The Legislative Council unanimously approved at its March 19 meeting a list of possible charges for the upcoming Charter Revision Commission to review. Who exactly will be reviewing those charges was still up in the air as the council delayed a decision on membership until March 25.

Brandon Moore, one of the applicants for the CRC, withdrew his application shortly before the council meeting, citing that removing him reduces the membership of the commission from a proposed ten to nine, and some councilmen had previously expressed reservations about having an even amount of commission members because of the possibility of ties.

The remaining nine members are: Democrats Herb Rosenthal, Maureen Crick Owen, Dan Honan, Peter Schwarz, and Aiden Music; unaffiliateds Barney Molloy and Will Drew; and Republicans John Zachos and Tracy Pertoso.

Councilman Chris Gardner, chairman of the Charter Revision Membership Subcommittee, asked for additional time for his subcommittee to discuss the new development to give it a chance to have input.

Councilman Keith Alexander said that if the subcommittee was okay with all ten of the members, he didn't see why they wouldn't be good with the remaining nine. Councilman Ben Ruben agreed with the postponement, saying the subcommittee's opinions may not change, but they deserve the opportunity to discuss.

The motion to postpone passed 9-2, with Democrats Eric Paradis and Alexander voting no, and Council Chairman Laura Miller abstaining.

Ruben later in the meeting raised the idea of having the CRC again look at eliminating the Board of Finance. Alexander said the charge subcommittee looked at that and the fact that voters rejected the proposed elimination after the last charter revision and felt that this year might not be the time. Alexander said he himself wasn't opposed to the idea, just that he was unsure voters would take to it a second time.

Ruben noted that the current budget process was "very cumbersome" and the school administration has to present its budget multiple times to different bodies.

Councilman Chris Eide said that the argument for the Board of Finance goes that they come into it from a more financial perspective than the council and "look at the numbers" in a way the council doesn't, but noted that with this year's budget, the BOF had changed a director of operations position into an entirely different senior administrator position, including a new job description, because it felt that department heads should report to the first selectman.

"That goes totally against the argument that they're a different body with a different purpose and not just duplicative meetings, which I think we tend to see," said Eide.

Ultimately, the amendment to have the CRC review elimination of the BOF failed 7-5, with Arnie Berman, Gardner, Paradis, Jordana Bloom, Alexander, Lily Mac Hugh, and Miller voting against, and Ruben, Eide, Donna Rahtelli, Steven Stolfi, and Michelle Embree Ku voting for.

The approved charges are below and will form the basis of the Charter Revision Commission's discussions when it is formed.

I. Governance Structure

a. Shift the town clerk from an elected position to an appointed position. Reason for review: The responsibilities of the town clerk are fundamentally administrative and nonpolitical.

b. Change appointed commission mid-term vacancies to be open seats, fillable by anyone, but subject to minority rule. Reason for review: Mid-term vacancies are frequent. The first selectman is responsible for appointing 124 people to 16 commissions (including alternates and justices of the peace). On average, the first selectman is required to appoint 39 people each year — assuming zero mid-term vacancies. The current rules narrow an already thin applicant pool — making it difficult to fill seats that have been vacated.

II. Budget Approval Process

a. Change referendum timeline to increase voter turnout. Reason for review: Voter turnout during Newtown’s budget referenda is historically low. The current schedule and limited absentee ballot options may contribute to this issue. Timing (weekday only) and required date (near school vacation) can reduce the total participation of tax-payers.

b. Require that adjustments to the municipal budget be tied to a specific line item — not lump sum changes. Reason for review: Requiring boards to tie any recommended budget change to a specific line item will improve transparency and accountability, while eliminating ambiguity about which body is accountable for specific reductions. The change would eliminate the political incentive to make vague reductions that sound responsible but ignore the hard decisions.

c. Address inconsistencies between charter language regarding budget preparation and common practice in the town. Reason for review: The charter restricts the LC from acting on certain budget items without prior formal action by the BOS or BOE. In practice, this restriction has proven impractical, when updates are provided during the budget process.

d. Allow Legislative Council to increase the budget if voters reject it for being too low. Reason for review: The language in the charter forbids the LC from increasing the budget above the original BOS/BOE proposals. After a failed referendum, even if advisory questions indicate public support for an increase, the LC cannot act on a suggested increase, leaving the value of including these questions on the ballot limited.

e. Have the Board of Finance and Legislative Council review the budget concurrently. Reason for review: By charter, the LC receives the BOF-recommended budgets relatively late in the cycle and must hold public hearings, digest the BOF’s changes, debate, finalize the budget, and vote before the second Wednesday in April. The process leaves the LC with a very short window to understand complex budgets, ask questions, and make decisions. Concurrent review would give the LC a head start so they can understand the BOE and BOS proposals earlier, identify pressure points, ask clarifying questions, and begin internal deliberations. The BOF would continue to make the first set of financial adjustments, ensuring concurrent review would strengthen collaboration without creating conflict.

f. Clarify and allow both the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance to adjust revenue estimates. Reason for review: The charter explicitly states that both the BOS and the BOF can adjust budgeted appropriations, but only explicitly states the BOF can adjust budgeted revenue.

III. Appropriations and Referendum Thresholds

a. Clarify inconsistent and overlapping definitions of special appropriations. Reason for review: The charter uses the term “Special Appropriation” in two different and incompatible ways — which risks confusion and misinterpretation. The charter refers to LC approved capital projects (i.e., those projects not sent to referendum) as a “Special Appropriation.” The charter also refers to any supplemental appropriation made during the year outside the adopted budget as a “Special Appropriation.” While these may be consistent with accounting, they should be modified for clarity, such as “Mid-Year Appropriation” and “Non-Referendum Capital Appropriation.”

b. Revise fixed-dollar amounts in the charter to values that track with the mill rate or budget. Reason for review: Newtown’s $1.5 million threshold for (a) capital projects subject to referendum, (b) mid-year supplemental appropriations, and (c) property transfers is outdated. A fixed dollar amount inevitably erodes with inflation. Indexing thresholds to the grand list, mill rate, or the annual budget should be considered.

IV. Commissions

a. Update the charter to include clearer language regarding the role and reporting structure of commissions. Reason for review: The charter does not specify how the work of town commissions should flow to the departments or bodies that can act on their recommendations. Since commissions generally lack executive authority, their effectiveness depends on having a defined pathway to the entities that do. Without that, they risk becoming siloed. Clarifying reporting lines and expectations could help ensure that the time and talent invested in these commissions translates into actionable outcomes for the town.

b. Change appointment of civilian Fire Commission members to first selectman. Reason for review: The Fire Commission is the only entity in Town that includes no taxpayer elected or Town appointed members. The charter currently provides that the Fire Commission be composed of seven members. The chiefs of each fire company automatically receive a slot. Two slots are reserved for "civilians" who are appointed by the five fire chiefs. It may be more appropriate to have the first selectman appoint the two "civilians" (who should not hold any relationship to the fire companies).

c. Consider merging duplicative appointed Town commissions or dissolving appointed commissions whose functions no longer meet the needs of the Town. Add to the charter any missing commissions, such as the Fair Rent Commission. Reason for review: The town may have commissions that have ceased to be relevant or productive. Other commissions that are long-standing may not be discussed in the charter.

V. Ethics

a. Update the charter to clarify and strengthen the role of the Board of Ethics. Reason for review: The mechanisms for enforcing the standards town officials are expected to uphold are limited and, in some cases, unclear. The charter does not clearly define what the Board of Ethics must do once a complaint is filed, nor what constitutes a complete and transparent resolution. That lack of clarity undermines public confidence. For elected officials, censure is currently the strongest consequence available. In practice, it carries little weight. While Connecticut law does not generally permit recall without a special act of the legislature, the charter can still be strengthened in ways that increase accountability without crossing into “removal.”

b. Expand the charter’s definition of the Code of Ethics to ensure it is not restricted solely to "improper influence." Reason for review: The charter’s current language is not unusual. But it may not be sufficiently proactive. It doesn’t articulate any expectation of positive behavior — only avoidance of bad behavior. Improper influence is only one slice of ethical governance. Other aspects of ethical governance include transparency, accountability, and fairness.

c. Improve transparency and resolution of ethics complaints. Reason for review: The charter does not clearly define what the Board of Ethics must do once a complaint is filed, nor what constitutes a complete and transparent resolution. That lack of clarity undermines public confidence. It may make sense to require a response to the complainant unless the filing is deemed to be without merit.

VI. Transparency in Government

a. Require public comment to be listed on agendas for all boards and commissions. Reason for review: Some Newtown boards list public comment on every agenda, some do it inconsistently, and a few omit it entirely. The inconsistency may also leave chairs guessing what the “right” practice is. A charter‑level requirement would create uniformity, eliminate ambiguity, and increase transparency.

b. Require meeting-related documents, agendas, minutes, and recordings (if available) to be accessible via the town website. Reason for review: All Newtown boards post agendas and minutes on newtown-ct.gov. But only some make meeting-related documents that are distributed to board members available to the public. Making meeting recordings that are available to board members also available to the public serves greater transparency.

c. Clarify the selection process of auditor and audit approval procedures. Reason for review: The current language is ambiguous. For example, it’s unclear if the LC must follow the BOF recommendation on whether to approve an audit, or if the BOF recommendation is advisory only. Additional issues: there’s no timeline or conflict-of-interest provisions.

VII. General Language

a. Update charter language to gender neutral titles. Reason for review: Some New England towns have modernized their charters to remove gendered terminology.

b. Remove ambiguous language. Reason for review: The charter language can be ambiguous, such as the auditor selection and audit approval procedures. A further example is the language in section 6-20(c), which requires the LC to use its “best efforts” to add capital appropriations which exceed the LC’s funding authority to the annual Town Budget Referendum. If the Charter Revision Commission finds other ambiguities, it may wish to provide clarifying language.

c. Adopt technical corrections recommended by the finance director. Reason for review: Finance Director Glenys Salas has urged the Charter Review Commission to consider revised language that clarifies who bears responsibility for the risk management of the town. She also specifies how the charter could be reorganized so the order of certain sections so that they flow chronologically [sic]. She also advocates numerous other clarifications.

d. Review details of Ordinance Chapter 456 (Property, Acquisition and Disposition of) for potential inclusion in Charter Section 8-10 Real Property Dispositions. Reason for Review: Ordinance Chapter 456 was written to clarify Charter Section 810. That clarification would more readily available if directly in the charter.

e. Clarify the eligibility criteria for first selectman. Reason for review: The eligibility section of the could be interpreted to mean that an individual holding a full-time job would be ineligible to be a first selectman candidate [sic]. The original authors almost certainly intended this restriction to apply to officeholders. The Commission may also wish to consider whether an individual serving as first selectman should be restricted from holding outside full-time or part-time employment.

Editor Jim Taylor can be reached at jim@thebee.com.