Choosing A Charter Revision

Commission

To the Editor:

Last week in a letter to the editor, I offered some suggestions to the new Charter Revision Commission and also stated that I was a candidate for this panel but was not selected, even though I had served on the last commission. Since that letter was published several people have contacted me to inquire as to how this commission was appointed. To the best of my knowledge, the following are the events leading up to the formation of the present Charter Revision Commission.

There were 17 people who came forward to volunteer. This group included three former commission members, two of which were eventually appointed. Interviews were held by the selection committee of the Legislative Council. It was decided that a panel of nine members would be created, plus three alternates. I was chosen as one of those alternates.

Of the original nine selections, three individuals were disputed by some council members because of their involvement in other organizations or the length of their residency in the town. These three candidates were subsequently eliminated and the council decided to appoint just the six remaining candidates. I do not fully comprehend why they did not replace any of the three disqualified candidates with alternates. An alternate is supposed to be someone who is used to replace a candidate or member who cannot serve. The reportage in The Bee indicated that the council’s logic was to install just six members so that all votes would have to be a super majority (four) in order to pass. If the council added just one more candidate to this panel, which would make it seven, all votes would still need four members in order to pass. Am I missing something here? Would not a commission with seven members be better than one with six? Four votes would be required to pass a resolution in either case and tie votes would be avoided with an odd number of members.

The last Charter Revision Commission had 11 members and it took us more than a year to complete our mission. The present commission will have just six members and the council is anticipating recommendations to be submitted by this November, less than five months from now. Perhaps the council is hoping that a commission with too few members and too little time will be unable to do much more than address just the council’s charges.

There have been rumors and innuendos that the council is attempting to “stack” the commission with members that will do their bidding and not make any waves with recommendations not to their liking. I don’t know if this is true, but there is certainly the appearance of this type of motive by their actions.

According to state law, the Charter Revision Commission has up to 16 months to examine the charter and submit their recommendations to the council. Let us hope they will ignore any “deadlines” suggested by the council and  take the necessary time to make a full assessment of the present charter before submitting their report.

George Caracciolo

Schoolhouse Hill Road, Newtown                                  June 26, 2006