Charter Should Enhance

The Rights of People

To the Editor:

Newtown has had at least a dozen Charter Revisions since we adopted our first Charter in 1961. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort and heart our Charter Revision Commission has put into this most recent revision and regret that many people are troubled by its inadvertent flaws.

My perspective in looking at a charter is – how does the document best serve the people – how does it guarantee that the rights of the people will always be protected from self-seeking government officials or from other citizens who have little or no respect for the minority rights of others. I am a firm believer that Newtown’s government belongs to its taxpaying citizens whose taxes make our style of life possible and they should, at all times, be our first and prime consideration. With the experience of having served on several Charter Revision Commissions, I carefully read this charter, and in between the lines as well, to see what, if anything, was being taken away from the people – where was their power being diminished.

I didn’t have to go far to see that the Board of Selectman was being eliminated in favor of a strong mayor style government for Newtown. What the historic three-member Board of Selectman provides for our town is (1) the ability for an opposition voice to be heard when needed (2) the ability for people to hear and know what the executive branch of their government is proposing or planning on their behalf, if they choose to attend a Board of Selectman meeting (3) the ability for the public to address issues the Board of Selectman are considering through public participation provided by our local meetings (4) the ability for the press, on behalf of the public, to publicize and ventilate issues that might otherwise remain unnoticed. At a time we are increasingly aware of the pitfalls of government power and abuse, is eliminating the ability of the public (i.e., people) to be better informed about what the executive branch of their government is doing in the best interest of protecting the rights of people or does it diminish their right to know with no public forum?

The recommendation of a strong mayor form of government is an extremely unusual concept for a town like ours with its 290-year-old tradition of people’s rights, freedom, and the flagpole. A strong mayor form of government would put us in a class with about 30 large urban cities out of 169 towns and cities in Connecticut, 70 percent of whom have populations far in excess of ours – such as Bridgeport, Bristol, Danbury, East Hartford, East Haven, Hamden, Milford, New Haven, Norwalk, Shelton, Stamford, Waterbury, and West Haven.

Is there a compelling need to align ourselves with a government style similar to the big cities of Connecticut. Out of 169 towns, over 115 towns and small cities protect the rights of their people with a Board of Selectman form of government. Is there something so bad, so dangerous, so devastating going on in Newtown that would warrant eliminating taxpayers rights to know what is going on in the executive branch of local government? While certainly, many current elected officials may be doing an admirable job, it is also the job of our charter to protect our citizens from elected or appointed officials who could do a potentially devastating job – and Newtown has had a few of those! It is common knowledge that power can corrupt. Giving the strong mayor the ability to appoint or unappoint citizens to local boards and commissions also bears a bit of scrutiny. While our Board of Selectman does appoint, it is three individuals and unappointing is another whole controversial issue that frequently appears in large cities when some cronyism and more serious overtones develop. We are all aware of how difficult it is to attract volunteers to local government these days – but giving a strong mayor the ability to appoint or unappoint citizen volunteers to serve “at his/her pleasure” – can you imagine what a deadly chilling affect that would have on the already dwindling supply of local government volunteers.

When a first selectman has to deal with a Board of Selectman and the press, is that cumbersome? Maybe – but balance that with the people’s right to know what their executive branch of government is doing and where are the people and the citizens better protected in the long run? What gives Newtowners the best safety net overall in their government? We just need to look at some of the large urban cities in central and southern Connecticut with strong mayor forms of government and the answer is obvious. What is the compelling need for us to make this extreme and unwarranted change right now? There are still many towns and cities in Connecticut much larger than Newtown who are surviving well and prospering without a strong mayor form of government – such as Greenwich, Fairfield, Simsbury, and Westport and dozens of other towns our size.

Newtown is a lovely town, a clean town, with a good educational system and with a clean governmental system that has served us well for over 290 years – what do we, the people, have to gain by switching to a big city type government – a strong mayor?

In addition to the many flaws – technical and substantive – the rights of the people of Newtown would be better served by voting NO on the current Charter Revision proposals on the ballot. And I thank the members of the Charter Revision Commission for their work on our behalf.

Sincerely, a former Charter Revision Commissioner,

 Charter Revision Chairman,

Town Clerk and State Representative

Mae. S. Schmidle

Echo Valley, Newtown                                        October 22, 2001