Date: Fri 13-Dec-1996
Date: Fri 13-Dec-1996
Publication: Bee
Author: STEVEB
Quick Words:
charter-council-districts
Full Text:
Charter Panel Votes To Keep Council Districts
B Y S TEVE B IGHAM
The town charter will continue to require all members of the Legislative
Council be elected by district rather than on an at-large basis.
The Charter Revision Commission decided to maintain the status quo last
Thursday despite a handful of recommendations from local politicians who asked
that, at election time, council candidates be lumped into a pool and then
voted on by the entire community.
As Jack Rosenthal pointed out in February, council members rarely deal with
issues affecting individual districts.
"The four candidates from each district are elected only by voters from that
district. However, the issues most often affect the entire town," he said.
"More candidates would be encouraged to run if they were elected at large."
Earl Smith, chairman of the Democratic Town Committee, said his party has at
times had difficulty recruiting candidates from certain districts.
However, as Charter Revision Commission member Ruby Johnson pointed out,
that's not a good enough reason to change things. Her commission members
agreed, voting 8-1 to keep the districts.
As an after thought, commission member Greg Bunger suggested nine council
members be elected by district and the other three be chosen at-large. He said
such a move would give the town a chance to vote for a person who has stood by
one platform regarding the entire town.
"I liked the first part of your statement, having just nine," joked commission
chairman Mike Snyder.
No action was taken on Mr Bunger's suggestion.
Mr Bunger also made a motion that the required number of signatures for a call
for a referendum remain at the present five percent of the total electorate,
instead of increasing it to 10 percent, as has been proposed.
"It's tough enough as it is to get five percent," he said.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Commission member Stan Karpacz made a motion not to allow for amendment to the
charter without having to wait for the mandated revision process. His motion
was approved unanimously.
Mr Karpacz also asked the commission to reject mandating a charter review
every ten years instead of five. That was also approved unanimously.
The commission made few other decisions last week, as members decided to hold
back on any more votes until they have more information or more time to mull
things over in their minds.
As member Brandt Schneider pointed out, it would be difficult to make any
decisions on the terms of offices before even determining what form of
government Newtown will have down the road.
Other items to be discussed are: should the town clerk be appointed? Mae
Schmidle, a former town clerk and also a member of the commission, was not
present at last week's meeting and will be asked for her comments next week.
Should the town empower or give authority back to the Board of Selectmen or do
away with the Board of Selectmen and have a first selectman/town council form
of government?
Should the Saturday public hearing on the budget be eliminated? Should capital
projects be considered at budget time? Should all proposed expenditures
outside of the budget process go to automatic referendum if they exceed a
certain dollar amount?
Having difficulty getting the necessary eight members for a quorum, the
committee voted to change the required number of members for a meeting to six.
However, eight members of the board must still be present for a vote so the
reduced quorum will have little impact.
First Selectman Bob Cascella and former First Selectman Jack Rosenthal were
invited to attend this week's meeting and were expected to be asked to discuss
the following: should the term of first selectman, Board of Selectmen, Town
Council and others be four years instead of two?
The committee, which voted to begin meeting weekly starting in January, must
present its revision to the town by May. The update town charter must be in
the hands of the secretary of state by July.
