Capeci: Timing Of Charter Referendum May Have Been Its Undoing

By John Voket

By 4 pm Tuesday, March 29, with just under 600 referendum votes cast, Legislative Council Chairman Jeff Capeci was not holding out much hope of getting the approximately 2,400 affirmative votes required by state law to see the modification to Newtown’s constitutional document move forward.

And four hours later as the polls closed, the council leader’s worst-case prediction held true as voting officials reported only 1,276  ballots cast at the polls or filed by absentees in advance to approve or reject a proposed charter revision. A total of 1,014 votes were cast in favor of the charter change and 261 voted against.

One cast ballot was left blank. Twenty-five of those ballots were filed in advance by absentee voters, and according to local registrars, the taxpayer cost for Tuesday’s referendum topped $8,000.

In discussing possible reasons for the failure to secure the required support for the proposal, possibly the most poorly attended referendum in town history, Mr Capeci could not help seeing the irony.

“It’s ironic that instead of holding this referendum along with another [proposal or vote] that traditionally draws more voters, we held it on its own in the hope that if it passed, we would have time to apply the charter revision to the upcoming budget vote.”

 Tuesday’s one-question ballot asked voters to endorse the addition of ballot questions to the budget referendum that would provide No voters an opportunity to tell the Legislative Council that the overall proposal was “too high” or “too low.”

According to state statutes, to achieve a local charter revision, 15 percent of the town’s registered voters — or about 2,400 individuals — would be required to vote Yes to approve the modification to local budget ballots.

While Mr Capeci said the question might certainly come up again in a future revision, he did not see the issue being raised again before local elections this November, which could bring changes to the council, the elected body that charges and oversees charter revision commissions.

Late last summer, a commission of seven volunteers took up a charge by the council to determine if a revision might include bifurcation or splitting of the local budget so taxpayers could vote on the school and town proposals separately. The commissioners were also asked to study whether to include budget questions that, in the event of a failed referendum, would help advise the council how to proceed with subsequent budget proposals.

By the end of November, the panel had completed its work, deciding not to recommend splitting the local budget, but recommending a simple modification to advise council members if voters thought the overall spending plan was too much, or not enough.

And while the revision process included some spirited debate, it was not until the commission had closed its part of the process that Mr Capeci learned the biggest challenge laid ahead — to motivate so many voters to turn out to affirm a one-line ballot during a time when most Newtowners’ minds are otherwise engaged.

“We knew that it was going to be a challenge,” Mr Capeci said, adding that the abysmal turnout at 4 pm likely meant approving the revision would be an “insurmountable task.”

But at the same time, he praised the intensive work of the latest charter panel members, saying the research would be of great help to any future commission taking up the question of modifying or splitting budget ballots.

“In the end, it may have not been the best idea to put this revision out there in a referendum by itself,” Mr Capeci said. “But we were hopeful it would pass, and that we would have the approved questions available to affect the upcoming budget ballot.”