Informed Dialogue

Needed On Charter

To the Editor:

Why would the Democratic candidates for council pledge to re-appoint the 12 persons who wrote the controversial new charter. Once elected, council members are expected to represent all the people. Would it not be better to pledge to appoint qualified, impartial citizens to study the strong and the weak points of each proposed change? Who will lead an informed dialogue concerning the impact of the changes? Is the goal to stifle all dissent, imprison divergent thought, and prevent debate of the proposed changes?

Are we to be forced to agree it is in the interest of the town to give the power of taxation planning to six persons on a Board of Finance? What are the drawbacks to that path? Newtowners voted out the Board of Finance structure in 1971 largely because it had failed the school system. From the fall of 1967 to the spring of 1970 the middle school building was on triple sessions, attempting to education middle school, high school, and sixth grade students. The Legislative Council, a larger body and more representative of the voters, was voted into office in 1973 to assume this financial task.

Are we to be forced to agree is in the interest of the town to eliminate the Board of Selectmen because all future first selectmen will be so wise they won’t need informed colleagues? Must we agree the public has no need for an appeal process if the first selectman ignores their concerns? Is it in the best interest of the town to give the first selectman the power to remove an appointed official, with or without cause, with the procedures for removal also to be established by the first selectman?

These are major changes in how the town will be governed. Once elected, the new council members should represent all the people, not just those with one agenda. The new council will need to provide a method for comparing these proposed changes with the existing charter. To date, the 12 members of the former Charter Revision Committee have only promoted their plan. Contrary opinions are just was valuable and need to be heard in order to have a fully informed electorate.

I’m saddened by this lapse in judgment and the failure of aspiring leaders to recognize the contribution of meaningful debate. Taxpayers have already spent $30,500 on this proposed charter. The charter committee used $10,000, printing in The Bee cost $7,000, and the council needed $13,500 for an attorney to interpret the inconsistencies in the proposed charter. Attorney Chipman’s letters of August 15 and September 24, 2001 explain many of these problems and should be made available to the public. In spite of all the money expended, the charter is not ready for the voters but still appears on the November 7 ballot. If citizens mistakenly vote for it, the winning first selectman will be empowered to appoint the all-important Board of Finance that will decide the taxation policies for the town. Elective representatives for taxation will be taken away from the voters until at least 2002.

We need different people and a workable plan for reviewing and critiquing the proposed charter. That is what all the council candidates should pledge to embrace. That’s the American Way.

I will vote NO for the charter!

Ruby Johnson

16 Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook October 22, 2001