By the time this week’s print edition of The Newtown Bee hits the streets on Thursday afternoon, March 4, Newtown will have a newly appointed Charter Revision Commission. The Legislative Council was expected to seat and charge the all-volunteer panel Wednesday evening after the paper’s print deadline, according to Chairman Paul Lundquist.

A Charter Interview Committee chaired by Councilman Dan Wiedemann voted to recommend seven residents — Prerna Rao (D), Elias Petersen (D), James Gaston (D), Anthony Filiato (R), Andy Buzzi (R), Dennis Brestovansky (R), and Scott Davidow (U) — to serve on the panel.

Meanwhile, a Charter Charge Committee headed by Judit DeStefano on February 17 adopted a raft of charge recommendations and forwarded them to the town attorney for review ahead of Wednesday’s planned official seating and charging of the group. It is hoped that the commission’s work will be completed and that the council will be able to complete its work in time for the charter changes to appear on the November local election ballot.

Although by state law a Charter Revision Commission is not bound to only consider its charges, documentation submitted to the town attorney detailed the following charges for consideration:

*Consider implementing gender neutral titles for town officials, e.g., Board of Selectpersons — submitted by Board of Finance Chair Keith Alexander;

*Consider if the term “Town Department” may not be appropriate in all instances. Replace the term with “Appropriation Assignee” or another term that more clearly focuses on the assignment of funds. Review [recommended] sections that currently reference “Town Department” to determine whether the language accurately applies to the Board of Education and current practices — submitted by the Newtown Board of Education;

*Define the purpose, membership, and terms for the Fairfield Hills Authority. The format should mirror descriptions of other permanent commissions and committees, with the majority of detail being left to clarify in ordinance — submitted by Fairfield Hills Authority Chair Ross Carley;

*State that in case of any conflict between board/commission/committee bylaws, the town charter and/or state statute prevails — submitted by Selectman Maureen Crick Owen; and

*Consider if the Board of Education should be excluded from the following: “The First Selectman shall be an ex officio member of all Town Bodies...” The BOE questions the consistency with the rest of the Newtown government structure in which the Board of Selectmen have a role parallel to the Board of Education, and the Superintendent has a role parallel to the that of the First Selectman — submitted by the Board of Education.

Remove Finance Board?

*Remove Board of Finance from Charter. Action recognizing the Legislative Council (LC) is and has been the fiscal authority in Newtown and that the Board of Finance in Newtown is an advisory body that makes recommendations to the LC; that members of the LC have heard concerns from multiple boards and members of the public on duplication of efforts and redundancies; that having two similar elected bodies in series in the review process confuses said process for members of the public; that many of our neighboring communities have only one level of review prior to referendum/town meeting; and that prior to the existence of a Board of Finance in Newtown, the budget, planning and appropriations process went directly to the LC — submitted by the Legislative Council;

*In Charter section 2-135(a), the words “Registrar of Vital Statistics” should be added after Town Clerk — submitted by the Town Clerk;

*Consider if members of elected boards should be restricted from concurrently serving on other (appointed) boards; review term limits and term structure of major boards — submitted by the Legislative Council;

*The Police Commission should be noted as the Civilian Review Board (in connection with the state police accountability legislation) — submitted by the Police Commission;

*Determine if the Building Appeals Board is necessary. (Not currently an active board) — submitted by the Board of Selectmen;

*Current language allows for recusing oneself from vote in the case of apparent conflict of interest. Consider if the language should be revised to allow for abstention. “It shall be the duty of every member present at any Town Body meeting to vote affirmatively...” There may be times when abstaining is appropriate, for example, when a person was not present for discussion. Should member be required to give reason for recusal and/or abstention? — submitted by multiple boards;

*Add “and a reduction in environmental impact” to the description of the Sustainable Energy Commission, to read in full: Sustainable Energy Commission Summary of General Responsibilities: The Sustainable Energy Commission shall identify, implement and support renewable energy use, energy efficiency, energy conservation programs and strategies for sustainable material use and recycling in which the Town’s residents, businesses, organizations, and Town agencies can participate and that may result in cost savings and a reduction in environmental impact for the Town or school district. Membership and Terms: The Commission shall be composed of nine members. The term of office shall be three years — submitted by Sustainable Energy Commission;

*[Charter] section 2-31 outlines the procedures for filling vacancies on elected town bodies. Consider if the state statute that is applicable to the Board of Education (CGS §10-219) be referenced in the same way as the statute that applies to the Board of Selectmen is referenced? — submitted by the Board of Education;

*Consider use of the term “unaffiliated” when filling mid-term vacancy, which as currently written could disqualify prospects who are members of a party other than two major parties. There is concern that this could be used as process to subvert minority representation — submitted by the council;

*Increase 45 days to fill a vacancy to 90 days. (Note, 45 days is not actually 45 days) — submitted by selectmen and the council;

*Newtown Ordinance 124 should be merged into the Charter, specifically, referencing §9-204b of the Connecticut General Statutes applies. Per BOE: When a revised charter is filed with the State, a statute governing BOE elections must be indicated. For the 2016 Charter filing, Connecticut General Statute §9-204 was selected to apply, impinging on number of candidates a party could put forth on the ballot and number of candidates electors could vote for. This was an unintended restriction on the ability of voters to vote for BOE members. As a result, the Legislative Council enacted Town Ordinance 124 to address the issue. When the next revision of the Town Charter is filed with the state, the effective BOE elections statute will likely again be selected as a part of the filing process — submitted by multiple boards; and

*Delete words “five year” in the CIP section, allowing for flexibility to change over time — submitted by selectmen.

Clarify Charter Sections

*Clarify that these sections [of Charter section 4-05(c)] apply only to the town, and not the BOE: “(9) Prepare a cost analysis of all labor contracts, pension plans and insurance plans prior to the signing of any such contracts or plans; and (10) Assist in all labor negotiations serving as a consultant to the labor negotiators representing the Town.” The Board of Education conducts a separate negotiation process — submitted by Board of Education;

*Reference the Board of Education or other town body, if its interests are affected, as the BOS is referenced in this section: “...Any proposed regulation, amendment or repeal shall be referred to the Board of Selectmen for comment or consultation prior to action.

*Referrals can be acted on by the Legislative Council after 90 days. Such financial regulations shall also be referred to the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Director prior to action.” The last sentence of the paragraph does not include the Board of Education, yet the Board of Education should review and have the opportunity to provide input on financial regulations that might affect Board of Education operations. Recommendation is to add the BOE to the language — submitted by Board of Education;

*Strike or clarify the section [of Charter chapter 6-20(f) 2]: “Prior to subsequent budget referenda, if any, amendments made by the Board of Selectmen and/or the Board of Education to budget proposals shall not be exceeded by the Legislative Council” — submitted by the Board of Education;

*Clarifying what constitutes one year in respect to appropriations, i.e., does it count when project is appropriated as calendar or fiscal year? Does something sent to appropriation in April 2020 count toward FY 2020 or 2021? — submitted by the council;

*Separate emergency and special appropriations. Example: Emergency appropriations shall be deemed “emergency” by the LC with a supermajority vote. Emergency appropriation funds do not count toward the 1 mill cap limitation for appropriations. Language can include a need relating to the immediate health and welfare of citizens, or reference to exigent circumstances to be consistent with CIP. Currently there is no distinction made between special and emergency appropriations in respect to cap and limits — could lead to appropriation cap being met very early in the year; or worse, an inability to address emergency needs — submitted by selectmen and council;

*Consider whether town Charter Section 6-35(b)-(c) should be amended to include the Board of Education as a possible initiator of Special Appropriations. Concerns include: bonding cost is incurred on the BOS side, so LC and/or finance director and BOS should be part of the approval process. Rationale per BOE: The appropriations process as outlined in 6-35(b)-(c) does not include the Board of Education. This is not consistent to that of budgetary and CIP appropriations. For budget appropriation requests, both the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education prepare their respective requests, and (currently) provide those requests to the Board of Finance. For the CIP, newly amended, the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Education also prepare their respective requests, and (currently) provide those requests to the Board of Finance. These processes suggest that the BOE regularly initiates appropriation requests — submitted by the Board of Education; and

*Revise so only appropriations with taxpayer impact in excess of $1.5 million should go to referendum; currently all appropriations in excess of $1.5 million must go to referendum for approval, even when the impact on taxpayers is under the $1.5 million cap. Examples include EDA FFH Sewer Project, $900,000 grant and $900,000 bonded and funded through assessments — submitted by selectmen.

Look for ongoing Charter Revision Commission coverage in The Newtown Bee and at newtownbee.com as the commission begins its work in the coming weeks and months.