TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR
TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 7, 2002
SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL TIME: 7:00 P.M.
1. Call Meeting to Order
Mayor Aman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Mayor William Aman
Deputy Mayor Matthew Streeter
Councillor Paul Burnham
Councillor Thomas Delnicki
Councillor Deborah Fine
Councillor Lassman Fisher
Councillor Edward Havens
Councillor John Pelkey
Members Absent: Councillor Barbara Barbour
Also Present: Town Manager Matthew B. Galligan
Town Attorney Barry Guliano
3. Public Participation – None
4. Communications - None
5. Town Manager’s Report - None
6. Items for Discussion
A. Elections Enforcement – Referendum Question
Town Attorney Barry Guliano had asked that this item be placed on the Work Session Agenda. He used this time to explain there are a few points to examine as to what can or cannot be done under State Statutes each time a matter is “put out to Referendum.”
6. A. (Continued)
Basically, he continued, there are three issues in the Statutes that the Town has to deal with: (1) The “Explanatory Text” is the portion that is actually placed in with the absentee ballots, posters are made for the poles, and the law says that “this has to be concise, and it has to be neutral—it cannot advocate one way or the other.” He noted that there are “one set of rules with respect to the Explanatory Text.
It used to be, he added, that the Town could only spend money to “publish” the Explanatory Text—they could not spend money on anything else. However, he said, there has been an amendment to that Statute that the Town of South Windsor had a lot to do with. He said that State Representative Nancy Kerensky and other Town officials spent much time getting it “amended.”
The “second” issue, according to Atty. Guliano, the Town deals with under State Statute is that which states “as long as the material is neutral, and it does not advocate a position one way or another, the Town can spend money on it. He added that as long as materials that the Town either “printed,” “distributed,” “copied,” “gave out,” or, whatever, is neutral, the Town is “fine.” According to Atty. Guliano, the obvious question that arises, however, is “what is neutral?”
In that regard, Atty. Guliano felt there were “some interesting decisions.” That is why, he added, it has been the policy of the Town Council and he, as Town Attorney, that when these issues come up he “runs them by Elections Enforcement” because what he sees as neutral, the Commission may not see as neutral--or visa versa.
The “third” category, Atty. Guliano explained, deal with materials, or actions, that “advocate a position one way or the other.” This issue, he said, gets “very complicated.” In some instances, he added, Town officials can hold Press Conferences; they can spend Town money on Press Conferences; they can have “written statements” made up as part of those Press Conferences, etc. Atty. Guliano pointed out that, in these cases, that part of the law “gets very very complicated in terms of what you can do and what you cannot do”—to the point, he added, where there is some debate among staff attorneys at the Elections Enforcement Commission as to whether something is appropriate, or not.”
6. A. (Continued)
Again, with this third category, Atty. Guliano said, it has been the policy of this Town Council, and his policy, that the material be “run by Elections Enforcement Commission” because of differences in “interpretation;” and to allow time for the Commission’s staff attorneys to interpret it since they would be enforcing the law.
Saying he wanted to clarify these issues because he was a little disappointed that the article in the newspaper following the last Town Council meeting seemed to imply that what was happening was that “we were saying ‘No’ to a lot of things.” In fact, he added, that was not correct; and pointed out that very early in the newspaper article the reporter properly indicated that what was really going on is the Town Council and he were following their policy that “we run these things by Elections Enforcement first.”
There were no “No’s” he said. What was happening, he added, was that he was taking down information requested by Council, with the intent of writing to the Elections Enforcement Commission as he has always done in the past, and getting responses from them. He welcomed the opportunity to clarify this issue. Many of the things discussed at that meeting he felt would receive “positive responses” on from the Commission. He warned of “nuances” that had to be watched out for, and of which he wished to be apprised; however, he did not wish to leave the Town with the impression that the Town would not be doing anything with this—it would, however, be “doing the cautious thing” and, what he felt, was the “proper thing.”
Atty. Guliano then distributed a handout on which were enumerated 10 specific questions passed along to the Elections Enforcement Commission after the last Town Council meeting. (A copy of his handout is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
Because of the urgency to receive a quick response to the first three questions, because of the “Explanatory Text” which has to be printed as soon as possible, the Commission quickly responded to these three. He then distributed a copy of the Elections Enforcement Commission’s letter responding to those three questions. (See attached Exhibit B).
In brief, he reported, the Commission reviewed the Explanatory Text put together by the Town and responded that it complied with the State Statute.
6. A. (Continued)
The Town Attorney then added that he had the State’s Elections Enforcement Commission also review a series of documents (already received by the Council Members)—including a map prepared by Vollmer Assocs.; and a whole series of supporting documentation prepared by the Town Manager pertaining to “tax impact.” The reasons for submitting this material to the Commission, he added, was to received their “O.K.” as to the information’s neutrality, and upon receipt of their approval, publish this information and, eventually, make it available to the public through (i.e.) a brochure mailed to the residents, or through the Town Clerk’s Office.
Atty. Guliano asked the Council Members to note from the handouts just received, that the Commission’s response to all three questions are that “all of these documents are in compliance with the Statute”—meaning that the information is considered by the Commission to be “neutral;” and that, as long as the Town Council and the Town Attorney approve the information, funds may be spent to get this information, or any part of it, to the public.
The Town Attorney said that his recommendation would be to not give all of this information to the public—that to do so, he felt, might be “overkill.” He did recommend, however, providing the “map,” and the first two pages of the Town Manager’s information regarding “tax impact.”
There is a Resolution (17. F.) on this evening’s Agenda, according to Atty. Guliano, that is directly related to this issue, and one which Council Members may wish to consider tonight because of the time constraints associated with getting this information out to the public.
Mayor Aman, pointing out that the documents in question were “fairly long,” asked the Town Attorney if the Town would be free to pick particular parts of those documents to publish—or must all of the verbiage be published. He gave an example. Atty. Guliano replied that as long as the information provided remained “neutral,” the Town could certainly present a “condensed” version.
6. A. (Continued)
When asked by Councillor Delnicki when an answer could be expected from the Elections Enforcement Commission on the remaining questions (particularly Question #7), Atty. Guliano said he spoke with the “staff attorney” today who is responsible for addressing these questions. The Commission’s attorney, according to Atty. Guliano, indicated that he had met with Mr. Garfield today and was 99% certain that he could get the remaining answers to the Town tomorrow (10/8); and, in general, the attorney had also indicated that most of the responses “are going to be positive.”
Town Manager Matthew Galligan then went on to explain what was being planned for a “brochure” regarding the Referendum Question. He began by reminding Council of what had been done for the prior year’s Referendum Question—that being, one side containing a “map” depicting what the project would look like. Also included, as before was what the actual Referendum Question looked like so that it was easily recognized when entering the voting booth.
Also planned for inclusion in the brochure, according to the Town Manager was the “tax impact” information; and, on the back page, an individual list of each park and what was being planned for it.
With regard to cost associated with the printing and mailing of the brochures, Mr. Galligan said it would cost between $1,400 to $1,700—most of which cost is associated with the “mailing”, he added. This estimated cost, he said, was very close to the cost of last year’s brochure; and, if a decision is made this evening, the Town Manager guessed that it could be delivered to a printer this week and, hopefully, be in the mail a short time after that.
The Mayor then brought up the subject of his request to look into the cost of “inserts” in local newspapers—The Journal Inquirer, and South Windsor Life. It was decided that the brochure, prior to folding, was 8-1/2” x 11”, and could be included as an insert at that size. The Mayor asked that, regardless of what is sent out, it include a statement to the effect that its contents had been “cleared by the Elections Enforcement Commission as ‘unbiased.’ “
Councillor Havens reminded the Town Council that another vehicle, probably less expensive than the others, that goes to “everyone in Town” was the Community Reminder.
6. A. (Continued)
Mayor Aman then asked the Town Manager when he expected to have a “draft” copy of the brochure available for Council’s perusal. Mr. Galligan replied that he had “Vollmer’s disc” in his office and could probably supply Council with a “draft” within the next day or so. The Mayor asked that it be “faxed” to those who had that service available to them; and, for those who did not, perhaps it could be hand-delivered.
In conclusion, Atty. Guliano wanted to note publicly that, in spite of past disagreements with staff members of the Elections Enforcement Commission, their responses have been “excellent and timely” whenever Atty. Guliano has asked them questions—even on the occasions that required a lot of work and research.
Councillor Pelkey asked if, when new information or statements come along, Council would be allowed to respond; or was Council only allowed to respond to those questions posed prior to the election. Atty. Guliano replied that “If the information is neutral, we can spend money distributing it at any time.”
There were no further questions or comments from the Council.
7. Executive Session
At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Aman asked for a Motion to go into Executive Session. Deputy Mayor Streeter moved to go into Executive Session to discuss possible purchase of real estate, or an interest in real estate, by the Town of South Windsor; and to discuss possible extension of lease of Union School to “South Windsor Child Care Center.” The Motion was seconded by Councillor Pelkey; and was approved, unanimously.
8. Adjournment
The Executive Session ended at 7:50 p.m., and the Work Session was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia R. Brown
Clerk of the Council
Attmts. (Exhibits A. and B.)
| 
