Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Legislative Council
Held in the Lecture Hall at the Newtown High School,
12 Berkshire Road in Sandy Hook, Connecticut
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Chairman Jeffrey Capeci called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm.
PRESENT:
George Ferguson III, John Aurelia Sr., Kevin Fitzgerald, Chris LaRocque, Richard Woycik, Benjamin Spragg, James Belden, Gary Davis, Daniel Amaral, Jan Andras and Jeffrey Capeci.
ABSENT: Mary Ann Jacob
ALSO PRESENT:
Town Attorney David Grogins, two members of the press and 2 members of the public
VOTER PARTICIPATION: none
COMMUNICATIONS:
Chairman Capeci reported that he had a communication from First Selectman Patricia Llodra concerning the Design Advisory Board membership item which he would address later under New Business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Discussion and Possible Action: Budget Advisory Questions:
Having received the opinion dated April 12, 2010 from the Town Attorney that absent a specific charter provision or statutory authority, ’Advisory Questions’ are not permitted under the Budget Referendum ballot; Mr. Spragg moved that the Legislative Council not permit ‘Advisory Questions’ on the Budget Referendum ballot. Mr. Aurelia seconded the motion.
According to Mr. Spragg, in the letter the Town Attorney made it clear his opinion that - absent the town has a charter provision or that there is state legislation allowing this – Newtown can’t have Advisory Questions on the ballot.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he called that the council had addressed the matter last year.
.
Although it was not in Newtown, Mr. Grogins said he recalls an advisory question which was addressed was in 2004, when it was the decision of Theodore Bromley, Staff Attorney for Secretary of States’ office, rejected a ballot with an advisory question on it. It was his opinion that Advisory Questions should not be permitted on referendum ballots absent a specific statutory authority. According to the Town Attorney, Newtown has no charter provision which categorizes Advisory Questions, but does have one (Section 6-15 of the Charter) for Local Questions when the questions are for a specific purpose. He told the Council that Advisory Questions are sometimes referred to as non-binding referendum. Mr. Grogins noted in section 7-344 of the State Statutes references an advisory question when they pertain
to Boards of Finance in non-charter towns having a yes or no question on a budget referendum, but it specifically states they are not applicable to towns with charters.
Mr. Fitzgerald believed that last year the opinion was that Advisory Questions were allowable.
Mr. Grogins said they are allowable under certain circumstances such as stipulated in 9-371 A of the State Statutes which indicates “a municipality may conduct a non-binding referendum when soliciting electoral input concerning manor and method they use selecting members of a legislative body.” He said that Advisory Questions are not specifically defined in the Statutes and local questions have a specific result attached to them.
Mr. Grogins recalled a charter revision that was adopted in 2007. He said the Town’s Charter Revision Commission put a provision in that provided for advisory questions, debated the question and then took it out. He indicated he wasn’t sure why. The Town Attorney noted that he isn’t saying it can’t be done just not believe if it can be done legally. In this case since it might have an impact and since it’s together on what the budget should be he was concerned that the whole budget referendum could be attacked. Some one could say that portion of the ballot is illegal, it contaminates the vote because it confuses it, and therefore the whole budget should be changed.
Mr. Davis referred to the definition of a local question as binding and an advisory question as non-binding and he questioned why the Town couldn’t ask a specific “local question” such as “Shall the budget be decreased if the budget is defeated - Yes or No?”
Mr. Woycik said that it wasn’t a local question because you were still asking for advice.
Mr. Grogins said he didn’t know the answer to Mr. Davis’ question off hand and indicated that the Town couldn’t put a question on the ballot anyway because the time for that had passed. The Town Attorney advised the Council that (Section 9-369 A Subsection B of the State Statutes) the Town basically needs to put a Local Question on the ballot 45-days prior to the Referendum. He added that the Town’s Charter states the Budget Referendum must be held the fourth Tuesday of every April.
Mr. Spragg said he believes the motion should clarify type of question that was discussed and action that was taken.
Mr. Davis moved to amend the original motion adding the following, “. . . and given that the 45-day deadline has passed.” So the motion would now read as follows: “Having received the opinion dated April 12, 2010 from the Town Attorney that absent a specific charter provision or statutory authority and given that the 45-day deadline has passed, ’Advisory Questions’ are not permitted under the Budget Referendum ballot.” Mr. Fitzgerald seconded the amendment.
After a brief discussion, the Council approved Mr. Davis’ amendment 9-2. Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. LaRocque, Mr. Woycik, Mr. Spragg, Mr. Belden, Mr. Davis, Mr. Amaral and Mr. Capeci voted in favor of the amendment. Mr. Aurelia and Ms. Andras voted against the amendment.
Following the vote on the amendment, Council members unanimously approved the main motion.
Mr. Davis moved that for next year’s budget this Council would favor having in place the legal authority to have in place the ability to add Advisory Questions to the ballot. Mr. Belden seconded the motion.
Mr. Woycik said he agreed with Mr. Davis’ motion but offered a friendly amendment to change the word “favor” to “consider,” indicating he was concerned that the interpretation of the word “favor” could potentially have an undue influence on how a voter answers the question.
Mr. Belden indicated that he wasn’t sure it mattered what word they used. He moved that the Council charge the Charter Revision Commission with the task of considering Advisory Questions. Ms. Andras seconded and said she agreed with Mr. Belden.
Mr. Ferguson said he didn’t think Advisory Questions were the best way for the Council to go about determining what people in Newtown want or don’t want.
Mr. Capeci noted that Mr. Davis’ original motion means that everyone wants to put Advisory Questions on the ballot. He noted that the Council was predisposing a result and said he wants to pass a motion that the Council will research the issue.
Mr. Spragg said he wasn’t going to support the motion, indicating it needed more study and more debate.
After a lengthily discussion, Mr. Davis withdrew his motion and Mr. Woycik his second; and Mr. Belden withdrew his motion and Ms. Andras withdrew her second.
To solve the dilemma, Mr. Davis made the motion that the Legislative Council is open to the concept of Advisory Questions on the Budget Referendum ballot and if legal issues are present they can be addressed. Mr. Belden seconded the motion.
Mr. Spragg said he still can’t support the motion and noted that the Council should study and debate the issue more. He suggested that the question go on the next agenda and get referred to the Ordinance Committee.
Mr. Capeci agreed that the Ordinance Committee was a good place to send it but said he didn’t know if they deal with charter specific questions.
Mr. Aurelia said he was not going to vote and asked that the motion be tabled.
Mr. Davis made the motion to table. Ms. Andras seconded and the motion was unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion and Possible Action: Request to Increase Design Advisory Board Membership from 3 to 5:
In regards to increasing the Design Advisory Board Membership from 3 to 5, Mr. Spragg moved the Council refer the ordinance to ordinance committee. Mr. Davis seconded and the vote was unanimously carried.
VOTER PARTICIPATION:
Karen Pierce, 10 Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook, questioned how the Council goes about finding out why a budget fails after two or three attempts; and asked how they would know why a someone voted the way they did.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: none
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. LaRocque moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 pm. Mr. Woycik seconded and the motion was unanimously carried.
Ted Swigart, Clerk
| 
