City of Torrington MEETING MINUTES
2011 Charter Revision Commission March 5, 2012
Present were Chairwoman Elinor Carbone, Vice-Chairman Vic Muschell, Secretary James Steck, and Commissioners Bill Battle, Gerry Zordan, Marie Soliani. Corporation Counsel Ernestine Weaver was also present at the meeting. Commissioners Jim Thibault, Debra Brown and James McKenna 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 February 22, 2012 meeting;
- Public Comment and Participation – (3 minutes per speaker);
- Discussion regarding proposed change to charter sections C11-2 and C11-3;
- Discussion regarding proposed change to election terms;
- Old business;
- New business;
- Adjournment.
(Agenda Item #1) Approve minutes
The Commission reviewed the minutes. The Minutes were approved unanimously. Gerry Zordan abstained.
(Agenda Item #2) Public Comment and Participation
There were no members of the public present to comment.
(Agenda Item #3) Discussion regarding proposed change to charter sections C11-2 and C11-3
Elinor Carbone briefly reviewed some of the discussion from the last meeting with regard. She then allowed Thomas Gritt to address the Commission.
Thomas Gritt began by stating that he is a strong advocate for this proposed change. He feels it is unnecessary to expose the city to the added expense of a hearing, which arises from the hours of prep time, evening meetings, and hiring stenographers. He said that cases can involve briefs, reply briefs, and replies to the reply briefs, which take a long time.
Having the initial hearing also exposes the city to additional procedural issues, and inadvertent or mistaken statements made at the first hearing can affect the entire process. Board of Safety members are also called to testify about their decisions, which makes some of the Board members uncomfortable. The current language was put in place prior to relevant state statutes and collective bargaining rules.
Bill Battle questioned: What is the problem with elected officials being called to testify?
Thomas Gritt answered that it makes the officials uncomfortable with attending, and it is an inconvenience for a member of an elected board.
Vic Muschell briefly highlighted the difference between the City Council and the Board of Safety in disciplinary proceedings, and how that affected their ability to be called to testify. He noted that because it is the Board of Safety actually imposing the discipline, its members may be called. In the case of the city council, their role is simply considered a procedural step in the process. He also noted that the police chief will almost always testify as to why he made a decision.
James Steck questioned whether there was already a union negotiated grievance procedure in place? Vic Muschell answered in the affirmative.
Police Chief Michael Maniago was present and addressed the Commission. He stated that he realized that there were differences of opinion on the Board of Safety, but that he would gladly take over the process without reservations. The Board of Safety is dedicated to its cause.
Elinor Carbone asked Chief Maniago if he felt that the extra step in the disciplinary process ties his hands in any other way than time and money? Chief Maniago said that it is just an extra step, and that it will end up before the labor board regardless.
Elinor Carbone asked if it caused a delay for Chief Maniago if he needed immediate action? Chief Maniago acknowledged that it can cause additional delay.
Marie Soliani asked how the proposed change would impact Chief Maniago. Chief Maniago stated that the change would put more authority in the department heads hands. Thomas Gritt added that it would provide additional authority to the Chief in a paramilitary organization, and would support the Chief’s authority in the eyes of the employees.
Elinor Carbone noted that Debra Brown requested that the Commission refrain from debate and discussion until she could be present at the next meeting. The Commission agreed to table the subject until the next meeting.
(Agenda Item #4) Discussion regarding proposed change to election terms
Elinor Carbone handed out a chart, entitled “ELECTION CYCLE (if City Council Treasurer’s positions become 4-year terms) Ballot question 11/2012 – effective 11/2015”, setting forth the election cycles through 2021 for the Citywide elected positions. The top chart on the paper shows City Council and Treasurer being switched to a four year term. Board of Safety and Board of Education would still be on a two year election cycle. The chart reveals that it does not eliminate an election cycle.
The Commission discussed generally the hope that modifying election cycles will increase voter turnout. Marie Soliani stated that whatever the proposal, she would want to see City Council placed on a four year term, beginning in 2013.
The second chart puts City Council and Treasurer on a four year term and adds Board of Education and Board of Safety as four year positions. Elections are modified so that some positions would have to have years where some members are elected to two year terms before all members of each board could be switched to four year terms.
Vic Muschell stated that the only downside that he saw at first blush, and he was not sure that it was a downside, was the potential for a complete turnover of the Boards. The Commission discussed generally whether this concern was realistic (given the history of past Torrington Elections) and whether voters should have an opportunity to vote out an entire Board.
Gerry Zordan asked what the cost of the last election was. Elinor provided the number of $24,000.00. Gerry Zordan stated that if it was only $24,000.00, then he felt that it was not worth switching the positions to a four year term just to save money.
Bill Battle felt that more frequent elections were beneficial to the public, since candidates had to meet with the public on a regular basis during election season.
Marie Soliani felt that City Council members are given one year to serve, and then have to focus on campaigning for the next year. She felt that with a four year term, members could devote more time to the office, less time to fundraising.
Elinor indicated that she has no strong feeling one way or the other on this matter, but that she was saddened by the low voter turnout at the last election and sees modifying the terms as a potential way to increase the turnout. Bill Battle felt that the town committees should be charged with doing more for voter turnout.
Vic Muschell determined that if the savings is only $24,000.00 every fourth year under the second chart, it works out to a savings to the City of only $6,000.00 per year.
The Commission noted the testimony received at the first public hearing, and that Board of Education members seemed to feel that there is a steep learning curve to the position, and that a four year term is necessary to be effective.
Vic Muschell noted that the Commission should be conscious of how the term changes are affected by the minority representation statute. Elinor requested that Ernestine Weaver provide the Commission with information on the minority representation statute.
(Agenda Item #5) Old business.
The Commission reviewed the schedule going forward, noting that the Commission must present its recommendations to the City Council on May 21, 2012 and that the Commission should complete substantially all of its work by May 7, 2012. Another public hearing will be scheduled for some time during the fourth week in April.
(Agenda Item #6) New business
None.
(Agenda Item #7) Adjournment
Gerry Zordan motioned to adjourn, Bill Battle seconded. All were in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 6:12 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
James P. Steck
| 
