City of Torrington MEETING MINUTES
2011 Charter Revision Commission November 21, 2011
Present were Chairwoman Elinor Carbone, Vice-Chairman Vic Muschell, Secretary James Steck, and Commissioners Bill Battle, Marie Soliani and Debra Brown. Commissioners Gerry Zordan, James McKenna and Jim Thibault, were absent.
The City of Torrington 2011 Charter Revision Commission (the “Commission”) opened its meeting at approximately 5:00 p.m. in the Ante Room at City Hall, Torrington.
The Agenda for this meeting read as follows:
- Approve minutes of the November 7, 2011 meeting;
- Public Comment and Participation – (3 minutes per speaker);
- Discussion / Review list of proposed recommendations;
- Selection of priority recommendations;
- Old business;
- New business;
- Adjournment.
(Agenda Item #1) Approve minutes
The Commission reviewed the minutes. There were no suggested changes. The Minutes were approved unanimously; however James Steck and Debra Brown abstained because they were not at that meeting.
(Agenda Item #2) Public Comment and Participation
Mike Banziruk addressed the Commission. He suggested that the Commission revisit the 4 year term of the Mayor with an eye toward returning it to two years. He felt that changing the Mayor’s term to four years has not saved the city any money, and that he thought that was the primary reason for changing the term length. He is concerned that if a mayor serves for just three terms now, they are eligible for pensions. According to him, with two year terms, it was harder for a mayor to be entitled to a pension because there were more elections.
Vic Muschell noted that there were many reasons the previous Commission considered the longer term for mayor, and said that his own concern at the time was that two years is not long enough for a mayor to learn the job and accomplish anything before they are up for reelection.
Mr. Banziruk and Commission members discussed the nature of the office of the Mayor in Torrington, and Mr. Banziruk noted that he would prefer that Torrington had a Town Manager. The Commission thanked Mr. Banziruk for his input.
Jim Potter, a member of the Board of Safety, addressed the Commission. Mr. Potter noted that he was at the meeting in his personal capacity and that the opinions he expressed were his own. He came to the meeting to support the proposal that Vic Muschell put forth with regard to
altering the procedure before the Board of Safety so that disciplinary decisions are made first by the Chief of Police. He questioned how well qualified board members are to determine firing or discipline. He felt that the Board retained a say in the process, and that the proposal could “save headaches.”
Both Vic Muschell and Marie Soliani pointed out that no power is taken away from the Board of Safety, the proposal just gives the Board a veto power over decisions. Vic Muschell briefly described the current disciplinary process to the Commission, and compared it to the proposed disciplinary process.
Bill Battle stated that he had spoken with two members of the Board of Safety, neither of them his wife, and the members expressed that they want to retain a final review of the process.
Vic Muschell reiterated the reasons he put forth in his written proposal, noting that police departments are paramilitary organizations, and that it does not make sense that the chief cannot impose the discipline. He wondered why Torrington skips the police chief.
Debra Brown asked if the Police and Fire Chiefs were on board with this proposal.
Vic Muschell responded that the Mayor, the Police Chief, and the Fire Chief all support the proposal.
Mr. Potter had an additional suggestion with regard to the Board of Safety. He felt that the Board needs more autonomy from the City Council. He noted that the budgetary process is frustrating, especially when the Board has met with every department head and in some cases decided against including a proposed item in the budget, and then the department head can just go to the City Council and get them to add that item. He felt that the Board of Safety should be able to take their budget straight to the Board of Finance.
Debra Brown questioned whether the City Council can make changes to line items?
Marie Soliani and Elinor Carbone responded that the City Council can make changes to “city side items”
(Agenda Item #3) Discussion / Review list of proposed recommendations
Commission members present listed their top five items of concern from a list of the items on the table so far as provided by Elinor Carbone.
Marie Soliani: Items 7, 3, 9,18, and 17.
Debra Brown: Items 9, 3, 7, 4, and 8.
Bill Battle: Items 3, 7, 15, 13, and 5.
Vic Muschell: Items 3, 7, 9, 12, and 18.
James Steck: Items 7, 15, 9, 3, and 18.
Elinor Carbone: Items 4, 7, 18, 9, and 15.
(Agenda Item #4) Selection of priority recommendations
Elinor Carbone noted that she is in the process of comparing the private cost of running the tax department versus the city cost. She spoke with Naugatuck, who informed her that they had a collection rate of 96%, and that is what they budget for.
The Commission refrained from setting the list of priorities until we receive input from Commissioners who were unable to make the meeting.
(Agenda Item #5) Old business.
None.
(Agenda Item #6) New business
The Commission discussed how to proceed from this point. It was determined that at the next meeting we would decide how many of the items on the priority list to investigate, and how to go about investigating those items. Elinore Carbone already began investigating the tax collector proposal. She will be contacting Stratford to discuss the tax collection system there, and Debra Brown volunteered to contact Bristol for the same information.
(Agenda Item #7) Adjournment
Vic Muschell motioned to adjourn, Debra Brown seconded. All were in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
James P. Steck
| 
