Where I stand on Charter Revisions

On Tuesday, Jan 21st, the final draft of the Bethel Charter Revision Commission (CRC) will be presented to the Board of Selectmen.  As a minority member of that commission, I can only offer my personal opinions here, the official presentation will be presented by the CRC chair.

I’ve supported many of the proposed changes which include an inflation update to the various dollar amounts and authorizations from $25,000 or $30,000 to a uniform $50,000. When you look at inflation, the cost of running a municipality being slightly ahead of the “consumer price index”,  a 4% historical average (as related by the “Municipal Cost Index) is reasonable.  Using what is called the rule of 72 (72/interest rate = number of years to double) we can see that 72/4 means a doubling in 18 years.  With the current “clip levels” set in or about 2003, and the next charter revision 6 years away from where we are now, we easily fall in a 15 to 18 year range.  I support the $50,000 level.

The CRC has left the percentages to petition alone, and I strongly support that after research; making them higher would have been an anathema to our electorate.

The CRC final draft sets where public meetings should be, to the dismay of some members of the police commission.  I support the proposal, as it can be quite intimidating for some to go to a meeting in a locked and secure police area.  The public should be comfortable attending any board meeting, even though this means some inconvenience to police commissioners.

I support a 5 person BOS, to enable any two to discuss matters of Town importance without the requirement for a formal meeting, though I would expect that the results of such discussions would be part of the on-the-record process of regular or special meeting of the full board of selectmen.

The term of this new board gets complicated.

I am absolutely opposed to a 4-year term for first selectman for several reasons.

1st) A second-class is created “off years”. We have many boards with some members at 4 year terms. These boards usually have some members’ terms expiring on one two-year cycle, and others two years later. All boards, and We, the People, benefit from each and every municipal election having a “top of the ticket”   Turnout is higher.  A four year top of the ticket guarantees second class turnout each of the alternate municipal elections.

2nd) As the 1st Selectman acts as Town Manager, locking in an iron clad contract with no recall, no second chance, and with salary/benefits at or above 100k per year, it’s extremely bad business practice, in my opinion, to deny the employer (that’s us) an opportunity for review less frequently than every two years. The third term of the current 1st Selectman proves that the people can extend. The people should not be in a position where they have no ability to retract.

3rd) There’s power to incumbency. A single re-election means a duration four times as long as the current, single term.  No thanks! We do not need a dynasty in Bethel.

Staggering a 5 person Board of Selectman is subject to that second class already mentioned, if there’s a 4 year term for the first selectmen and the remaining four are spread across alternating two years.

If the remaining 4 were to get four-year, and staggered terms, with the first Selectman always with a two year term, you get overlap, continuity, and each two years you will always have three selectman running for office, always a “top of the ticket”, and no second class.

That approach was rejected by the CRC. It’s my expectation the Democrat majority of the BOS will recommend back to the CRC to stagger the selectmen, retain a four year term for all, including the 1st   Selectman.   I oppose that scenario vigorously, and I hope it’s firmly rejected by the Voters, should that be what goes to referendum.

I have supported “department level” responsibility for the Board of finance, with the addition of the most recent updates to the draft proposal, which retains BOF authority at line items impacted by staffing changes.

There’s sufficient power retained, and efficiencies gained with the wording as most recently stated for submission on Tuesday.

On the record, and many have also suggested, the final vote offered to the people should be split to several questions to separate the most controversial items. I encourage that, as an all or nothing vote, take it or leave it, will strongly motivate the 1800 or so voters who showed up at the “no to Aquarion” vote.

Showing up is half the battle.  

After presenting to the BOS, there will be another public hearing. Show up!

At some point, there will be a referendum. I hope it’s presented to the people as soon as the “final-final” is ready. After over a year of discussion, let’s get it voted soon after it’s done. No excuse to wait and hold it up.

For the Charter changes, and strictly as an individual citizen voter (not speaking for the CRC), this is where I stand on these issues.  I hope my colleagues on the CRC will be equally willing to explain their positions as well, as their insight should be part of what the public considers.