By Ernest J. Petkovich, Sr.
Chairman, Charter Revision Commission
During the July 15 Board of Selectmen (BOS) meeting, all of the recommendations made by the Charter Revision Commission (CRC) were rejected and none will be submitted to the electorate for approval. Although there were questions at the June 3 BOS meeting regarding the town administrator (TA) position, the number of signatures required for a referendum and whether to add section 1212 for definition of the Annual Town Budget, it seemed the BOS was okay with the rest of the recommendations, which basically were included to provide clarification of processes in the Charter. Now in a reversal of these earlier thoughts, all recommendations were rejected.
The decisions made by First Selectman Scott R. Lingenfelter, and Selectmen Brian Fitzgerald and John Smith regarding the recommendations made by the CRC are disappointing, frustrating, and quite frankly, unbelievable to the members of the CRC. It makes no sense that the named members of the BOS could disregard all of the time, effort and thought over an 18-month period put into the CRC recommendations and, after cursory review, decide not to send any recommendations on for a vote by the electorate.
Selectman Tim Reynolds provided the only realistic viewpoint by speaking in favor of sending all the recommendations forward and stating he was not sure what the downside would be if voters were given the opportunity to express their choices.
In the charges given to the CRC by the BOS in January 2008, commission members were asked to look at six specific areas of the Charter in addition to any other recommendations we might have. In all, the CRC reviewed 107 suggested changes to the Charter and, of our final eight recommendations, there were five of them that directly addressed the Charges identified by the BOS.
Over the past few months, many concerns regarding the authority level recommended for the TA position have been expressed by citizens, members of the CAPS organization and the BOS as well as CRC members, so it is not surprising that this recommendation was subject to rejection by the BOS. The rest of the CRC recommendations were focused on improving the democratic process regarding referendums and improving clarity in the Charter.
CRC members firmly believe that the current requirement of over 800 signatures to petition for a referendum almost assures that no petition will ever be submitted due the huge effort required to secure this many signatures, therefore effectively eliminating a democratic process. Our compromise recommendation of 400 signatures would have assured only major items would garner enough interest for a petition while making it realistic for citizens to get enough signatures if they felt strongly enough about an issue.
The remaining CRC recommendations were included to provide clarification of processes in the Charter. The BOS, for reasons unclear to most observers, felt that none of these were worthy of consideration by the electorate.
As asked for in the BOS charges, the CRC recommended clarification language regarding the appointment and removal process for town counsel. We also added clarification regarding the use of outside counsel.
As asked for in the BOS charges, the CRC recommended clarification language stating that the terms for Administrator of Social Services, Superintendent of Public Works, Tree Warden and Dog Warden will be four (4) years, which aligns them with other appointed positions in the Charter.
The CRC recommended a standardization of the process and number of days for call for a referendum with the express purpose of avoiding a situation such as occurred last year regarding the referendum for a new library.
There are over 60 occurrences of the terms “budget, town budget and annual town budget” in the current Charter with all really meaning the same “Annual Town Budget” amount. There are three sections of the Charter regarding emergency funds, acceptance of grants and transfer of funds, which use a percentage of the “Annual Town Budget” amount as a basis. The CRC recommended that all of these should be changed to the common term of “Annual Town Budget” for clarification throughout the Charter and that a definition of the term should be provided.
In addition to doing a great disservice to CRC members and the electorate of Suffield, the BOS by rejecting all of the CRC recommendations, has also set the stage for making it very difficult to find qualified candidates for any future CRC given the lack of support that can be expected for any suggested changes.
Hopefully this unfortunate situation will serve as a wake-up call to members of the BOS that they do not always have all the answers; and to many of the “uninformed voters” of Suffield to remember how little value some members of the BOS place on rights of our citizens to determine the content of our Town Charter as well as being given the opportunity to vote on other matters.
