Over Split Budget Vote—

Charter Hearing Addresses Questions, Concerns

By John Voket

Near the end of Wednesday’s Charter Revision Commission hearing and meeting, Commissioner Alan Song uttered a familiar phrase that could become the watchwords of the current, abbreviated review process.

Responding to Chairman John Godin’s query about what each of the commissioners learned during the evening’s comments from residents and current and former town officials about the panel’s narrow charge, Mr Song replied, “I signed up for the commission because I envisioned my role being of  help to you folks on the Legislative Council.

“And just one night of listening to just a handful of people, I have to be extra careful that I don’t make things even worse,” Mr Song continued. “I’m going to be a lot more mindful to do no harm, first and foremost.”

Invoking the physician’s credo may have been ironic but accurate in summing up how the nine-member commission should proceed, according to a number of officials who spoke during the July 24 meeting. First Selectman Pat Llodra, Board of Finance Chairman John Kortze, and Council Vice Chair Mary Ann Jacob all came forward with questions and concerns, particularly regarding the charge to consider splitting or bifurcating the town budget.

Ms Jacob and Board of Education Chair Debbie Leidlein also urged the commissioners to review the prospect of bifurcation considering the long-term and cooperative nature of shared services between the town’s departments and the school district. Ms Leidlein specifically referenced a recent consultant’s report that praised Newtown for the cooperative way various departments shared personnel and equipment to reduce cost and improve efficiencies.

Ms Jacob cautioned the panel that splitting the school and town budgets into separate votes could create an environment where each side might be more guarded about sharing services, creating a culture where the town and school each conserve budgetary allocations exclusively for their own projects.

During the brief public hearing, only former charter commissioner and first selectman Joe Borst and school board member John Vouros took to the microphone.

Mr Borst directed the commissioners to the resource files of former commissions located in the town clerk’s vault. He also referred to, but could not recall what may have prompted the town to stop using, budget questions that routinely appeared on budget ballots in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Mr Vouros simply requested that the commission not consider any recommendations that would create more confusion in the minds of budget voters, or pit education supporters against those supporting core government operational funding.

Make Yes Vote Binding

Ms Jacob was the first official called as the commission adjourned the hearing and moved into a regular meeting. She suggested that bifurcation might be a solution, but if that was going to be the recommendation, the panel should consider making each separate Yes vote binding.

Mr Godin asked if having advisory questions would be helpful. And Ms Jacob replied they would — referring to the fact that the former charter commission made budget questions a recommendation that went all the way to pass at referendum, but without the number of votes required to formalize that charter change.

Ms Jacob said that if 100 percent of the No voters answered advisory questions it could help inform a council decision about a subsequent budget proposal if part of, or the entire, budget fails.

“But if only 200 of 2,000 voters answer the questions, it would not,” she said.

During her appearance before the commissioners, the first selectman said that the current single budget really has three parts, not two — the town’s debt service being a separate and distinct element that currently drives the bottom line of the town-side spending plan. Mrs Llodra admitted that considering breaking out debt service on the town’s budget ballot was not part of the current charge, but suggested the prospect could be examined in a subsequent charter revision.

In her views on bifurcation, the first selectman suggested the practice could help identify voter intentions.

“But it can be divisive,” she added. “Bifurcation invites competition and invites special interests and those who want to politicize the process. It also discourages collaboration and cooperation.”

Mrs Llodra also advocated for any Yes vote to be binding if the other side of a split budget failed.

Commissioner James Ritchie asked if a scenario could result where the school budget passed overwhelmingly, forcing the town to further reduce its bottom line to satisfy taxpayers’ desires to keep the mill rate down. Mrs Llodra replied that such a scenario could result.

The Council’s Task

Besides referring to the challenges of maintaining interdepartment cooperation in the event of a split budget, Ms Leidlein also reminded the commissioners about the council’s task if one or the other side of a spilt budget, or an intact spending plan, fails.

“It’s not just a question of too high or too low, but how much,” Ms Leidlein said, referring to proposed budget question language. “The legislative council still has to make a judgment.”

Mr Kortze said it was not the finance board’s or his role to weigh in on political discussions, reiterating that despite an erroneous report on a local blog website, he never offered a position on bifurcation during the previous charter review process. The finance board chairman said that from a “mechanical” standpoint, he thought the commission should evaluate what to do with the debt service segment of the budget in the event splitting the proposal moves forward.

“If that was the recommendation, you would probably do the town well to put [bonded] projects broken out on the ballot,” Mr Kortze said, adding that breaking out separate bonding/debt service costs would make their endorsements “ultimately clear, by putting it in the hands of the voters.”

Mr Kortze also warned that bifurcating the budget would pose a challenge in maintaining current town policies affecting contributions to the fund balance.

“I’m not sure the voter understands the contribution and the value of that contribution to the fund balance,” Mr Kortze said. “The absence of understanding could [result in] a 20-year cost, because it affects the interest rates we pay.”

Minority Councilman Dan Honan and Republican Dan Wiedemann both commented that adding advisory questions or taking other actions to clarify voter intent would benefit the council following a budget rejection.

“Anything you can do, whether it’s bifurcation or advisory questions, would help,” Mr Honan said. “We were clueless about what people wanted.”

“I think we need the feedback,” Mr Wiedemann said. “I’m really for the advisory questions. Those would help us a lot.”

‘A Clearer Voice’

Councilman Paul Lundquist said the commission’s actions should result in “providing a clearer voice to the voter,” but admitted he was hearing “a lot of reasons why bifurcation should not be initiated.”

Mr Lundquist said he favored nonbinding questions that would give the council flexibility, “if special interests are leading the town down a bad road.”

Near the end of the meeting, Commissioner Robert Hall asked that the panel be free to examine whether bifurcated budgets in any Connecticut community were influencing a divisive budget process. Previously Mr Godin suggested limiting research to towns with split budgets that closely mirrored Newtown’s size and demographic makeup.

Commissioner Nick Schmidt said the argument about divisiveness had to be put aside.

“We have to do something,” he said, while accepting that the panel would have to consider how to frame debt service distribution in a potentially spilt budget proposal.

Commissioner Michelle Ku worried that the charge might reflect a “knee-jerk reaction to the recent and prolonged budget process.

“Are we looking at the right things to fix the issue?” she asked, adding that the controversies that plagued the 2012 process might be the result of “a small faction of people who aren’t happy with the people elected to office.”

Resident Elizabeth Lincoln, who spoke during the final public participation, also referenced the political aspects of promoting a budget. She said rushing to get a charter revision on the November ballot might be a mistake, and said the current town and school administration gets the message that taxpayers want to see flat or minimal budget increases in the future.

Before adjourning and after determining he would have a quorum, Mr Godin set the next charter commission meeting for 7:30 pm on August 7.