As the clock continued counting down following a June 1 public hearing, the Legislative Council discussed modifying a number of proposed changes to the town’s Charter at a special meeting on June 8.

The special meeting was called because the council only had until June 16 to propose any changes and send them back to the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) for final review. The council began discussions on proposed revisions to Newtown’s constitutional document on June 1 and set an extra meeting so it would have time to adequately discuss them.

Following a review by Attorney Stephen Mednick, who made some minor changes and suggestions about draft revisions, the council had an opportunity to ask him questions along with Charter Revision Commission Chairman Andrew Buzzi, who is also an attorney.

Council member Michelle Embree Ku began by asking about the BOE election process. She said there needs to be “more clarity” in the maximum members of any party on the BOE, saying it appears to be a conflict between the charter and town ordinance whether the maximum should be five or four.

Councilman Ryan Knapp said the ordinance was developed to allow voters more choice, and council members adopted stricter standards by the home rule option. The cap is for the number voted for and allowed to nominate. Winners are chosen by voters factoring limitations of minority representation.

Concerning the proposed elimination of the Building Appeals Board from the charter, Mednick said another town he was advising discussed getting rid of the Building Appeals Board. However, in the end that town decided to keep it because, he said, “there are situations where there’s a reason to have one.”

“However, if the CRC has found this board is moribund, and no one is ever appointed to it, then it’s a practical judgement,” said Mednick, who noted that if a situation comes up where someone wants to make an appeal and there is no board, they can do it with the state.

Buzzi said while the CRC was considering the question of a Building Appeals Board, he talked to many people in town and “no one could recount in recent memory any activity with this board, or any need.”

“I’ve talked to people who have been in town for 60 years,” said Buzzi. “If they can’t remember a need for one, then there’s no reason to have people sitting on a board that’s not needed.”

First Selectman Dan Rosenthal said he was “not aware” of any appeals in town and reiterated that if there was a need they could go to the state board. The town could also create a Building Appeals Board by ordinance, with no need for it to be in the charter.

Earlier in the meeting, resident Bruce Walczak came before the commission asking that midterm appointments be open to anyone from any party.

“I’m suggesting to the Legislative Council that this partisan practice be eliminated,” said Walczak. “The objective of this process appears to be to protect the representation of either of the two major parties.”

Buzzi noted that during the CRC’s deliberations, they did take Walczak’s input into consideration, but decided since appointments were open to any party between terms, there were opportunities for other parties to gain representation.

During discussions, Rosenthal noted that most vacancies come from members of boards and commissions resigning midterm. If they had served on a board a number of years, and were moving, or no longer able to serve, or had just decided they no longer wanted to serve, most did not wait for their term to end but would resign.

Rosenthal said he makes several such appointments per month.

Buzzi said that was an “important piece of information” that the CRC did not have before. Buzzi said the CRC would consider the matter again.

Rosenthal was asked if most people serving on a board or commission were reappointed when their terms ended if they wanted to be reappointed. Rosenthal said they were.

“While it’s at the discretion of the first selectman, he’s not likely to be in the job very long if he’s picking fights,” said Rosenthal. “There are circuit breakers on the whole thing; if people don’t like what the first selectman is doing, they can vote him out.”

The council was expected to discuss the proposed charter revisions further at a meeting on June 15, and vote to send the draft back to the CRC for any changes. The CRC will then have 15 more days to finalize the draft in preparation for possible referendum questions to be set ahead of the November midterm election, where proposed revisions would be considered by voters.

Associate Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.