Charter Revision Commission
Regular Meeting
March 4, 2010
Commission Members Present: Commissioners Dave Balthazar, Melissa Engel, John Tuttle, Vice Chairperson Julie Ciucias, and Chairperson Terry Concannon.
Also Present: Town Manager Jeffrey O’Keefe, Chief of Police Matthew Reimondo, Director of Public Works Keith Hayden and Town Clerk Sandi Wieleba
Meeting Called to Order
The regular meeting of the Charter Revision Commission was called to order at 9:00 a.m.
Approval of the Minutes of February 25, 2010
Motion: Commissioner Engel made a motion to approve the minutes of February 25, 2010 seconded by Commissioner Tuttle.
Chairperson Concannon suggested that the first sentence on page 5 be clarified. The original minutes read: “The Charter Revision Commission agreed to aim for July 23rd as the date to have the question(s) finalized for the November ballot”.
The revision will read: “The Charter Revision Commission agreed to aim for July 23rd (however, September 1st is the actual deadline) as the date to have the question(s) finalized for the November ballot.”
All members voted in favor of the minutes as amended.
Approval of the Minutes from the March 1, 2010 Public Hearing
Motion: Commissioner Engel made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2010 public hearing seconded by Commissioner Tuttle. All members voted in favor of the minutes.
Approval of Revised Timeline
Motion: Commissioner Engel made a motion to approve the revised timeline seconded by Vice Chairperson Ciucias. All members voted in favor of the revised timeline.
Motion: Commissioner Tuttle made a motion to change the order of the agenda and move item VII next in order to be discussed next seconded by Vice Chairperson Ciucias. All members voted in favor.
Review Section 3.1
Proposed language to this section:
To consider language that not only the Town Manager, but Public Works Director and the Chief of Police and the Town Emergency Management Director must live in Town or within some acceptable radius.
Actual language in charter:
CHAPTER III. TOWN MANAGER
Section 3.1. Selection.
The town manager shall be chosen by the council exclusively on the basis of his administrative qualifications, character and experience. He shall be the chief executive officer and chief administrative officer of the town. At the time of his appointment the town manager need not be a resident of the town of East Hampton, but within one year of the commencement of his term as town manager he shall establish and maintain residence in the town.
Chairperson Concannon introduced Matthew Reimondo, Chief of Police, Keith Hayden, Director of Public Works and Jeffrey O’Keefe, Town Manager as their guest to present their opinions and thoughts on this issue.
Chief of Police Matthew Reimondo stated that he has worked for the Town of East Hampton for 25 years and currently lives in the Town of Portland. When he was hired it was understood that he could reside in a bordering town which Portland is considered, as well as Marlborough, Colchester, Middletown, Glastonbury, East Haddam and Haddam. He explained the pros and cons to living and working in the same town as well as placing restrictions on residency of employees. He did support some type of limitation as to where an employee could reside. Some of the negatives to living in town identified were:
- Limits the pool of candidates
- Children would be required to attend school in town and the conflicts with his position and duties as a police officer
- Cannot separate family time and work when you live and work in town
- Awkward situations sometime arise whenever he enters establishments with his family and individuals are there that have had a run in with the police.
In response to Chairperson Concannon’s questions, Chief Reimondo indicated that he has been the Chief of Police for 12 years. He emphasized the need to separate work from family time and his preference to live in a bordering town. He indicated that Portland is 6.5 miles from East Hampton and he is able to respond to emergencies when they arise. He also indicated that he uses his Blackberry™ in order to stay in touch with his department and town officials.
Chairperson Concannon stressed the need to be able to respond to emergencies in a timely manner. In response to Chairperson Concannon’s question, Chief Reimondo indicated that he is on duty 24/7 and there is no second in command when you are a Chief.
Town Manager Jeffrey O’Keefe confirmed that he too was on call 24/7 and relies upon his Blackberry™ in order to obtain and give instructions to his staff in the event of an emergency. He emphasized that emergencies could be handled without physically being in town.
Chief Reimondo stated that some job agreements indicate a radius on the distance someone could reside.
Town Manager O’Keefe indicated that he was getting information from CCM concerning this issue and how other towns handle residency requirements.
Chairperson Concannon touched upon the advancement through the ranks as a police officer as opposed to other departments. She further stated that the positions mentioned in the proposed language contained different responsibilities and needs and should not be viewed as similar to each other. Chief Reimondo stated that he has had this discussion with his officers and the potential pressure placed on their children should they decide to reside in town. He stated that an adult can handle confrontation, but it was difficult when a child is put into the same situation.
Commissioner Tuttle stated that he did not support language in the Charter specifying a specific mileage radius in which to reside. He felt that:
- Residency requirements should either be eliminated entirely; or
- Language could include a residency clause and be at the discretion of the Town Council; or
- Handled through the hiring body or other formal agreement and use a common sense approach on a per case basis.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias wished to hear from the other individuals invited to this meeting.
Jeffrey O’Keefe, Town Manager, stated:
- That during his first year, no one would know that he lived out of town because he attended every event and was the first one at work and the last to leave.
- That he owns a home in Old Saybrook and leases a condominium in East Hampton. He explained that when he was offered the job, he looked into selling his home and either purchasing a house in East Hampton or having one built. Unfortunately, the economy and housing market crashed, which reduced the value of his home in Old Saybrook considerably.
- He mentioned the financial burden of maintaining two homes and felt that he could respond to emergencies living in another town.
- He stated that Old Saybrook was 24 miles from East Hampton.
- He further stated that one argument as to why a Town Manager should reside in the town in which he serves was to keep the taxes down. He pointed out that the Superintendent of Schools has no residency requirements and lives in Clinton and that the school budget makes up 2/3 of the property taxes.
Keith Hayden, Director of Public Works, resides in Glastonbury. Public Works Director Hayden.
- He agreed with Commissioner Tuttle that residency requirements should be handled through the hiring body and not the Charter.
- When he was interviewed for this position, he was one of 53 candidates, and only one of those candidates lived in town.
- He also agreed that he could handle emergencies and instruct his staff through the use of his Blackberry™.
- He asked why the taxpayers should have to settle for hiring an individual because they lived in town rather than being the most qualified to perform the duties outlined in the job description.
- He stated that when he receives a call from dispatch, he does not wait to arrive at work before calling his staff to come in and perform their duties.
Commissioner Engel did not support a residency requirement for any employees and felt that this was a personal matter as to where an individual chose to reside. She stated that when the Charter was last reviewed, technology was not at the same level as it is today. More options for reaching individuals are available such as cell phones, pagers, the internet, etc. She explained that if the individual was abusing the technology available, that would be another issue and would be handled as a personnel issue. She does not recall any incidents not properly handled by any of the town employees because they were not physically in town. She did not wish to limit the pool of candidates.
Chief of Police Reimondo mentioned that most catastrophic events provided enough warning so that he and his department would be prepared to do whatever needed to be done.
Commissioner Balthazar agreed that this restriction would limit the pool of candidates. He stated that he understood the issue concerning family time and work time and the need to separate them.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias mentioned that individuals that attended the March 1st public hearing echoed the issue of limiting the pool of candidates. In response to Vice Chairperson Ciucias question as to who supplied the town employees with a Blackberry™, Town Manager O’Keefe stated that the Town of East Hampton provides all necessary employees with the latest technology in order to perform their duties efficiently. She asked how the town articulated the acceptable manner in which the job would be performed using the technology available. Town Manager O’Keefe stated that most of the individuals being interviewed have a high level of competency with technology and computer experience and most applicants ask if the town provides a Blackberry™.
Chief Reimondo stated that 95% of the public has experience with the internet, cell phones etc. He further stated that it was not uncommon to ask a potential applicant about their level of computer experience.
Chairperson Concannon stated that Connecticut had a limited number of candidates for the position of Town Manager and that most of the candidates were from out-of-town. She further stated that the job posting would indicate a residency requirement and that they were coming into Connecticut. She asked why they shouldn’t live in the town. She did not feel that the residency requirement limited the pool of candidates.
Commissioner Engel indicated that when the current Town Manager was being interviewed, four were from Connecticut and did not feel that the pool was limited in Connecticut. She further stated she did not feel it was fair to make someone live in Town. She agreed with Public Works Director Hayden when he stated “why settle for close rather than qualified”.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias stated that she understood Chief Reimondo’s comments concerning awkward situations with individuals that have had a run in with his department. She mentioned that she knew many teachers and that they too felt that their conduct outside of the school was being scrutinized. She too felt it was unfair to make someone live here and that it appeared to be an obsolete requirement given the technology available.
A discussion ensued about having language in the Charter which would give permission to reside out of town only with the Town Councils’ approval.
Commissioner Tuttle presented a scenario concerning a spouse taking a job outside of the State and suggested allowing the Town Council to have some discretion for this type of situation.
Commissioner Engel felt that if an employee was not doing their job, it would be handled by the hiring body and that a residency restriction was not required.
Town Manager O’Keefe stated that the employees hired were all professionals and responsible for performing their duties without having to live in town. He did not support traveling over an hour to get to work. He indicated that he could manage 24 miles, but beyond that it would not be advantageous.
Commissioner Engel felt that by restricting where an employee could live was beyond their scope. She stated their main concern was how the department heads performed their job.
Chairperson Concannon suggested some parameters be included in the Charter concerning residency for the Town Manager. She felt that the commission was focusing upon the individual rather than the position. In response to Town Manager O’Keefe’s comment, Chairperson Concannon did not see this as a political issue.
Chief of Police Reimondo mentioned the chain of command and that he and the Director of Public Works reported to the Town Manager and that the Town Manager reported to the Town Council. The Town Council hires the Town Manager and he/she must meet the Town Council’s requirements. The department heads are hired by the Town Manager and must meet the Town Manager’s requirements. The issue was whether the Town Manager lives in town or not. The department heads hired by the Town Manager are addressed at the level below from what is being discussed here.
Commissioner Tuttle said it should be at the discretion of the Town Council at the time of hiring and does not belong in the Charter. He suggested removing the last sentence of this section.
Commissioner Balthazar asked if there was any conflict with State Statute.
Town Manager O’Keefe asked why the Chairperson felt the need to have a residency clause in the Charter. Chairperson Concannon felt that the commission was tailoring this decision to the person. She felt that time and accessibility was essential and that the travel distance from the job was a factor. She agreed with comments from Commissioner Tuttle that an agreement at the time of hiring should be in writing, but she did not wish to eliminate all language from the Charter concerning residency. She supported language in the Charter that would state brief terms of the agreement and state with Town Council approval. She also wanted to hold off on taking an official vote on changing the wording until the Commission could process the comments made during this meeting.
Commissioner Tuttle agreed that this could be a political issue since the Town Council changes every two years and the opinions of the council could change.
The question concerning grandfathering was mentioned, but it was unclear what impact it would have on the current Town Manager.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias felt that the commission should be trusted to view this issue and not have the outcome based upon the individual. She intended to look at all of the factors such a technology, the experience of the individuals being considered, and the conditions since the last charter was adopted before making a decision. She did not have a problem with discussing an issue and then vote on it at the next meeting.
Commissioner Tuttle confirmed that the Commission would vote on the proposed language changes at its next meeting.
Commissioners Engel felt that there was consensus from the Commissioners and could vote on the language now, but would defer to the Chair’s request to vote on these issues at their next meeting. She wanted to be sure that the agenda would reflect that action would be taken on the items discussed today at their March 11th meeting.
Chairperson Concannon wanted to clarify her previous comments and stated that the former Town Manager lived in town and so this topic became an issue with the hiring of the current Town Manager. She felt that this issue warranted a thorough review before moving forward due to the importance of it.
Commissioner Engel mentioned that the language never included other department heads and that had come about from a comment made by a Town Councilor who supported more town employees be required to live in town. She stated that this gave an even broader perspective. She felt the commission had done its due diligence and could move forward with voting on this issue.
Town Manager O’Keefe expressed concern that the Commissioners might receive additional feedback from the community and it would become a political issue. He felt that the public hearing was the opportunity to obtain feedback from the community.
Chairperson Concannon felt that the decision to change the language was not being viewed as to the position but to the person in the position. She was not comfortable with having no parameters concerning the residency issue. She supported comments by Commissioner Tuttle concerning an agreement signed at the time of hiring outlining certain criteria for the position.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias agreed with the comments made by the Chair, but emphasized looking at this issue and not the individual in the position. She felt that the residency requirement was an issue that needed to be reviewed now. She said that she would support waiting another week in order to vote on this issue.
Chairperson Concannon confirmed that when Chief Reimondo was hired it was with the understanding that he reside in a bordering town and that the Public Works Director had no requirements placed on him concerning his residency. Public Works Director Hayden felt that due to technology he is able to respond quickly when the need arises. She asked the commission to think about the pros and cons and decide whether to totally eliminate the language or expand on the parameters.
The Charter Revision Commission thanked the Chief of Police, Public Works Director and Town Manager for their input.
Commissioner Tuttle pointed out that towns that went through recent charter revision did not include residency requirements and was not sure if it was taken out recently or was never in the Charter.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias confirmed that each item would be voted on rather than by consensus.
Commissioner Engel wanted to clarify that the Charter Revision Commission would discuss each issue and then vote on it at their next meeting. She supported an official vote rather than getting a consensus on each issue.
Review the method of the election of the Town Council members
Proposed language to this section:
Review the method of the election of Town Council members (Section 2.1) of the Town Charter to consider changing to four (4) years overlapping staggered terms.
Actual langue from the Charter
CHAPTER II. THE TOWN COUNCIL
Section 2.1. Election.
At each biennial election there shall be elected seven members of the Town Council, hereinafter referred to as the "council", all for terms of two years, who shall serve without compensation. Not more than five of the members shall be of the same political party. No member shall hold any other office under the government of the Town of East Hampton, nor shall be, during the term of office for which he is elected, and for two years thereafter, be appointed to any office or position of profit under the government of said town.
Chairperson Concannon referred to the attached chart reflecting the towns with four-year and two-year terms. She mentioned that the Town of Hebron had a Board of Selectmen with four-year terms. If East Hampton adopted a four-year term for its Town Council, it would be the first and only town.
Commissioner Engel felt that the results from the research was what counted and asked if it was beneficial to have four-year overlapping staggered terms.
Commissioner Tuttle questioned why the Board of Education and Board of Finance had staggered terms and Town Council did not.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias asked about the merit of a four-year term for the Board of Education and the reason behind it. A discussion ensued.
Chairperson Concannon felt it was standard for the Board of Education and Board of Finance to have staggered terms.
Commissioner Engel reviewed for the commission the history of the Board of Selectmen and the Town Council form of government. She mentioned that the volunteer three member Board of Selectmen felt that due to the fact that the town was growing and the need to issue bonds and obtain Grants, it was agreed that the town needed more professional individuals to govern the town. She mentioned that it was also done for ease of operation and not relying upon three people to adequately run the functions of the town.
A discussion about the other forms of government was discussed.
Commissioner Engel echoed the thoughts made by Mr. Coolican at the public hearing indicating the town did not need radical change every two years and supported a four-year term in order to provide continuity.
Commissioner Tuttle
- Reflected on his term as a new member on the Board of Education and appreciated the fact that there were members who had experience still serving on this board because of staggered terms.
- He mentioned that it was difficult to keep large projects moving forward when there is a new council in place. He referred to a condition he called “analysis paralysis”. The town has been analyzing the lake, the need for a water system, etc for the past ten years and not being able to move forward because of the lack of continuity.
- He mentioned that the subject of term limits was brought up by many speakers at the public hearing and questioned whether this commission should incorporate it into the Charter.
Town Manager O’Keefe will ask CCM to look into whether any towns have term limits.
Commissioner Engel mentioned
- Having a conversation with the former town manager in which it was agreed that the two-year term ensured the life span of the town manager. It was impossible for a council to assess the performance of the town manager during its two-year term.
- Newly appointed individuals to the Town Council are not trained on preparing a budget and handling the duties that go along with the position.
- She emphasized that consistency was important and that the term limits were already built in. She explained that after two years, if the public did not like your performance, you were voted out which was the built in term limit provision.
- She also mentioned how hard it was to get people to run for political office due the time demands that go along with the position.
Commissioner Balthazar mentioned the difficulty of getting good people who are committed to doing a good job to run for office.
It was agreed that the term limit provision was already built into place as discussed above.
Chairperson Concannon felt that a four-year term was self limiting in itself. She further stated that it was an awesome undertaking serving for four years and then run for another four years. She did not support term limits.
Commissioner Tuttle mentioned the dynamics of a four-year staggered term and the fact that someone could win and still lose or could lose and still win based upon minority representation as outline in State Statute.
The commission discussed how the setup of the ballot and who would run for the four-year term.
Chairperson Concannon was unclear how to determine who ran for the four-year term.
Town Manager O’Keefe suggested the top four vote getters would serve the first four-year term and the next three top vote getters would serve the two-year term. This could be a recommendation in their final report to the Town Council.
The commission requested more information to see if there is any downsize or negative to having overlapping staggered four-year terms for the Town Council and why other towns have not done this. Town Clerk Wieleba will request information from the Town Clerk’s Association.
The commission agreed that it worked for the Board of Education, but was concerned with overlooking any negative aspects.
Chairperson Concannon pointed out that some towns had Mayors that served for four-years and the Town Council served for two-year terms.
Commissioner Tuttle confirmed that the commission did not wish to impose any terms limits based upon its discussion of the issue
A discussion as to why the Board of Finance had term limits. Commissioner Engel suggested removing all language regarding term limits within their privy.
Town Manager O’Keefe did not find any term limit language in the Charter or an Ordinance for the Board of Finance.
It was determined that any language proposed in the Charter that was contrary to an ordinance needed to be amended.
Commissioner Engel wished to review the language from Section 2.1 that prevents someone from serving for two years on another board or commission after being an elected official on the Town Council. Commissioner Tuttle agreed with Commissioner Engel’s comment.
Commissioner Engel thought the language was to prevent the appearance of corruption and suggesting either cleaning up the language or eliminating it.
Proposed language:
Section 2.1. Election.
At each biennial election there shall be elected seven members of the Town Council, hereinafter referred to as the "council", all for terms of two years, who shall serve without compensation. Not more than five of the members shall be of the same political party. No member shall hold any other office position under the government of the Town of East Hampton, nor shall be, during the term of office for which he is elected, and for two years thereafter, be appointed to any office or a position of profit under the government of said town.
Review 2.2 to consider the organizational meeting
Proposed language
Review (Section 2.2) to consider that the “organizational meeting” may be conducted at the next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting rather than the next day after the election. Consider adding a provision for a Vice-Chairman.
Actual language for the Charter
Section 2.2. Chairman.
The council shall hold an organizational meeting on the first Wednesday following the regular biennial town election in November, 1989, and biennially thereafter, for the purpose of choosing one of its members to be chairman, but this office shall not deprive the chairman of his vote on any question. He shall preside over all meetings of the council and perform such other duties consistent with his office as may be imposed by the council. He shall be recognized as the official head of the town for all ceremonial purposes, for military purposes and for the purpose of serving civil process. During his absence or disability his duties shall be performed by another member chosen by the council except as otherwise specifically provided in this charter.
Commissioner Engel wanted to clarify that
- the commission will vote on the first charge re residency restriction at their next meeting
- and after reviewing information provided concerning staggered terms would vote on language for that section
- And would vote on the language proposed under 2.1 at their next meeting
- Would vote on proposed language under section2.2 at the next meeting.
Chairperson Concannon suggested changing the organizational meeting until the second Tuesday in November.
Town Manager O’Keefe stated that if a voter challenged the outcome of the election due to a close or tied vote, the day after the election would not allow enough time to have a recount according to State Statute. If the organizational meeting could be held later in the month, we could perform any recounts and swear in the correct members to the Town Council. The next regularly scheduled Town Council meeting would allow enough time.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias asked if this would pose a problem by not having an interim chairperson. She was concerned with an emergency and not having a chairperson sworn in.
Town Manager O’Keefe explained that no business would be conducted until the organizational meeting. He suggested putting in language that until the organizational meeting the existing chairperson would remain. He suggested having the organizational meeting prior to the regularly scheduled Town Council meeting.
Commissioner Tuttle was concerned having an individual that was voted out still being in control until the new council was sworn in.
Chairperson Concannon felt that this was more of an issue with a Board of Selectmen form of government. The Town Manager would be in charge until the new council was seated.
Commissioner Tuttle asked about the provision for a vice chair.
Commissioner Engel mentioned the suggestion was to add language for the appointment of a vice chair.
Section 2.2. Chairman/Vice Chair.
The council shall hold an organizational meeting on the first Wednesday next regular Council meeting following the regular biennial town election in November, 1989, and biennially thereafter, for the purpose of choosing one of its members to be chairman and one of its members to be vice chair. but this office This office shall not deprive the chairman of his its vote on any question. He The chair shall preside over all meetings of the council and perform such other duties consistent with his the office as may be imposed by the
council. He The chair shall be recognized as the official head of the town for all ceremonial purposes, for military purposes and for the purpose of serving civil process. During the chair’s absence or disability the chair’s duties shall be performed by another member chosen by the council except as otherwise specifically provided in this charter.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias was concerned with not having a name chairperson between the time of the election and the organizational meeting.
Commissioner Tuttle also was concerned.
Commissioner Engel did not wish to have the highest vote getter be appointed as an interim chair until the organizational meeting.
Town Manager O’Keefe suggested adding language that any emergencies would be handled by the Town Manager and that he would consult with all newly elected members of the Town Council.
Commissioner Engel felt confident leaving the running of the town up to the Town Manager.
The organizational meeting did not have to be changed if the commission was uncomfortable with this issue.
The commission requested seeing when other towns held their organizational meeting.
Any Other Business to Properly Come Before the Commission
The next two charges will be discussed at the next meeting:
Review the provisions of the Town Charter regarding the adoption of the annual budget. A.) Revise language to the state statute requirement that budget must go to a referendum. B.) Consider adding a threshold amount for public easements that would not require a town meeting and C.) Consider adding language that after two failed budget referendums the Town Council shall adopt the budget. Combine zoning commission and town plan commission into Planning & Zoning Commission.
Review the provisions (Section 4.3) of the Town Charter regarding Petition for Enactment of Ordinance. Can the language be written in a fashion that is easier to understand.
The three items discussed at this meeting will be acted upon.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned until the next regular meeting of March 11th at 9:00 a.m. at the Town Hall in the Eaton Smith Meeting Room.
The meeting adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Tuttle and seconded by Vice-Chairperson Ciucias to adjourn at 10:50 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Sandra M. Wieleba, Town Clerk
| 
