CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

The Wethersfield Charter Revision Commission held a Public Hearing on September 16, 2003 in the Community Room at the Wethersfield Police Station. The meeting began at 7:00 p.m.

Agenda Item #1: Roll Call

The following individuals were present:

Chairperson Geraldine Munroe
Vice Chair Christopher Healy
Commission Members Daniel Camilliere, David Herold, Dorcas McHugh, Gerri Roberts, and Leigh Standish.
Recording Secretary Chantel Teti

The Legal Notice of Hearing, attached, was read by the Recording Secretary to open the hearing.

Agenda Item #2: Adoption of Minutes

Chairperson Munroe motioned to adopt the Town Manger's memo dated August 5, 2003. Vice Chair Healy seconded the motioned. The motion passed unanimously.

Chairperson Munroe motioned to adopt the September 2, 2003 minutes as submitted. Leigh Standish suggested some minor corrections as noted within the minutes by a dotted underline. Chairperson Munroe moved to adopt the minutes as corrected. Vice Chair Healy seconded the motioned. All revisions were adopted unanimously.

Agenda Item #3: General Comments from the Public

Edward Kardas, 850 Cloverdale Circle - Edward read the following presentation to the Commission.

Copy — 2003 CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2003

1. BEAUTY: In "The Prophet," Kahlil Gibran wrote, "And a poet said, Speak to us of Beauty, And he answered: Where shall you seek beauty, and how shall you find her unless she herself be your way and your guide? And how shall you speak of her except she be the weaver of your speech?"

2. PURPOSE: This commentary is intended to help the Commission represent the "beauty" of our Community in the forthcoming Charter Revision.

3. PRESENTATION: The items that follow do not include supporting reasons as each is intended to represents repeated experiences and needs in the Community, and it is anticipated detailed support reasons, applicable chapter and section numbers will surface during meetings of the Commission following this Public Hearing.

3.1  Considerations: These items helped to identify candidate revisions of this presentation:

3.2  Proposals: Provide for - -

  1. Expanded visibility of Town Council and BOE agenda issues and suggested Town and School Administration handling, to the Community.
  2. Expanded participation by the Community at all levels of public meetings.
  3. Guarding against unpatriotic labeling.
  4. A Community audit of services provided by Town & School Systems via a periodic questionnaire.
  5. An Ombudsman System to resolve significant differences between Groups of Citizens and the Town Council or BOE in place of petitions and lawsuits.
  6. A common set of formulas for establishment of Town and School employee salaries, benefits, and pensions.
  7. A non-partisan electoral process in place of the current political party process.
  8. A set of two-year goals for the Town Council & BOE based upon the Plan of Conservation and Development, a composite Strategic Plan and a composite Capital Improvement Plan as prepared by appointed Commissions prior to each Election Day.
  9. Approval of ordinances, resolutions, enactments, motions, policies, etc. by one vote more than the number of the controlling majority political party members on the Town Council and BOE as well as boards and commissions.
  10. A tiered property tax system correlating with the filing status for income taxes, where users of Town & School System services pay a greater share of their tax for the services used and where non-users of services pay a lesser share of their tax for the services not used. A budget referendum provision consistent with the provision of the State Statute in place of the current restriction.

3.3  Sharing: To help evolve Community supported, it is suggested the Commission:

4. CONCLUSION: What we say or do not say and what we do or do not do, will say much about Wethersfield over the decade following approval of the Charter Revision.

Thank you. — ed/09-16-2003

John Childs, 47 Ox Yoke Drive

John expressed his concern relating to Wethersfield's current process of electing Mayor. He made comparisons to surrounding towns, noting similarity in the process of electing Town Council members, however, also noting that surrounding towns have the ability to vote for Mayor.

John stated the voters of Wethersfield do not have direct input to electing the Mayor. He suggests every voter should pick whomever they want as an individual to be Mayor, not elected by party.

Greg Curtin, 115 Center Street

Greg is Chairman of the Public Library Board of Directors. He cited a 20% increase in the Library's usage rate over the prior 12-18 months. He has received favorable comments about people returning to the Wethersfield Library from surrounding towns.

Greg's comments are summarized as follows:

Policymaking Library Boards, like the Town Council, stand high in public esteem. The role of the Board includes interpretation of library service to the community and response to community needs. An independent Library Board represents the public commitment and acts as a check and balance. It separates the administrative functions from the policy making body.

We [board] presume that the Commission, in contemplating changes, starts from the principle that citizens should have the most direct control possible over the operation of the government in their town that is consistent with reasonable efficiency in providing the services the public wants. The intention of the Board regarding questions of library service is not diluted by any attention they need to pay to other areas in town government. The only possible change in the Charter that would enhance any citizen access to this institution would be to have the Library Board elected directly by the public rather that appointment by the Town Council.

Fiscally, we assume that the principle is the same. The public should be given government bodies that are accountable to them in how tax money is generated and spent. The Council clearly has that responsibility for determining how money is generated. The citizen board, which determines the expenditure of the yearly library budget, is removed from the process by giving that responsibility to an employee who is responsible to the Council, rather than leaving that responsibility with citizen board. Citizen input would be diminished rather than enhanced.

The goal is to ensure that public access to information is protected as much as possible from control that is not open to public scrutiny, that the intellectual freedom of the community, in what it reads and learns, in not subject to partisan influence or interference.

We, the Library Board, see no compelling reason for change in an organization that works so well.

Dick Dobmeier, 42 South Pembroke Street

Dick is Chairman of Recreation and Park Boards and has served on several building committees. He proposed increasing the dollar amount of sealed bids from $5,000 to $10,000.

Matt Cholewa, 90 Ox Yoke Drive

Matt has served on Planning and Zoning Commissions for approximately 8 years, and has acted as Chair twice.

Matt has heard some discussion regarding establishing a separate Planning Commission and separate Zoning Commission. Although the intent of separate Commissions would be to allow each to focus on their individual areas of responsibility, he feels, based on the State Statutes, that two areas overlap too intricately to separate.

If the Commissions were separated, they would require separate staffing. The existing Planning and Zoning Commission has agreed, in concept, to establish a Design/Review Advisory Subcommittee, which would also need to be staffed. He does not think, however, that the establishment of the Design/Review Advisory Subcommittee would require change to the Charter, but could be created by the Town Code. He asked that someone look into this issue.

He would like a mechanism, via the Charter, to remove Commission Board members due to lack of attendance. He referenced the Town of Berlin's Charter (Section 311) as follows:

The Council shall have the power to remove any member from any appointed board, commission or committee as follows:

  1. Upon such a members absence from three consecutive meetings of the board, commission or committee, whether a regular or special meeting, without justifiable cause.
  2. Upon such a members absence from 30% or more of the meetings of the board, commission or committee, whether a regular or special meeting, without justifiable cause during the 12 month period commencing on February 1 of each calendar year.
  3. For cause after reasonable notice and a hearing held at a regularly scheduled council meeting at which said member shall have an opportunity to be heard and may be accompanied by legal council.

Matt feels the number of Planning and Zoning Commission members currently set to 9 works well. He suggested the problem might lie within the voting requirements, set by the Commission Zone bylaws or mandated by statute, that require 5 affirmative votes to initiate any action.

Betty Rosania, 88 Desmond Road

Betty is a member of the Economic Development and Improvement Commission.

She feels strongly that there should be qualifications for all Boards and Commissions, based on experience relative to the appointment. Commissions and Boards should be somewhat removed from the political process. She believes any three consecutive absences, excluding dire personal emergencies, should qualify for removal from a Commission.

Betty would like the Economic Development and Improvement Commission be named the Redevelopment Agency to improve the tax base. She was not sure if the power to rename rested within the Charter or Town Council.

Betty implores us not to move to directly elect the Mayor. She feels this would weaken our Council/Manager form of Government.

She feels we should increase the limit of town bids, but did not suggest amounts.

She proposes development of a land trust within the Charter. Betty noted the marked reduction of farmers and farmland in Wethersfield, and feels Wethersfield should be noted for its stewardship of the land.

The Charter anti-nepotism issues should be airtight.

There should be more flexibility in the Charter for the Town Manager to reassign or combine departments.

The Town should encourage professionalism (pay for professionalism). Our image, based on the other members of the region, dropped from area leader to significantly behind. We are viewed as a cheap community.

The prior Commission voted against recommending a Charter revision to allow for a budget referendum. She feels we should maintain this position.

George Ruhe, 956 Cloverdale Circle

Robert Young read the following memorandum to the Commission in George's absence.

September 16, 2003

Charter Revision Committee
Town of Wethersfield
Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, CT 06109

Dear Ms. Munroe and Members of the Charter Commission:

As you all know the Wethersfield Taxpayers Association (WTXA) has a great interest in the current charter review. Our President, Mr. Rocco Orsini, other members of the organization as well as myself, have addressed various issues and concerns. We do not underestimate the importance of this process, and we feel strongly about various outcomes that we see as critical as the Town of Wethersfield faces the challenges of the next ten years.

Fundamental to facing and dealing with these challenges is to run the town more efficiently, in other words doing more with less. We do not want to imply that "more" means an expansion of what local government is involved in, but rather that essential services be maintained with less money and within the capabilities of what our citizens can afford.

Our organization has started a review of the current charter but it is not our intent to provide a long detailed laundry list of do this or do that. To date our reaction to the Commission has been positive in that acceptable procedures have been put into place to permit ongoing citizen input as the process proceeds. The real test however will be to see if our appointed and elected officials are really listening.

A variety of suggestions/thought starters were promulgated by various Town Council members on July 7, many of which we can support. There are a number of items however, that do cause concern:

  1. The proposal to change Council meetings from Monday to Tuesday,
  2. The proposal for a single opportunity per month for citizens/taxpayers to address Council, with the "opposite meeting each month to be limited to Agenda items only".
  3. We strongly, disagree with the proposal, "to limit comments/discussions to five minutes", being included in the proposed charter.

    NOTE: We see items 2 & 3 above as counterproductive to encouraging more citizens Involvement in local government. More effective control, of often; inane Council discussion, would do much to speed meetings along. But this also, should not be part of the The Charter. Citizen comment time can and should be managed through leadership, vis-a-via a club.

  4. Limiting votes (voting times) to before 10 PM, perhaps a laudable objective, should not be a part of The Charter.
  5. Issuing and buying town goods and services via credit cards is fraught with many potential problems. We urge caution, and this should not be part of The Charter.

Many of Town Manager Therrien's comments on the "present town charter", (dated 8/05/2003) fall into the "tweaking" category, and they should be implemented where appropriate. But just as with the council suggestions there are some that cause significant concern:

BLT#5, (Section 307): We would strongly oppose losing the opportunity for a Public Hearing (as seems to be implied) on Resolutions. All resolutions are not that simple. One need only to look at the Winding Brook lease fiasco and the reaction to the federal grant application for an armed policeman at the high school.

BLT#6, (Section 308): We would oppose any changes that permit the masking, or reducing visibility of government actions (Ref. BLT # 5).

BLT#7, (Section 311): $100,000 maybe a bit low, but increasing it by 250% on the basis of a "may" is a stretch. Increase by no more than the rate of inflation since 1993.

BLT#8, (Section 309 & 312): There should be no difference in the requirements that the electorate must meet in order to call for "referendum on ordinances and resolutions" (section 309) and "initiatives" by electors (section 312) (eg. 5 working days and 10 working days). Both time frames are too short and should be at least 3 full weeks or 21 days.

BLT#16: (Section 512): We do not think this is a good idea. It presents too many opportunities for developing close (cozy) relationships.

BLT#28, (Section 803): We would support an interview panel with an odd number of people.

We (WTXA) have not commented on each and every item as presented by the Council and the Manager, and we may elaborate as time progresses.

The following are some additional items that we believe should be part of the revised charter:

  1. First and foremost, the right of Wethersfield Citizens and Taxpayers to call for a referendum on the town's budget proposals. The signature requirements and other time parameters should be consistent throughout the charter. (We would recommend 5% on signatures, 21 days to file and 10 days for the Town Clerk to determine sufficiency). All referendum and or initiatives shall be passed or rejected by a majority of at least 10% of the total number of electors as determined by the last final registry list. (Reference Sections 309, 311 & 312).
  2. (Section 311): All "obligatory referendums" shall pass or be rejected by a majority of at least 10% of the total number of electors as determined by the last final registry list. (Consistent with Section 309 & 312).
  3. Any "obligatory referendum" (Section 311) that calls for increasing the town's bonded debt by more than 2% shall be held on a regular election day. (1st Tuesday in November).
  4. All meetings of Council, BOE, Boards, Commissions and Committees, regardless of what they are called, shall provide an opportunity for Public Comment.
  5. The broad content of all Executive Sessions should be made public. (eg. Lawsuits - Town vs. John Doe, Union Negotiations; Property Purchases; Disciplinary Actions; etc).

In summary WTXA wants to be a positive contributor to the process. We realize that some of our suggestions will require a "Will" on the part of the Commission to work out details, and we would like to help, where possible. We would urge however that nothing be dismissed out of hand, with the attitude that ideas/thoughts as suggested, "won't work".

The critical item, as we see it evolves about Budget Referendums. Many towns in the state have provisions for this and we plan to push for this right on the part of the citizens and taxpayers of Wethersfield. Mr. Orsini will address this item separately.

We are also developing some additional thoughts that we will share with the Commission as they are developed.

Sincerely yours,

George A. Ruhe
Vice President of Wethersfield Taxpayer's Association

cc: Hartford Courant, Wethersfield Post, Wethersfield Life, New Britain Herald

Rocco Orsini, 95 Broad Street

Rocco, President of the Wethersfield Taxpayer Association, read the following memorandum to the Commission.

September 16, 2003

To the Wethersfield Charter Revision Commission:

We welcome you and wish you well in your deliberations. We would like to discuss with you the incorporation into the town charter a provision to include a budget referendum.

It concerns the WTXA that residents have to pay more and more for government and that property taxes have increased at a rate greater than the Consumer Price Index. In fact, if you compare the Wethersfield budget in 1981 it totals $19.6M versus the 2003 budget of $58.7M, a rate of growth of 200%. During this same period, the Consumer Price Index increased 103%. It is essential that the Wethersfield Charter contain a budget referendum provision as a safeguard and check and balance on government. Now I would like to tell you in more detail why a budget referendum is desirable.

  1. The town budget is the single most important action taken by the Town Council. It affects the financial health of the citizens and their ability to continue to afford to own their homes and to live in Wethersfield. Government in this country is based on a system of checks and balances. A budget referendum is in the best interest of the citizens because it provides a check on a town council which might adopt a budget which the citizens cannot afford.
  2. Section 311 of the Town Charter requires a referendum on any issuance of bonds or special appropriations exceeding $100,000. Certainly if voter approval is required for expenditures exceeding $100,000, then voter approval should be an option for a budget expenditure of $58,700,000. To require the voters to approve an expenditure of $100,001 but not a $58,700,000 expenditure is illogical, and defies common sense.
  3. Only the citizens know whether or not they can afford any proposed budget and to pay any proposed tax increase. Only the citizens know how much they can afford to spend on town government.
  4. Although we hope we never have to use it, we want a budget referendum to be available to the citizens. We think that a budget referendum provision in our Town Charter will have a moderating effect on Town council budget actions such that it may never be necessary to exercise the budget referendum option.
  5. Budget referendums are fairly common in Connecticut towns. There are over 100 chartered towns in Connecticut and over 66 allow citizens to petition for a budget referendum. Why not Wethersfield?

Now lets consider some of the arguments which have been raised against a budget referendum.

  1. Some think that a budget referendum is divisive and pits one group against another. Isn't that what democracy is all about? In our government we see Democrats opposing Republicans, pro-income tax groups opposing anti-income tax groups, liberals opposing conservatives, and so on. How are all these opposing views settled? At the ballot box, and that is the way it should be. There is nothing harmfully divisive about a budget referendum.
  2. Some say that a budget referendum allows small, organized, self interest minorities to get their way at the expense of the unorganized majority. That argument ignores the fact that in a budget referendum every citizen has the opportunity to vote and if only a minority votes, don't blame the minority. If the majority do not vote, they obviously do not care enough about the budget to vote, which is their right. When only 10.8% of the voters approved the $14,500,000 bond issue for the High School renovation, there was no public outcry about a minority vote.
  3. Another argument is that a budget referendum would allow small, well organized factions to take control of local fiscal matters. This town is made up of factions -Republicans, Democrats, senior citizens, PTA/PTO groups, religious groups, business groups, sports groups, veterans, a taxpayers group, and so on and on. What is wrong with that? The faction involved in a budget referendum is made up of citizens of Wethersfield exercising their right to ask for a vote on a town budget and to express their opinion on the budget at the ballot box.
  4. Council members have expressed the opinion that citizens do not have the detail knowledge and expertise on budgetary matters to make decisions on the budget. While it may be true that the citizens do not have the detail knowledge and expertise on budgetary matters that some of the council members do, the citizens know better than the council members how much they can afford to pay for taxes.
  5. Another argument against the budget referendum is that we have a representative form of government and the council members are elected to represent the interest of the citizens and if the citizens are not happy with their budget actions they can vote them out of office every 2 years. This ignores the fact that any given town council can adopt two budgets during their term of office which could have a devastating impact on the finances of the citizens.
  6. The argument has also been made that if a budget referendum provision is adopted, it should be relatively difficult for the voters to exercise that right. The State Legislature does not agree.

    Conn. Statute 7-7 is the only statute I can find which deals with a petition for a referendum on a town budget. This statute deals with town meetings and allows 200 or more or 10% of the voters, whichever is less, to petition for a referendum on any item which would be voted on in a town meeting, including a town budget. A town meeting is a referendum. Any and all citizens can attend and vote on the town budget. In view of this it is strange that the legislature gave these town meeting towns the right to petition for a budget referendum when they already have that right in the town meeting. Yet the legislature did, and even more strange, they made it relatively easy to exercise the right to petition for a budget referendum by requiring only 200 or more or 10% of the voters, whichever is less, to petition for a budget referendum.

    For any town having 4,000 or more voters the petition has to be signed by less than 5% of the voters. Obviously the State Legislature wants to make it easy, not difficult, to petition for a budget referendum.

  7. An argument against the budget referendum is that it is expensive to conduct a referendum. Considering what is involved - expenditures of about $58,700,000 - the cost is worth it. We would spend that same amount on a expenditure of $100,000, why not for $58,700,000?

In conclusion, I think you will agree with me that incorporating a budget referendum provision in our Town Charter is the right thing to do. Currently, four surrounding premier communities (Glastonbury, West Hartford, Simsbury and Avon) all have budget referendums and their property values, bond ratings and quality of life are just fine. In fact, almost 40% of Connecticut towns have the right to vote on their budgets. We feel that Wethersfield should have that right and we urge this commission to look favorably on this proposal.

Wethersfield Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Rocco R. Orsini
President

Robert Young, 20 Coppermill Road

He supports the rights of citizens to have a referendum on budget or any other major items.

He believes we should have regulations set up in our government to handle inappropriate behavior for a calculated loss, for abuse, by our elected and un-elected officials. Procedure needs to be in place to stop bypassing of regulations.

Supports the option of having the Mayor run as Mayor.

Earle Munroe, 855 Ridge Road

Earle is currently Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Earle agrees with Matt Cholewa's comments regarding absences of Commission members. There is currently a policy requiring a member to call into the Planning Office to report an absence, thus allowing an alternate to fill-in. He would like to see some language added to the Charter with regard to absences.

Earle gave some background on what the Planning and Zoning Commission has been working on over the past few years, and what they are anticipating working on over the next few months.

Earle spoke to the issue of having a 9 member Planning and Zoning board. He found reference in a Zoning manual to how many members should sit on the Zoning Board of Appeals. It states if a town has a Planning and Zoning Commission then the town should have a Zoning Board of Appeals. By statute, people on the Committee are 5 with 3 alternates (State Statue 8-6). This does not pertain to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but the following was taken from the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Commission:

The assembly of 5 members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of 5 members of the Commission shall be necessary to approve or reject any business item except otherwise provided by the Connecticut General Statues.

Steve Kirsche, 11 Golf Road

Steve gave some background on his past experience with prior Commissions and Boards, and expressed his views on the budget referendum. He does not support a budget referendum.

In opposition to Rocco Orsini's attached memorandum, he does not feel important issues should be handled at the ballot box.

Agenda Item #4: General Comments from Commissions and Boards

Comments included in Agenda Item #3, above.

Agenda Item #5: Miscellaneous

No miscellaneous items were addressed.

Agenda Item #6: Adjournment

Vice Chair Healy motioned to adjourn. Chairperson Munroe seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:20.

Respectfully submitted,

Dorcas McHugh
Secretary

Approved as submitted October 21, 2003