Charter Review Panel Continues Chipping Away At Charges

By John Voket

The Charter Revision Commission met March 13 and proceeded to take action on several more charges from the Legislative Council. The panel also tabled discussion and action on a charge related to timing intricacies between the budget process and referendum.

The particular charge related to the budget and referendum generated approximately an hour’s worth of discussion on the intricacies of when hearings and deliberations are held, and the mandates of legally advertising hearings and budget votes in relation to the timetable of proceedings stipulated in the current charter document.

Another aspect of the charge asked whether a defeated budget vote should go back to the finance board for review and suggestions before further cuts are entertained by the council, preceding a subsequent budget vote.

Commissioners have generally agreed that the budget process is too long and cumbersome for a typical taxpayer to easily follow, and the litany of deliberations, public hearings, votes, town meetings, and related proceedings may be discouraging taxpayers from participating and in some cases promoting apathy amongst residents. Joan Plouffe has been a particularly strong advocate for truncating certain aspects of the process, and her fellow charter commissioners have generally agreed that at least one public hearing and the three-week process it entails can be eliminated.

Discussion March 13 returned to an idea tendered early on in the charter revision proceedings, that a public hearing conducted by the Board of Finance can likely be eliminated leaving just a council hearing. Ms Plouffe said it made sense because the finance board is an advisory panel, and it is the full council that can legally adjust the budget up or down.

Finance board member James Gaston was in attendance, and confirmed that although he saw some value in his board’s public hearing, taxpayers actually have numerous opportunities to speak on specific or general concerns during multiple deliberations and meetings leading up to the final budget recommendation between his board and the council.

Mr Gaston advocated for any rejected budget to go back to the finance board before the council, contending that his board has the expertise and is so immersed in the budget minutia that its members may be most qualified to suggest subsequent cuts in the event taxpayers vote a proposal down.

Upon completion of discussion, charter Chair Al Cramer expressed that he was uncomfortable calling for a vote on the matter, and suggested that fellow commissioners spend time before the next meeting coming up with wording that could lead to a consensus.

Commissioners did, however, act on five other matters, passing each one unanimously. Commissioner Joseph Hemingway was absent from the March 13 session.

Charter panel members decided to leave unchanged a charter provision about oversight on selling or disposing of town land. A suggested change would have provided selectmen with the sole authority to determine if the sale or transfer of land is tenable or not in the best interest of the town.

Commissioner Guy Howard said he would be uncomfortable if a single board was entrusted with the power to make such a decision, and the remaining commissioners concurred.

Despite a recommendation by the town attorney to revise another aspect of the charter involving accepting encumbered easements, open space, and roads, the panel agreed to send the revision on that matter on to the council unchanged. Another consideration about adding language specifying the reason for conflict of interest to be stated on the record during votes by public officials was also left unchanged.

On that matter, Mr Cramer said he did not feel an elected or appointed official should be required to publicly state a reason for conflict of interest in asking to be excused from a particular vote.

Another matter prohibiting a lame duck first selectman from making appointments was supported. Charter commissioner Carolyn Signorelli and Mr Howard both argued that since the period between an election and the installation of a newly elected top official was just a month, the period was not long enough to have any impact even if key appointments were to go unfilled.

On discussions related to the number of signatures required by voters to petition for a referendum, the commissioners present all indicated they were satisfied with the currently stipulated five percent. They did agree to adjust the language, however, on a prompt from commissioner LeReaine Frampton who is also a local registrar of voters.

Based on her illustration of a certain scenario where petitioners could be delayed in circulating their documents over a weekend, Mr Cramer moved that if a defeated budget revision was received from the council by the town clerk after noon, it would be considered received on the following business day. That motion passed unanimously.

The charter commissioners are scheduled to meet Tuesday, March 27, to discuss whether Fairfield Hills Authority members should be elected or appointed; the size and makeup of the Parks and Recreation Commission; the budget timeline; the Water and Sewer Authority and issues related to encouraging participation from unaffiliated voters.