No Waiting Required—

Council Chair Clarifies Budget Referendum Loophole For Ballot Question

By John Voket

Faced with an impromptu question during an April 14 Legislative Council meeting, Town Attorney David Grogins said he did something that he should not have: responded with a verbal opinion based on what he recalled versus doing the necessary research to ensure he was correct.

As a result, Mr Grogins told The Newtown Bee that he erred in verbally advising the council about a 45 day waiting period he believed the state reserved for reviewing proposed ballot questions. In fact, Mr Grogins confirmed April 19, that while questions proposed for an election ballot require a 45-day review period, local questions proposed for a local budget referendum do not.

Council Chairman Jeff Capeci said that when he received confirmation of this error, he decided to call a council meeting for Wednesday, April 21, to formally announce the correct information and to retire any additional discussion on the issue, at least for the time being. That special council meeting - which will deal with only the ballot question as a single agenda item - has been scheduled for 7 pm in the Newtown Municipal Center at Fairfield Hills.

Mr Grogins said that he specifically attended the April 14 to be on hand after he provided a researched and written legal opinion about whether or not the town should consider posing one or more questions on the upcoming budget ballot. He said that advice still stands.

“I was asked to write an opinion on advisory questions and my opinion was not to do them,” he said. “And my opinion stands on placing advisory questions.”

Mr Grogins said that faced with a suggestion from Councilman Gary Davis about specific wording of a question that might make it permissible based on the Newtown Charter enabling what are deemed to be “local questions,” he read from a part of the Connecticut General Statutes regarding referendums that outlined the 45 day requirement.

But Mr Capeci said he was subsequently contacted by Democratic Registrar LeReine Frampton, who said that state statute only applied to questions on an election ballot. Upon notifying Mr Grogins about the concern, the town attorney said he contacted the Secretary of the State’s office in Hartford, which confirmed that there was no waiting period required for questions that are proposed for a budget ballot.

Mr Grogins said in the course of discussion, after his written legal opinion on the specific concern was voiced, he was asked a different question by Mr Davis, and “gave an opinion off the top of my head.”

“I raised the point, but I had not researched the point,” Mr Grogins said, adding that the waiting period caveat was not included in the section of the state statutes on elections, but incorporated into language in the referendum section of the statutes.

“The 45 day [review period] applies to local questions proposed for an election ballot only,” the town attorney said.

Mr Grogins said he provided the verbal ruling in the moment, and in an attempt to answer the question that was posed by Mr Davis.

Mr Capeci said his motivation for calling a council meeting April 21 was in the spirit of transparency.

“I’m concerned some members of the council acted on the information that was provided to us [verbally] during the last meeting, which was incorrect,” Mr Capeci said.

The council chairman said that while he does not believe that having the correct information would have changed the outcome of the vote — which unanimously supported a motion to not include questions on the upcoming budget referendum ballot ­— he felt the opinion Mr Grogins gave in the heat of the moment “might have swayed some council members” to vote against including the questions.