City of Torrington MEETING MINUTES
2011 Charter Revision Commission October 3, 2011
Present were Chairwoman Elinor Carbone, Vice-Chairman Vic Muschell, Secretary James Steck, and Commissioners Bill Battle, Debra Brown, and Gerry Zordan. Also present was Corporation Counsel Ernestine Weaver. Commissioners Marie Soliani, Jim Thibault and Jim McKenna were absent.
The City of Torrington 2011 Charter Revision Commission (the “Commission”) opened its second meeting at approximately 5:10 p.m. in the Room 215 at City Hall, Torrington.
The Agenda for this meeting read as follows:
1. Approve minutes of the September 26, 2011 meeting;
2. Public Comment and Participation – (3 minutes per speaker);
3. Discussion of proposed changes to the Charter;
4. Adjournment.
(Agenda Item #1) Approve minutes
The Commission reviewed the minutes and voted unanimously to approve them.
(Agenda Item #2) Public Comment and Participation
Ray Drew appeared from the WPCA to discuss a suggested revision to the Charter. Ray began by questioning whether Chapter 170, the section he came to discuss, was officially a part of the Charter or whether it was a code ordinance. The Commission determined that Chapter 170 is an ordinance, and not within the purview of the Commission’s duties to review. Elinor Carbone noted however that Gerry Zordan is the Chairman of the Ordinance Committee, and suggested that Ray Drew and Gerry Zordan schedule a time to meet. Ray Drew provided Gerry Zordan with his contact information, and they will meet at a later date.
(Agenda Item #3) Discussion of Proposed Changes to the Charter
Bill Battle pointed out that many people had contacted him about the Commission’s work, but most of the ideas presented to him had to do with the Ordinances and not with the Charter itself. He stated that he did receive a question from the Economic Development Commission: If a person is a member of the Economic Development Commission and has a business in Torrington, but the business moves out of Torrington or is no longer in business, can that person remain on the Economic Development Commission? Specifically, the former owner of the Main Street bowling alley – could he be on the Economic Development Commission?
Elinor Carbone pointed out that you must be a resident of Torrington to serve in an elected office, but she thought that non-residents could serve on Commissions. The Commission reviewed the Charter and cited §C21-9 for its conclusion that a person does not have to be a
resident of Torrington to be appointed to serve on Torrington Boards or Commissions, unless it is provided for in the General Statutes or specifically provided for in the Charter.
Debra Brown raised a list of issues that she noted were in the newspaper. They included:
1. Should the Tax Collector be private?
2. Do we need a Treasurer?
3. Should we eliminate the position of Selectman?
4. Make the position of Constable appointed?
5. Amend the Blight ordinance?
6. Raising the amount for extraordinary expenditures from $100,000.00?
7. General Reformatting of the Charter?
8. Should the Corporation Counsel be a full time position?
Vic Muschell also provided the Commission with a copy of the 22 issues raised last year, which list included many of the items listed above, for the Commission to use as a jumping off point.
Elinor Carbone requested clarification on the changes necessary to comply with the State of Connecticut’s Minority Representation Statute: Was this considered a technical change, or is this a change which we must put to a vote?
Ernestine Weaver opined that this was a technical matter – we are not in compliance with the State Statute, and would default to the statutory procedure in any case.
Elinor Carbone requested clarification on the process for technical changes and how they were presented to the public. Vic Muschell stated that the 2008 Charter Revision Commission put all technical changes on the ballot and listed every technical change proposed.
Ernestine Weaver and Vic Muschell discussed the list of 22 issues raised last Charter revision which Vic had provided to the Commission. They determined that it was an accurate copy of the final list of items considered.
Elinor Carbone suggested that the Commission review the list provided by Vic and set the priority of items on the list, whether we should leave certain items on the list, and whether we need more information on any items.
The following items were determined to be included or excluded from consideration, respectively, each one individually, by a majority vote of the Commission.
The List and Discussion:
1. Establishment of a Real Estate Review Board covering all City and Board of Education real estate: The Commission decided to remove this from consideration, deeming it not a priority. Vic Muschell noted that this item was added to the list as a result of a suggestion by a member of the public at a public hearing held by the 2008 Charter
Revision Commission. Commission members expressed that they were unsure of what the purpose of such a commission would be, Gerry Zordan pointed out that it seems to conflict with what Mr. Rollett’s job is now.
2. Creation of term Limits: The Commission removed this from consideration. Gerry Zordan commented that there is a chance to vote an elected official out every 2-4 years.
3. Extending the terms of office for various City elected officials; Changing the terms of Board of Education members. The Commission decided to keep this for consideration.
4. The election rather than appointment of the Board of Finance: The Commission decided to keep this for consideration. Gerry Zordan expressed his general support for consideration of this idea.
5. The elimination of the elected position of Treasurer: The Commission decided to remove this from consideration. Gerry Zordan commented that our Treasurer is very involved in the City and has saved the City money in some instances. Elinor Carbone thought that having an elected position of Treasurer gives incentive for that person to perform because they are more accountable to the electorate.
6. Changing the Budget submission date: The Commission decided to remove this from consideration. Vic Muschell noted that many City departments, boards and commissions “key” their own submission dates from the current Budget submission date. If we were to move the budget submission date, it would involve moving every other submission date across these many City departments, boards and commissions. He noted that the negotiation with the teacher’s union was built around that date. James Steck questioned why this matter would have been raised in the first place. The Commission expressed the theory that it may be tied into the Board of Education’s needs.
7. Changing the limits for extraordinary expenditures: The Commission decided to keep this for consideration.
8. A joint capital fund between the City and the School District: The Commission decided to remove this from consideration.
9. Eliminate Selectman and Constables from the ballot: The Commission decided to keep this item for consideration, with modifications. The Commission split this item into two separate questions; whether to eliminate the position of Selectman, which the Commission decided to keep for consideration, and whether to eliminate the position of Constable, which the Commission removed from consideration.
10. Eliminate the Board of Public Safety and change to appointed Commissioners. The Commission decided to keep this item for consideration.
11. Municipal Tax Collector vs. Private: The Commission decided to remove this from consideration.
12. Minimum percentage requirement for the passage of a referendum. The Commission decided to keep this item for consideration. Gerry Zordan noted that there was once a budget referendum which “passed” but failed to get the required percentage of participation so it was not effective.
13. Create a process for procedures to deal with Charter Violations. The Commission decided to remove this item from consideration. The Commission noted that §C21-3 provides for a penalty amount of $100.00, which might need to be updated, and that there
was no designated procedure for enforcement, but the Commission felt that this item was not a high priority.
14. Mandate a referendum for both City and Board of Education budgets yearly. The Commission decided to remove this item from consideration.
15. Relative to Parks and Rec Commission and Department of Public Works, try to simplify the language in each portion of the Charter to define the exact duties of each with regard to employees, scope of authority, etc. The Commission decided to remove this item from consideration.
16. Eliminate Title XVII Department of Social Services. This item was removed because it was accomplished by the 2008 Commission.
17. Change Language from “Fire Department” to “Department of Fire/Rescue Services.” The Commission decided to remove this item from consideration.
18. Change Section C11-7 to read “The Department of Fire/Rescue Services shall have one Chief and other offices of such ranks and grades as shall be prescribed by the Board of Public Safety. The Department of Fire/Rescue Services shall be a combination department of paid on-duty staff supplemented by volunteer staff. The Commission decided to keep this item for consideration, as modified. The Commission decided not to consider whether the Fire Department should be renamed “The Department of Fire/Rescue Services.” It was determined by the Commission that this was not within the scope of the Commission’s power or purview. Elinor Carbone indicated that she had spoken with the Chief of the Fire Department and informed him that the Commission would be completing
its work in April or May of 2012. She suggested to the Chief that if the Fire Department plans on merging with the Volunteer Fire Department in any respect, the Commission would consider discussing whether Charter revisions were necessary to assist them in this endeavor. The Commission determined that it is up to the various parties to work out an agreement, and if they do, the Commission can address whether Charter revisions are necessary to accommodate such an agreement.
19. Change the language in Sec. C11-8 to: “The Department of Fire and Rescue Services shall be responsible for the protection of life and property through prevention, code enforcement, fire suppression and rescue services.” The Commission decided to remove this item from consideration.
20. Reduce the number of Board of Education members from 10 to a lower number. The Commission decided to keep this item for consideration, in connection with the extension of term limits (see item # 3 above). Elinor Carbone commented that this was a suggestion because the size of the Board was unwieldy at the time, however the Board of Education has streamlined its proceedings and begun appointing sub-committees, which have eased the strain on the Board. Debra Brown stated that she thought 10 Board members were necessary because of the large work load the Board of Education handles. Vic Muschell commented that we will probably have to address the number of Board of
Education members with regard to staggering terms of members in the context of adjusting the term limits.
21. Review those portions of charter which deal with City employees doing City work vs. outside contractors bidding on same. The Commission decided to remove this item from consideration. Vic Muschell commented that the suggestion came from a public hearing.
Gerry Zordan commented that this issue was addressed by the Board of Public Safety. The Commission felt this was outside its purview.
22. Change the Powers of the Board of Finance so as to give them only the power to tell the City Council what the City Budget amount will be, not where to cut. The Commission decided to keep this item for consideration. Gerry Zordan commented that he would support this idea if the Board of Finance was appointed. If the Board of Finance becomes an elected board, then he would not support this measure. Elinor Carbone stated that the Mayor usually presents the cuts and makes those decisions as the CEO of the City, and that he is an ex officio member of the Board of Finance.
James Steck raised a few technical corrections to the Charter which the Commission may wish to consider.
1. § C13-1 of the Charter: The Commission decided to consider the effect of the mayor’s four year term on this section. This section of the Charter provides that the Mayor will appoint two members of the Board of Finance “on or before the 15th day of December following his or her election” to serve a term of six years. This contemplates that two members of the Board will be appointed every two years, because the date of appointment is determined by the election of the mayor, which formerly occurred every two years. Vic Muschell did not think that this was merely a technical issue.
2. § C15-1 of the Charter: Language seems to be missing from this section. The Commission decided to review a previous copy of the Charter to determine what language is missing from this section.
3. Whether to add “Commissioner of the Superior Court” to the “Form of affidavit of circulators” sections of the Charter. A Commissioner of the Superior Court may take oaths. The Commission decided to consider this for technical changes.
4. § C7-3: Who appoints the “Assistant Treasurer”? Vic Muschell noted that there is no procedure, but the item is not a very high priority. The 2008 Commission addressed this item in part by adding the language “if any” to the section. The Commission decided to forego consideration of this question.
Bill Battle noted that someone had suggested changing the position of Corporation Counsel from Full Time to a Part time position. Vic Muschell commented that the position was previously part time, but was changed to full time due to the volume and increasing complexity of the issues the Corporation Counsel handles, and that he would not support going in reverse.
Elinor Carbone recounted conversations she had with various department heads who had indicated that they were limited in some cases with only one attorney in the position, and that some department heads were in favor of adding another attorney to the department. Ernestine Weaver stated that in her opinion it was a full time position.
The question was raised whether the Commission should consider adding to the Charter to provide for the availability of a part time position.
Ernestine Weaver noted that this was a budgetary issue and the Charter already permits outsourcing. The Commission decided to forego further consideration of this issue.
The Commission briefly reviewed the timelines for the next meeting, noting that the Public Hearing is scheduled for October 11, 2011 at 7pm at the Sullivan Senior Center. The Public Hearing will be recorded and is generally informal. The Commission’s next regular meeting will be October 17, 2011.
Elinor Carbone questioned the Commission on whether there were any items we needed more information on. Vic Muschell thought that we would need more factual support for the necessity of an increased extraordinary expenditure threshold if the Commission decided to recommend such a measure. He recounted that information regarding how much paving $100,000.00 could buy was an example raised to the 2008 Commission.
The Commission discussed the alteration of election terms, noting that the goal was to limit the number of election events necessary for the City offices. Different options were briefly discussed, including elimination of even year elections.
Elinor Carbone noted that we would have good data to work with from this upcoming election and previous elections – we will be able to look at how having a presidential election affects turnout in Torrington versus how a gubernatorial election affects turnout.
Gerry Zordan noted that we would have elections 3 out of every 4 years in the best case scenario, due to federal and statewide elective office terms. The Commission decided that the terms should be mapped out, to see where total board turnover would be possible or where terms would have to be adjusted.
Vic Muschell noted that the Town Chairman of the parties were not going to do much in the way of investing in creating voter turn out in years where only local elections were on the ballot.
Bill Battle noted that the Commission has to be careful betting on expectations of voter turnout and cited the Bridgeport ballot shortage of this past election cycle. He noted that it is the Town Committees jobs to push the vote. Elinor Carbone noted that we would be seeking to see what the downside is of not having a “top of the ticket” election.
Debra Brown motioned to adjourn, Bill Battle seconded.
The Commission adjourned at 6:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James P. Steck
| 
