Minutes of the special meeting of the Charter Revision Commission held on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 in the Old Court Room, Edmond Town Hall, 45 Main Street, Newtown, CT. Chairman Cramer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Al Cramer, Joe Hemingway, Joan Plouffe, Guy Howard. ABSENT: LeReine Frampton, Carolyn Signorelli. ALSO PRESENT: One member of public, one member of the press.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Bob Merola, 22 Ashford Lane, read a letter requesting that Charter Revision leave the Board of Finance intact (Attachment A to original minutes.)
TO AMEND THE DRAFT REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED CHANGES OR TO REJECT SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDED CHANGES.
Mr. Cramer reported that the Legislative Council submitted its report back to the Charter Revision Commission on November 9 and that they would like to act on the Charter Revision’s final report in November.
Ms. Plouffe reported that one member of the Legislative Council told her that she did not have enough information about the redistricting matter.
Mr. Cramer reviewed all of the draft report items that the Legislative Council had addressed.
Section 2-10 (a). Ms. Plouffe noted that Town Attorney Grogins had backed off on his recommendation concerning that the Legislative Council should initiate a request to change district lines. Mr. Cramer noted that the Legislative Council concurred with the Charter Revision Commission’s recommendation concerning initiating changing district lines.
Sections 2-10 (b), 2-30 (a) and 7-10. Mr. Cramer moved to accept the Legislative Council recommendation to go back to three voting districts. YES (Cramer, Hemingway). NO (Plouffe, Howard). Motion failed.
Ms. Plouffe is in favor of electing the Council at large. Mr. Howard is in favor of two districts. Mr. Cramer noted that if each party (2 or 3) puts up eight candidates there would be sixteen or twenty-four candidates, there could be too many choices which could cause confusion.
Section 2-10 (b) Mr. Cramer moved to accept the Legislative Council’s recommendation to retain the requirement for seven affirmative votes to redistrict. Motion unanimously carried.
Sections 2-50 and 2-130. Mr. Cramer moved to accept the Legislative Council’s recommendation to go back to renaming the Finance Advisory Board the Board of Finance. YES (Hemingway). NO (Cramer, Plouffe, Howard). Motion failed.
Mr. Howard feels there are more issues with the duties than the name. He said that the Chairman of the Board of Finance told him that the Board of Finance did not have oversight with Fairfield Hills and Mr. Howard asked if they should have oversight with the Town. Mr. Cramer said that concerning Section 2-130 the Finance Advisory Board would have duties as approved by this Charter not by the state statutes.
Section 3-30 (a) (3). The Charter Revision Commission unanimously accepts the Legislative Council’s recommendation to delete this recommendation (do not spend excessive amount in litigation).
Section 4-01. The Charter Revision unanimously accepts the Legislative Council’s recommendation to add “with approval of the Board of Selectmen in.” (Concerning lame duck First Selectman).
Section 4-60 (d). The Charter Revision unanimously accepts the Legislative Council’s recommendation to substitute “found to warrant investigation” for “to be valid” concerning the Board of Ethics.
Section 4-90 (2) (b). Mr. Hemingway moved that the word “all” is to stay because it represents the view of the Charter Revision Commission. Motion unanimously carried.
This concerns the Public Building and Site Committee. Ms. Plouffe noted that the Public Building and Site Committee expressed to the Charter Revision Commission that they were upset with their role. They said that according to the ordinance they need not be appointed to oversee all town projects, but Mr. Cramer noted that the ordinance cannot trump the Charter. Mr. Howard said that the Public Building and Site Committee is not involved in Fairfield Hills because of the language.
Sections 5-01 (b) (4) and 7-70 (a). The Legislative Council had accepted this recommendation with strike out of the last sentence concerning web site postings. Mr. Howard moved that the language stay. Motion unanimously carried.
Sections 6-11, 6-12 (e) an 6-13 (a) (2) and 7-70 (b). Mr. Cramer moved to vote in favor of the Legislative Council’s rejection and go back to the original budget process. YES (Cramer), NO (Howard, Plouffe, Hemingway). Motion failed.
Section 6-13 (b) (2). Concerning a super majority of the Legislative Council to vote to add an item back to the budget proposal. Ms. Plouffe moved to leave the Charter Revision’s recommendation as is. Motion unanimously carried.
Section 6-14. The Charter Revision unanimously accepts the Legislative Council’s recommendation to separate out local questions to its own section by proposing adding a new
Section 6-15 (Attachment B to the original minutes).
It was noted that Section 7-80 (e) in the Legislative Council’s recommendations should be Section 7-80 (a).
Mr. Cramer reiterated that the Charter Revision Commission voted to retain its recommendations concerning:
· Having two voting districts
· Renaming the Board of Finance to the Finance Advisory Board
· Changing the entire budget process
· Add to the budget process that a majority of at least six affirmative votes rather than eight votes of the Legislative Council are required to add an item back to the proposed budget
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. None noted.
Mr. Cramer noted that the Charter Revision Commission is dissolved when the Legislative Council votes on the Charter Revision Commission’s final report. Ms. Plouffe asked to eliminate items that are contingent upon another item that is not going to the voters.
Mr. Cramer noted that if the Legislative Council rejects an item, anyone can petition within 45 (forty-five) days after the Legislative Council votes to have the item sent to the voters.
ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Ann M. Mazur, Clerk Pro Te
| 
