Charter Charge Ready But Panel Appointments Are Delayed

By John Voket

Next Wednesday, the Legislative Council was tentatively scheduled to ratify its charge and endorse a group of nine Newtown electors who were among 17 offering to serve on the next Charter Review Committee. It appears, however, that the decision to launch the initiative will have to wait until at least early April, after a meeting of the selection subcommittee apparently failed to reach a consensus on nominees after meeting in closed session Wednesday evening.

The hastily called gathering was posted as dealing with personnel, which means council members on that subcommittee were bound by statute to conduct discussions on pending appointments, issues related to their performance or evaluations of one or more of those being considered for the charter panel. The subcommittee’s chairman, Joseph Borst, told The Bee following Wednesday’s meeting that business related to the appointments was tabled after the group adjourned from executive session.

He said another selection subcommittee meeting was set for March 29.

“Hopefully we’ll have a decision that night so we can present it to the full council on April 5,” Mr Borst said.

Council Chairman Will Rodgers, who holds an ex-officio spot on the subcommittee, appeared with Council Vice Chair Timothy Holian before the executive session. Speaking to The Bee Thursday morning, Mr Rodgers said he shared concerns with at least one other council member who approached him last week about one or more of the voluntary candidates who came forward to serve on the panel.

“I attended the meeting to share the concerns of other council members about the suitability of candidates because of their other affiliations,” Mr Rodgers said. He would not elaborate further on the record except to say that he wanted the selection subcommittee to “examine the issue carefully and take all the time they need,” to finalize endorsements to the full council.

This is the second year in a row the council has attempted to seat a Charter Review Committee. In 2005, the council failed to attract enough volunteers to fulfill the state mandated criteria required to seat the group.

Once, and if, the council is successful in endorsing a full Charter Revision panel, its members will likely entertain some or all elements of the lengthy charge already prepared by a separate council subcommittee, as well as considering any additional proposals they may individually or collectively develop.

While the charge was formally passed by the subcommittee prior to the March 1 Legislative Council meeting, it was tabled for further discussion and possible action March 15. That possibility now seems moot.

Timing, and the careful coordination between issuing the charge, seating the panel, and scheduling its first meeting, is critical because once the charge is endorsed it legally triggers a requirement to seat a panel to receive it. State law stipulates a panel of no fewer than five and no more than 15 electors must be seated within 30 days of the charge being endorsed by the full council.

From the date of its first official meeting, the Charter Review (or Revision) Committee has 16 months to submit a draft of revisions, and will subsequently disband once that draft is accepted or rejected by the council. State law also stipulates the panel consist of members “not more than one-third of whom may hold any other public office in the municipality and not more than a bare majority of whom shall be members of any one political party.”

Mr Borst said the minor delay in seating the panel is of little consequence since the charge was not passed.

“We’re not under any time deadline to start the process until the charge is endorsed,” he said. “But once the charge is presented, the time clock starts.”

On March 1, the charge subcommittee consisting of council vice chairman Timothy Holian, Francis Pennarola, and Patricia Llodra discussed specifics related to the charge before moving it to the full council and provided a list of considerations to The Newtown Bee. Among the ground rules are directives to elect a chairman during the first official meeting as well as a vice chairman and secretary.

Meetings will then be called by the chairman, and all motions and actions will be held on the record with a simple majority of a quorum prevailing. The panel will be required to review the final document with council, and will be afforded opportunities to do so in progress when needed.

The council chairman reserves the right to call for interim reports as the charter panel moves forward, and will expect the final revision proposals in time for review and placement on the November 2006 election ballot or no later than the 2007 budget referendum ballot.

In a previous report, Council Chairman Will Rodgers said he was pleased to learn that of the nearly 30 items being considered in the charge, virtually every member agreed on almost every point.

“When the four subcommittee members sat down we determined that there were about 30 items we felt needed to be included in the charge. And all but eight of those concerns were on every committee member’s list,” he said.

The council chairman said that only about 25 percent of the charge would be addressing “housekeeping,” or technical points in the charter document that adversely affect the efficiency of local government processes. The balance of the charge, Mr Rodgers said, would involve “substantive issues.”

He said many of those issues were brought forth by other town government members including First Selectman Herb Rosenthal and members of the finance board. Mr Rodgers also noted that several of the items in the charge were first brought to his attention by letters he read from town residents in The Newtown Bee.

Among the considerations endorsed by the charge subcommittee are:

éAn authorization for selectmen “to grant such easements, (utility), for the good of the town,” instead of granting the easements exclusively to “serve or benefit town property.”

éRequiring that complaints to the Board of Ethics not be made public unless and until the complaint is found to be valid.

éDetermining if a Public Building Committee is necessary in light of the current use of professional construction managers and clerks of the works.

éDetermining how many budget referendums are needed.

éDeciding if a four-year term would be better for any or all elected officials, and if a “lame-duck” first selectman should be prevented from making appointments from Election Day until the end of his or her term.

éReviewing the number of voters be required to successfully petition for a referendum and how many town meetings should be required.

éRecognizing and providing for the existence of the Fairfield Hills Management Authority, the Newtown Water Pollution Control Authority, the reorganized Inland Wetlands Commission and the Newtown Cultural Arts Commission (if necessary).

éDetermining whether the size of the Board of Education should be larger, and whether the school board and finance board be limited to no more than half its seats from the same political party.

éOutlining the relationship between the Legislative Council and Board of Finance, in consultation with the chairman of each body, with particular emphasis on explaining the function of the Capital Improvement Plans and respective roles and duties relative to long-term planning.

éConsidering the elimination of the town meeting as a tool of town government.

éReviewing the possibility of electing Legislative Council members be elected “at large,” and the replacement of the Board of Selectmen with an alternative like a mayor or town manager.

éAnd after consulting with the finance director, determining if the addition of language to the charter permitting management of town surpluses is advisable.

Once the Charter Review Committee is seated, there is no specified schedule of meetings required, only that its meeting be posted within the guidelines of state Freedom of Information statutes.