Date: Fri 17-Nov-1995

By KAAREN VALENTA

Published: Aug 11, 1999 12:00 am

Publication: Bee

Author: KAAREN

Quick Words:

charter-revision-council

Full Text:

Council Appoints A Charter Revision Panel

B Y K AAREN V ALENTA

Legislative Council Wednesday night appointed a 12-member Charter Revision

Commission and directed it to look into 18 possible areas of change in the

existing town charter.

The commission will include six Republicans, five Democrats and one

unaffiliated member. Candidates were selected on the basis of resumes and

interviews conducted by a council subcommittee last week.

The commission members include Republicans Mae Schmidle of Echo Valley Road,

former state legislator and town clerk who also was the chairman of the last

charter revision commission; Russell Melita of Bud Drive, a former council

member who is chairman of the Republican Town Committee; Selectman Jim Smith;

Steve Koch, who is temporarily living in Southbury while building a house on

Sugar Lane; former council member Michael Snyder; and Barbara O'Connor of

Little Brook Lane.

The Democrats will include Ruby Johnson of Chestnut Hill Road, a former Board

of Education member; Brandt Schneider, who holds a master's degree in public

administration; former Legislative Council member Stan Karpacz of Hyvue Drive;

David Chipman of Hunting Ridge Road, an attorney and former Board of Education

member; and attorney Ted Winokur of Sturges Road. Greg Bunger, a financial

analyst who lives on Cedar Hill Road, is the unaffiliated member.

According to state law, the commission must review the entire charter for

possible changes. However, the council also directed the commission to take a

look at 18 possibilities and report back on these issues. Some of these

questions are:

Should the term of office for first selectman, Board of Selectmen, town clerk,

Legislative Council or others be four years instead of two?

Should the town clerk be appointed? If the clerk continues to be elected,

should the Board of Selectmen oversee the activities of the clerk's office "so

that the department is as accountable as any other department?"

Should the town empower or give authority back to the Board of Selectmen, or

eliminate the Board of Selectmen and have a first selectman/council or town

manager/council form of government?

Should the Public Building and Site Committee be required to be involved in

all capital projects above a certain cost?

The timeline for the budget process is too long; there is too much time

between the selectmen/council deliberations and the annual referendum.

Should the limit on the amount of money the Legislative Council can transfer

or appropriate between acounts be changed from $50,000 to perhaps a percentage

of the annual budget?

Should the Legislative Council be elected at large since its members serve the

town as a body and not on a district basis?

Should the process of land acquision and disposal be streamlined to make it

more "user friendly"?

Should the requirement for a call to referendum be increased from the present

5 percent to perhaps 10 percent on the registered voters?

There is no provision for amending the charter without going through an entire

revision process. Should amending be possible through a two-thirds vote of the

Legislative Council and a town meeting?

Should the membership of the Board of Education be changed to seven or nine

members? Should be board be elected by district or on other another basis to

give the voters a real choice?

Should the definitions of "special" and "emergency" appropriations be revised?

Should the mandated charter review take place every 10 years instead of every

five, especially if there is a mechanism for amending it at other times?

Should the terms of office of the tax collector and assessor be changed?

Should the public hearing on the annual budget scheduled for Saturday each

year be eliminated because almost no members of the public attend?

Should capital projects be considered only during the budget process and

perhaps one other time, in the fall, each year?

Next HRRA Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off Event Scheduled In Newtown

Genealogy Club's Next Program To Dig Into 'Dissecting A Civil War Pension Record'

Choral Society Planning ‘Voices Of America’ Performance

Newtown Earth Day Festival Was A Success

Local Fourth Grader To Host ‘Gaming For Change’ On May 16

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

Log In

Date: Fri 17-Nov-1995

Leave a Reply Cancel reply