Charter Panel Recommending Split, Binding Budget With Ballot Questions

By John Voket

A fast-moving Charter Revision Commission voted unanimously August 20 to amend Newtown’s governing document in order to split or bifurcate the local budget referendum between the spending proposal for the school district and a separate request incorporating the municipal budget and all the town’s annual debt service costs.

The same recommendation also suggests that in the event one request is approved and the other fails, the approved budget should be binding. The commission is recommending adopting language for ballot questions as well, asking voters in a first-round referendum to advise whether each separate budget request is too low.

In the event one part of the split request fails, each subsequent referendum will ask voters to advise whether they believe the new proposal is too low. The commission went beyond its narrow charge, to additionally suggest removing the charter provision moving failed budgets to a town meeting.

The process leading up to Monday’s unanimous vote began after a sparsely attended public hearing Thursday, August 16, with all nine commissioners debating and eventually voting to split the budget and make any approved request binding. That measure passed on a 7-2 vote.

The panel then took up a discussion on two suggested options for ballot question language, eventually settling on the format approved Monday. Following that deliberation, six commissioners backed language that asked voters to weigh in on each of the two budget requests, and whether an approved or rejected amount is too low.

The ballot question option backed by the three remaining commissioners only provided for voters to approve each side, or to indicate they rejected one or both proposals because they were individually too high or too low.

During the public hearing, resident John Moran said he hoped to see the language put forward in ballot questions that gave voters the option to advise whether each part of the split proposal was too high or too low, regardless if the request is approved or not.

Mr Moran also suggested the panel consider showing voters the proposed increase in the ballot requests by percent over the current year.

“It’s a source of confusion because changes in the budget [made during pre-referendum deliberations] is seen as a cut, when reductions are being made to a requested increase,” Mr Moran said.

Resident Robert Nelson further said that voters might not be as inclined to participate in answering budget questions if they are only given a choice to advise on whether a request is too low, when they are considering the proposal.

Before Monday’s meeting, commissioners drafted proposed language that, if approved by the council and voters on the Presidential election ballot this November, would become effective in time for the next budget referendum the final Tuesday of April 2013.

First Selectman Pat Llodra thanked the panel and expressed her appreciation for the hard work the commissioners did in a very short period of time between being seated and delivering their final recommendation.

Prior to the final vote, Commissioners James Ritchie and Craig Lehecka, who joined the proceedings by phone, both recommended a future commission consider whether to cap the number of budget referenda that can occur before a repeatedly failed budget reverts back to the existing year’s allocation.

Commissioner Michelle Embree Ku said she appreciated how simplified the final draft would be for voters if it was approved, but she struggled with whether the language could be simplified even further.

Following the unanimous vote Monday, commission Chairman John Godin declared: “That’s a wrap.”

Contacted following the meeting, Council Chairman Jeff Capeci said the proposed revision would be the subject of a public hearing August 29, and that a special meeting of the council would likely consider the proposal for action following the hearing that evening.

Mr Capeci said that while not perfect, he felt the proposal from the charter commissioners was as close as possible to what council members’ requested from the revision panel.

“This commission dug deeper, starting with a great foundation established by our previous charter commission,” Mr Capeci said. “But this time they defined details that could have been an issue had the last proposal been approved. They are offering better and more thought-out solutions, allowing voters to express their opinion on each [budget] request while still passing a budget.”

Both a public hearing on the charter proposal and a proposed code ordinance will be held that evening in the council chambers at the Newtown Municipal Center, with the full council meeting to follow.