulation, if accepted by the Legislative Council, and eventually approved by the voters, would have created a requirement for the council to engage and receive advice from the finance board within 48 hours following any local failed budget referendum.

Then, Commissioner Carey Schierloh pointed out that adding a 48-hour constraint could jeopardize the council’s ability to turn around an alternate budget proposal and publish legal notification for a new referendum as required by law.

“We’re really pushing the Legislative Council,” Ms Schierloh said. “I don’t know that we’ve necessarily researched this enough.”

Judge Lavery responded that in the event of a budget failure the council could call a joint meeting with the finance board as soon as the following day. He reiterated his opinion that inclusion of the finance board in the process was critical because of the depth of that group’s collective knowledge of budget details.

“The answers are not simple in these budgets,” Judge Lavery said.

Not Enough Research?

Ms Schierloh said that as proposed, the finance board would have up to 48 hours to weigh in with any advice to the council before the council could even begin its work, effectively shortening the timeframe for that body to discuss and pass a new budget proposal to just five days.

Mr Grogins explained how such a new provision would technically fit into the charter language, if approved. He pointed out that the commission could keep the 48-hour provision as part of the seven days currently required for the council to complete its revised budget proposal, or the commission could add 48 hours in addition to the seven days the council is allowed.

After determining any revised language could be circulated and reviewed in time to notice the December public hearing, the motion to adopt 14-b with the 48-hour inclusion and refined language as presented failed on a 4-3 vote.

Commissioner John Godin said that he originally voted to confine his duties to the letter of the charge, which was to recommend whether the town should bifurcate, or split, its budget between the school and municipal proposals, and to determine the language of budget advisory questions if deemed appropriate.

“And I’m staying with that,” Mr Godin stated.

Commissioner Joseph Golden noted that the provision to recommend 14-b had already passed the commission. But Judge Lavery offered an opportunity to move the original provision, not just the language change, and Commissioner Robert Duero motioned to remove the issue completely.

“We should stay within the original charge, and I believe that is outside the original charge,” Mr Duero said, adding that the council could, at its discretion, invite advice from the finance board at any point after that board completes its recommendation.

Ms Schierloh also reiterated that the time crunch on the council was a main concern, and ventured that such discussions should be left with a future charter commission.

Mr Paradis concurred that the charter panel did not do enough research on the time implications of adding the new provision, and acknowledged the finance board could be brought back into the process by request if the council required advice.

Completely Relevant

Commissioner Peter Spanedda said the 14-b provision was completely relevant to the budget process, and Mr Golden said while the current dynamics between the finance board and council are positive, the panel should weigh its decision considering the possibility those amiable relations might not always exist.

Calling the vote, the count of four against defeated the measure.

“It’s stricken,” Judge Lavery said, turning to the town attorney and saying, “Your work is shortened.”

The panel then briefly discussed scripting a letter to the council pointing out the other points of concern or interest that developed during the commissioners’ discussions, and from concerns expressed by various officials and members of the public during the current revision process.

Among those points were the failed 14-b provision; creating consistency in the process for all appointed officials; considering whether some current town officials should be elected, appointed, or hired as staff; and a proposal to formalize the Sewer Commission within the charter.

First Selectman Pat Llodra, who was on hand, also suggested a future panel consider enacting language preventing the finance board and/or council from voting against labor contracts negotiated in good faith and approved by the Board of Selectmen. Judge Lavery agreed he would also include that idea in his closing letter to the council.

Mrs Llodra then complimented and thanked the commissioners for their work and diligence during the brief charter revision process.