CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION
Minutes of the Charter Revision Commission Public Hearing Meeting held on Tuesday September 21, 2010 in Meeting Room 1 at the Newtown Municipal Center, 3 Primrose Street , Newtown, CT.
Charter Revision Commission Chairman William Lavery called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM.
PRESENT: Robert Duero, John Godin, Joseph Golden, William Lavery, Eric Paradis, Carey Shierloh, Peter Spanedda.
ABSENT: None.
ALSO PRESENT: One member of the press.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Godin wished to note that in relation to Mrs. Frampton’s comments regarding the BOE replacement process: the Board of Education has 30 days to choose their replacement candidate or the selection falls to the Board of Selectmen to appoint the replacement.
Mr. Paridis made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2010 public hearing as amended. Second by Mrs. Schierloh. Minutes unanimously approved as amended.
DISCUSSION ON SPECIFIC CHARGES FROM LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL:
Mr. Golden suggested that the committee invite the following Town officials for their comment on the specific charges:
- First Selectwoman Pat Llodra
- Board of Education Chairman William Hart.
- Board of Finance Chairman John Kortze.
- Legislative Council Chairman Jeff Capeci.
- Current Finance Director Bob Tait.
- Current Legislative Council member and previous Finance Director Ben Sprague.
The Town officials will be invited to attend the next meeting (Monday October 4, 2010 at 6:30PM) for their comment. The commission would also accept comment in writing should the officials choose to do so.
Charge #1
Mr. Lavery requested that the commissioners discuss their preliminary feelings on a bifurcated budget.
Mr. Duero indicated that he doesn’t see any harm in bifurcating the budget. Since the Town and BOE budgets are so significant and different, it is important that Town citizens understand and can have input on both sides.
Mr. Golden was initially opposed to bifurcaction but maintains an open mind. He initially thought it made a lot of sense, but it seems like bifurcation may create divisiveness.
Mr. Spanedda sees a lot of downside in bifurcation and also sees potential divisiveness. He feels that many citizens without children in school may not support the BOE budget. He also questioned whether some of the maintenance and bonding costs that are combined with Town and BOE would be higher if they had to be separated. He is still open to the idea of bifurcation but is leaning against it.
Mr. Godin is apathetic to the idea, but also sees potential for divisiveness and confusion by voters. In addition he feels that one side of the town could be adversely impacted by the other in a bifurcated budget system.
Mrs. Schierloh would like to see more research on the topic, but echoed the concern of potential divisiveness. She feels that the Town and BOE budgets should balance regardless of popular waves from year to year.
Mr. Paridis’ general feelings are that we are one town and should have one budget that we are all in together. He would like to see feedback from towns that have gone through bifurcation to gauge the success of: School funding, Town funding, Voter turnout and proof that it builds a community rather than tear it apart.
Mr. Lavery indicated that while he has always believed in one budget and has ruled that way in court in the past, the questions the commission needs to ask are:
- Is a bifurcated budget good for the town?
- Are there enough citizens out there interested in bifurcation to warrant it?
- Should they let the town decide if they want to bifurcate by vote?
A general discussion ensued on positive and negative influences with a bifurcated budget.
Mr. Godin feels that the Town has failed voters if it takes five times to pass a budget. If the budget were bifurcated and had advisory questions, a budget should be passed after 2 votes at the most as the town will know the voters feelings.
Mrs. Schierloh noted that each vote costs the Town approximately $12,000. She also felt that if you bifurcate the budget but do not include advisory questions, you still will not have a true sene of voter feeling.
Mr. Duero felt that this past years budget process divided the down and that having a bifurcated budget would be less divisive as voters would actually know which sides were favored/opposed. A bifurcated budget would give the Board of Finance and Legislative Council more information than they have now. When a budget is defeated in the current system, the only information that they have is people’s interpretation and politicizing of the vote.
Charges #2 & #3
A general discussion ensued on the commissioners initial feelings on advisory questions.
Mr. Godin noted that while advisory questions are legal and there seems to be a sense that they are desired in Newtown, the questions must be worded very carefully as they could lead to influencing or confusing voters.
Mr. Golden and Mr. Spanedda both felt that advisory questions should only be asked for “no” votes.
The commissioners discussed whether advisory questions would be binding or non binding.
Mr. Golden clarified that charge #2 would not require voters to fill out the advisory question whereas charge #3 would require voters to vote on the question.
Mr. Lavery indicated that the advisory questions are not binding and are advice to legislative council. Depending on how the questions are structured, the Town could decide that once one side of the budget passes, that side is done regardless of how many times the other side fails.
Messrs. Spanneda, Paridis, and Godin seemed to generally agree that if the budget were bifurcated it would make sense that once one side passes, that side should not be able to go back to the legislative council for change. Mr. Spanedda also felt that the council should have to act on the questions so that they couldn’t come back with a higher proposed budget if voters had said it was too high in the advisory questions. Mr. Paridis felt that if one side passes and another fails and the legislative council changes the passed side, all you will do is alienate the yes voters. Mr. Godin agreed, adding that it will help the legislative council focus on the area that need to be addressed.
Mr. Golden noted that not allowing a passed side to be re-presented eliminates the ability for the two sides to compromise. Mrs. Schierloh agreed, adding that this past budget year saw the BOE and Town sides compromising with moving money from one side to the other to eventually pass the budget. She also discussed a recent article in the Republican American describing the current predicament in Watertown. Watertown has a bifurcated budget system where once a side passes, it cannot be changed. Currently the Watertown Town budget has passed, but the BOE side keeps getting rejected and has been cut to the point that the State will start penalizing the Town for lack of education funding.
Mr. Duero commented that the commission could consider a single budget system with advisory questions for info. This would leave flexibility to work with both budget sides.
Mr. Lavery requested that the commissioners divide up relevant towns that bifurcate. The commissioners will review CCM research and question town leaders for research and feedback. The commissioners will ask officials in the various towns how long they’ve had a bifurcated budget, how is it working, how many times does it take to pass, is the process better than before, etc.?
Mr. Golden: New Milford, Simsbury, Lisbon
Mr. Lavery: Oxford, Ridgefield
Mrs. Schierloh: Wilton, Killingly
Mr. Duero: Plainfield, Cromwell
Mr. Godin: Westport, Weston
Mr. Spanedda: Watertown, Seymour
Mr. Paridis: State BOE contacts, education professionals, finance directors
NEXT MEETING:
The next meeting will be held on Monday October 4, 2010 at 6:30 PM in the legislative council chamber.
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Lavery moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded and unanimously carried. Having no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:18 PM.
Patrick M. Kelley, Clerk
| 
