The Charter Revision Commission continued its work on proposed changes involving the Board of Finance, the Board of Education, and a number of other issues at two meetings July 14 and 21.

Charged with making revisions to the town’s charter on March 3 of this year, the commission has 16 months to submit its final report to the Legislative Council. With the final forms of the regulations needed by June 3, 2022, they are tentatively planning a public hearing on proposed changes in April. The panel hopes to put the final changes out to referendum for approval by voters on Election Day in November 2022.

Commissioner Anthony Filiato questioned whether the commission should seek input from those outside the commission when it settled on a proposed change. Commission Chair Andrew Buzzi responded, saying it should be part of the process of each section’s workgroup to show proposals to operational people; he felt that, for instance, Finance Director Robert Tait should be sought for input on the charter changes regarding the Board of Finance, and changes involving special and emergency appropriations.

“We can have them come in and talk about what pitfalls we may have [with the proposed changes],” said Buzzi. “I’d rather be able to say that we spoke to the Board of Education, that we spoke to [Tait], when we submit the changes to the Legislative Council. That way they won’t have to call them in themselves.”

With a number of charges to review over the next year, the biggest issue they face is what to do with the Board Of Finance (BOF).

Buzzi said the commission has “big questions” to answer regarding the finance board.

“The Board Of Finance might exist, it might not,” said Buzzi. “More than one person has said we should get rid of it.”

“Let’s face it: The Board of Finance is the big one,” said Filiato.

At meetings on July 14 and July 21, the commissioners present considered three different options: Eliminating the BOF altogether, giving the BOF more “teeth,” and leaving things as they are.

The question of what to do with the finance board stems from a recent trend in interactions between that elected panel and the Legislative Council. According to commission members, the BOF would work on an issue and then present it to the council, only for the council to start the process from scratch, ignoring the BOF’s work.

The way commission member Jim Gaston sees it, the BOF should act as a “financial advisor,” but “not making the ultimate choice.” The Legislative Council, as the fiscal authority, is the entity being advised. Gaston has been developing a concept where the BOF is “involved more in financial aspects instead of just making recommendations.”

A tentative proposal for a charter revision tied to the finance board added the following to the Summary of General Responsibilities: “It is intended that the Board of Finance will conduct any individual board and/or department inquiries and the Legislative Council may follow further if necessary. The Board Of Finance shall concentrate primarily on the financial and fiscal health and responsibility of the town, the Legislative Council, and the political will of the voters.” It also added that the Board of Finance can “propose and/or implement financial capital improvement plans/policies and debt service policies.”

“The Board Of Finance shall implement a capital improvement plan and policy and unless vacated by the Legislative Council on an eight-member vote shall be the final plan and/or policy,” according to the amendment. “Upon vacation by the Legislative Council, the Board of Finance will revise the plan and/or policy changes consistent with recommendations made by the Legislative Council.”

Supermajority Concerns

Similar language charges the finance board with implementing a debt policy, which also can only be vacated by the council on an 8-4 vote.

Buzzi expressed concerns with requiring a supermajority.

“If the town’s fiscal authority needs a supermajority to override the Board Of Finance, that makes the board a quasi-legislative body,” said Buzzi. “We can have one fiscal authority and only one.”

Filiato disagreed, saying it might be OK, so long as one group or the other has the final authority. He noted that there are “other things in the charter that require a supermajority.”

Buzzi said he would bring the issue to Town Attorney David Grogins.

Proposed text clarifies that the Legislative Council is the final fiscal authority in town: “Except as contained herein within the charter, the Legislative Council shall be the final legislative financial authority, not withstanding other provisions of the charter.”

Additionally, the charter revision commission is proposing to change the term for a BOF member from two to four years.

The commission continued reviewing a number of issues relating to the Board Of Education, discussing whether or not a time limit on the school board filling its own vacancies should be in the charter.

“The real question is if we want the first selectman to appoint someone after 30 days,” said member Elias Petersen.

The charter currently allows for the first selectman to be able to appoint members to most town bodies outside of the council after 30 days of vacancy.

Buzzi said [the provision] should be left if the town wants to maintain control so a vacancy doesn’t go on for a long period of time.

“A vacancy on the Board Of Education has more importance than a vacancy on something like the Advisory Committee,” Buzzi said.

The charter currently has no solution for what happens to a vacancy that is not filled after 60 days, and it was questioned whether the commission should remedy that.

“I imagine just have a 30-day time limit for the Board of Education will force them to fill vacancies before that limit is done,” said Buzzi. “I can’t imagine the board would want to cede its power to appoint a new member.”

Other Business

The commission has also been charged with a number of additional issues, among them a charge by the council to unlink special and emergency appropriations; Gaston said that the language “needs to be massaged a lot.”

While Filiato wanted the first selectman to be the “gatekeeper” of special and emergency appropriations, the Board of Selectmen is one of the places the appropriations can be initiated.

“The thought is that the first selectman needs at least one other vote on the Board of Selectmen,” said Gaston.

Buzzi stated he felt that special appropriations, if they are not an actual emergency, could wait until the next budget cycle.

The idea of allowing board and commission members to abstain during votes remains a divided topic among commissioners, with roughly half believing abstentions should be allowed, and the other half believing they should not.

Commission members have determined they do have common ground on the idea that abstentions might be allowed when voting on minutes that a member was not present for; and that commissioners should be able to abstain or outright recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest.

It was noted that abstaining on minutes might not be strictly necessary; it’s expected now that if a member was absent for a meeting, they could vote “no” on whether to accept the minutes.

Concerning the five-year capital improvement plan (CIP), commission member Scott Davidow noted the charge is to remove the text specifying that the plan be for five years to give more flexibility. Davidow said that of 15 towns similar to Newtown, nine had five-year plans, two had six-year plans, and one — Naugatuck — had no plan.

Filiato said that with five-year plans, things were constantly in flux and would often change before the end of any five-year period.

“It’s a work in progress,” said Filiato. “We know it’s fluid, but it’s good to have given some thought as to what should be going on. Do people want to plan ten years out for new schools? Or do they feel bad the plan always changes?”

Gaston felt the plan is important for evaluating what debt service will look like projected out at least five years.

“The town really needs to plan at least five years,” Gaston said. “I’d like it to say, ‘minimum five years.’”

Filiato agreed that would be an easy way to deal with their charge for flexibility.

“We’re in the realm of speculation beyond five years, but people might want to think about it,” said Gaston.

Revisions to Sections 2-01c, 2-135, and 2-32 are completed and ready to be voted on at a future meeting, according to Buzzi.

Section 2-01(c) concerns town bodies being able to make rules for the conduct of their meetings. It adds: “Should any such rules be in conflict with this Charter or the General Statutes, [then] this Charter of the General Statutes, as applicable, shall prevail.”

Section 2-135 concerns the town clerk and adds some language, “who shall also be the Registrar of Vital Statistics,” to conform with Connecticut State Law.

Section 2-32 concerns procedures for filling vacancies on appointive boards and commissions. It changes the period of time to fill the vacancies by the first selectman from 45 to 90 days.

Reporter Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.