At A Public Hearing –

Panel Urged To Move Ahead With Charter Changes

By Steve Bigham

Residents who spoke at Wednesday’s public hearing of the Charter Revision Commission urged members to push forward with their proposed changes to town government. The board was praised for its creativity and effort in proposing a new government that provides a better system of checks and balances, more accountability, and a stronger chief executive.

Many supported the idea of creating a Board of Finance to work alongside the Legislative Council and first selectman. How handy that board would have been, some commented, in helping the town get a better handle on costs like Fairfield Hills and the 5/6 school – two projects that will be voted on at a town meeting next Wednesday.

Others thanked the charter board for creating a heightened awareness of things in town government that need to be discussed and possibly changed. They urged the commission to do whatever it takes to get its proposed charter changes on the November ballot.

The proposals did not escape criticism, however. Legislative Council member Melissa Pilchard disagrees with “virtually every sentence” in the proposal, particularly the section which gives the first selectman more power.

“You are creating a character who will have no checks and balances,” she said.

Mrs Pilchard, a 30-year member of the council, said she knows best what works in Newtown and indicated others may not have the experience level that she has. She fears passage of the recommended charter changes will hurt the town.

But others see the proposed changes helping the town work more efficiently.

Ted Ruddock of 14 Equestrian Ridge commended the charter panel and said its proposals have apparently “hit a raw nerve with the council,” the one board – besides the Board of Selectmen, which would be eliminated – most affected by the proposed changes.

Chris Salerno of 38 Butterfield Road said he often has difficulty determining who has what power in town under the current system.

“Your recommendations provide for more accountability,” he said. “Change is difficult, but the times have changed wholeheartedly and I applaud your efforts.”

Longtime resident Bill Honan is concerned that creating a Board of Finance will add another tier of government that we really don’t need. But as charter board chairman Bill Sheluck explained, the finance board would be empowered to make financial recommendations to the Legislative Council, independently. Now, he said, the council’s five member finance subcommittee makes a recommendation, which then needs just one more vote in order to get it passed by the full council.

“Right now, we’re putting all the financial powers of the town in the hands of five people,” he said.

Others worry that the town will have a lot of trouble finding enough qualified candidates to serve on this new board. Some have suggested reducing the number of seats on the council.

Resident Dennis Dougherty of 23 Pocono Road urged the Charter Revision Commission to persevere with its recommendations. “It would have been nice to have an independent Board of Finance to help with Fairfield Hills, not just for spending today, but for the spending of money required in the sequence of events that come in the future,” he said.

Tony Chambery of 193 Hattertown Road agreed, pointing out that next week’s vote will be an easy one because the purchase of Fairfield Hills is a “defensive acquisition.” However, without a financial plan in place, he said, things could get ugly down the road as the town tries to decide how much money it wants to spend and where.

“An independent Board of Finance will give it due diligence,” he said.

Gordon Williams of Main Street echoes those sentiments. “I don’t remember a Charter Revision Commission that thought as creatively as you guys,” he said.

Charter Revision Commission member Al Cramer said he came on board last fall with very little in-depth knowledge about the town charter. He soon discovered, however, that the current system provides for a weak executive branch and a strong legislative branch. Because of this, he said, the lines of authority had become clouded. The charter panel’s theme from the start has been creating an improved system of checks and balances.

As for the first selectman, the position would be given “singular authority” and would be responsible for coming up with a strategic plan that would need to be updated each year in a state-of-the-town message. By giving the first selectman veto power over council decisions, members said, the town’s chief elected official would be empowered to “push the agenda through.” A two-thirds vote by the council could override any veto, however.

Under the proposed changes, special appropriations could now only be initiated by either the first selectman or Board of Education, and the council would be empowered to approve any appropriations between $150,000-$500,000. Appropriations between $500,000 and $2 million would require approval by both the council and a town meeting. Any town spending above $2 million would require approval at a referendum to prevent a very small group at a town meeting from committing the town to very large expenditure.

Resident Wendy Beres urged the charter panel to create a disabilities commission to help the town take a more aggressive stance with respect to the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also complained that the town’s current charter gives voters no choices for the Board of Education, calling it a “Soviet election.”

“It allows the town committee to put up one person for one seat. The town was apparently worried that having races for the school board would make it too political, but how much more political can you get than allowing town committees to just put up one candidate for each seat?” she asked.

The charter panel plans to submit its proposed recommendations to the council in the coming weeks. The council then has 45 days to review the proposals and to conduct a public hearing. The council will then provide comments to the charter panel, which will return to the drawing board one last time before giving the recommendations to the council for a final vote. At that time, those items approved by the council will be placed on the November ballot. Anything rejected can be placed on to the ballot through a petition drive that collects the signatures of  10 percent of the voters.