Critical Omission Adds Confusion To Controversy On Charter Issue

By Steve Bigham

Just when it seemed like the proposed changes to the town charter could not get any more controversial, an omission on the wording of the ballot questions has added confusion to the controversy. It has given both opponents and advocates of the plan even more to argue about.

The omission of one sentence, which could end up undermining a year’s worth of work by the Charter Revision Commission, is unsettling to a lot of people.

Most have described the situation as a mess. Town Clerk Cindy Simon has even had nightmares about it. “I see it in my sleep,” she said this week.

The Charter Revision Commission’s proposed changes – if approved November 6 – were intended to go into effect in December 2003. an “effective date,” however, was never included in the proposal that was sent to the Secretary of the State’s office two weeks ago. State statutes require that any proposed changes must go into effect within 30 days unless otherwise specified.

“I don’t see where the law gives any leeway. The state statute is very specific,” explained Mary Young of the Secretary of the State’s office Wednesday.

 Town officials last week were still holding out hope that there might be a loophole in the law. No such loophole ever surfaced.

Among the proposed changes to the town charter are the creation of a Board of Finance, the elimination of the Board of Selectmen, and added powers to the first selectman, including veto power over the Legislative Council.

If those changes are approved next month, the Board of Selectmen will be disbanded by December, meaning Bill Brimmer and Joe Bojnowski, if reelected, would be out of a job just days after the election. It also means that the first selectman would be empowered to appoint six people to temporarily serve on the newly created Board of Finance, although state law allows for a special election of a new board within four months.

There has been both support and opposition to the proposed charter changes all along. There now, however, appears to be growing sentiment that rushing these significant changes to town government might be a bad idea.

Others say the proposed charter changes should stand on their own merit. The timing of their implementation should not affect people’s opinions.

The bottom line, noted one observer, “Somebody made a gross mistake.” Blame laying for the mistake, which has included everyone from the town attorneys who reviewed the charter and the Charter Revision Commission itself and its chairman, Bill Sheluck, has become an unofficial and off-the-record pastime since the omission was first discovered.

One thing has changed between last week and this week: the leadership of the Legislative Council is now in favor of the plan. For months, former chairman Pierre Rochman vehemently opposed the changes, but he is now resigned, and Don Studley has taken over.

“It’s certainly unfortunate that the changes – if approved – would have to go into effect within 30 days, but I remain in favor of the changes. It should not change people’s opinions simply because of when it is to be implemented,” Mr Studley said. “It should be judged on its merits.”

Mr Studley said the next first selectman would have the added responsibility of having to appoint people to the Board of Finance. He believes that could become a major campaign issue.

Also, there is talk about the “changing of the guard on the Legislative Council.” Five members are not seeking reelection. In addition, Mr Studley said, there may be some council members who get elected and then decide to step down in favor of serving on the Board of Finance.

One council member suggested that the town reject the charter as proposed, then reconstitute the same proposal to be placed on next year’s ballot.