Government is an ever-simmering stew of people and ideas in which either of these main ingredients has the potential to make the average citizen savor or spit. In our experience with democracy, we have seen it go both ways. We have seen bad people pervert and misapply good ideas, and we have seen good people brought to no good by bad ideas. So we have taken particular interest in the Legislative Council’s latest attempts to alter the recipe for government in Newtown by appointing a new Charter Revision Commission.

The council was supposed to name the members of the new panel at its meeting last week. Town Clerk Cindy Simon was even waiting in the wings to administer the oath of office to the new members. There were a few oaths muttered under the breath at the meeting, but at the end of the evening the Charter Revision Commission still had no members. The problem was the age-old challenge for chefs laboring in the kitchens of democracy: which people and which ideas does one add to the stew? As any accomplished chef will tell you, the key to overcoming this challenge is to have a wide selection of ingredients to work with. Fewer choices means fewer chances for success.

So when at least one council member balked at the suggestion that she rubber stamp the candidates for membership on the new Charter Revision Commission recommended by a subcommittee of the council, she did so saying that she would like to know what all their choices were before making the decision. Twenty candidates were interviewed for a spot on the nine-member charter panel; nine were recommended by the subcommittee.

It seems appropriate that at least some council members are chafing at the lack of choice when it comes time for them to make an important decision, because that is precisely the feeling many citizens of Newtown have when it comes time to vote in local elections.  Most of the levers Newtown voters pull in the voting booths during local elections are for uncontested seats on local boards and commissions. Last year, even the first selectman ran uncontested, and Newtown’s political town committees are notorious for not giving voters a choice in their nominations of school board candidates. If the new Charter Revision Commission wants to give us a better government, maybe it can do something about giving us more choices.

We suspect that at least some of the disquiet on the council over the choice of candidates for the Charter Revision Commission is not just about people. The ideas held by those people, as revealed in the council subcommittee’s interviews, may really be what is at issue here. We can’t say for sure since the interviews were private.

At least one member of the council’s charter revision subcommittee, council chairman Pierre Rochman, has strong views on how the charter needs to be changed. He has not made any secret of his wish to eliminate the town meeting and the Board of Selectmen, opting instead for a stronger first selectman and Legislative Council. He also wants to increase the size of the council, as well, from its current 12 members to 18 members.

Were the council’s subcommittee candidate recommendations for the Charter Revision Commission based on ideology? Was there a litmus test for the candidates on some of these issues? We hope not. Fortunately, none of the nominated candidates seem to be predisposed to predisposition.

The best recipe for revising the way Newtown governs itself is to select the people best suited to assimilate a range of arguments and suggestions before exercising their judgment on each issue on their agenda. The best idea to add to the stew at this point is that all ideas for improving the government of Newtown deserve careful consideration.