State Act Should Reflect

Local Charter

The following letter to State Representative Julia Wasserman and State Senator John McKinney has been received for publication.

Regarding your proposal to sponsor an enabling act to create an authority to control Fairfield Hills:

I have reviewed carefully the proposed enabling act that was part of the minutes of the February 15, 2005, meeting of the Ad Hoc Fairfield Hills Management Committee. If passed, the act would, of course, apply to Fairfield Hills, as it appears to be intended. It is clearly an improvement over the earlier version proposed in 2003. However, only in the last two weeks have town officials admitted that the 2003 proposal to the State Legislature for an authority was intended to create a separate tax district for Fairfield Hills as well as invest the authority with broad powers (Newtown Bee 2/18/05). I recognize that town officials are anxious to eliminate the requirement for town meeting approval of leases, but this is not sufficient reason for you to proceed in this manner even though the act provides more openness and inclusiveness with the opportunity for public comment. Your enabling act would allow seven members of our Legislative Council to approve an ordinance to supercede our town charter.

This proposed enabling act clearly allows the Newtown charter to be overridden or changed without approval by the voters. Chapter 1 Article 40, p 2 of the Newtown charter prescribes the legislative bodies to consist of both the Legislative Council and the town meeting. The right of referendum to approve or disapprove of an ordinance passed by the Legislative Council is spelled out in Chapter 7, Section 70-100, p. 35 of the Newtown Charter.

In addition, the proposed items 3) and especially 5) are extremely troubling.

When the state legislature seeks to step in and to assist town officials to circumvent our charter (and other town’s charters as well), the legislature is clearly not upholding the democratic process so important to all of us. Rather than “allowing” opponents to petition for a referendum, it should be the role of the state legislature to “guarantee” the right of all voters in all towns to approve or disapprove such an ordinance by referendum.

At the very least, this enabling act affects all towns and must provide for voter approval before any town’s charter is circumvented or amended.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that if you must proceed with this proposal, you add the words, “and approved by a majority of voters in a duly called townwide referendum” at the end of the first sentence. Citizens will vote for an ordinance that they respect and that protects the time-honored phrase “…of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Sincerely,

Ruby K. Johnson

16 Chestnut Hill, Sandy Hook                                        March 8, 2005