Charter Revision Commission
Regular Meeting
March 11, 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 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 March 4, 2010
Motion: Commissioner Engel made a motion to approve the minutes of March 4, 2010 seconded by Commissioner Balthazar.
Chairperson Concannon wanted to clarify a statement she made at the March 4th meeting in which she said that East Hampton would be unique if it had staggered terms. She meant to say that East Hampton would be unique if it had term limits, because other towns had staggered terms.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias mentioned a correction on page 13. The text read “Vice Chairperson Ciucias was concerned with not having a name chairperson between the time of the election and the organizational meeting.”
The text should read: “Vice Chairperson Ciucias was concerned with not having named a chairperson between the time of the election and the organizational meeting”.
All members voted in favor of the minutes as amended. Motion passed 5-0.
Chairperson Concannon mentioned an email from Mr. Charles Vannoy expressing disapproval about changing the method of voting on the annual budget. The suggestion of adding a limit on the number of budgets it would hold in order to pass the budget. He requested that this issue be unchanged and removed from the proposed charge to be reviewed by the Charter Revision Commission.
Chairperson Concannon requested consensus on adding a Public Comment section at the beginning of each meeting.
Chairperson Concannon stressed that it was important to analyze and study each issue included in their charge from the Town Council. She further stated that it was the correct thing to do on behalf of the citizens of East Hampton. She felt it was important to express the pros and cons of each issue. She had reviewed 36 Charters and hoped that each member had also had the chance to do their own research. One of the suggestions was to hold the organizational meeting at the next regular Town Council meetings. She referred to the attached list and the issues that this commission was reviewing. She confirmed that the former Town Council was still in charge until the organizational meeting in which the new Town Council was sworn in. Having a Town Manager made it easier since he/she would take care of the
day-to-day running of the town and was available in the event of an emergency.
Commissioner Engel mentioned that the majority of towns held their organizational meeting later in the month rather than the day after the election.
Referring to the chart, Commissioner Tuttle mentioned the similarities between Hebron and East Hampton and holding their organizational meeting following the election. He asked if the reason changing the date of the organizational meeting was because of the absence of a councilor.
It was explained that the main driver of this issue was to provide more time between the election and the organizational meeting in the event of a close or a tie vote between candidates. According to State Statute this would require, within five (5) days, a recount of the office in which this has occurred which would prevent the swearing in of the members until after the recount.
Review the method of the election of the Town Council members
Chairperson Concannon stated that State Statute does not use the term overlapping but uses staggered terms. She presented the attached chart illustrating staggered terms and how many individuals could run at each municipal election. She felt staggered terms could generate a healthy debate and that an individual could win, but under the minority representation could lose. She felt that the importance of acquiring knowledge and experience and putting it into practice would be a pro for staggered terms.
Commissioner Engel stated that the first year on any board or commission was dedicated to learning and the second year was putting it into practice. With the current two year term for a Town Councilor it was time to run again.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias questioned why staggered terms were not put into practice at the State and Federal level.
Commissioner Tuttle referred to a chart providing explanations as to why staggered terms had not been proposed in other towns. The main reason was that it never was proposed. Commissioner Tuttle did not feel that this should prevent contemplating and researching the pros and cons of staggered terms.
Commissioner Engel explained that this issue came up when a third party gained control of the Town Council and the lack of experience it brought. Staggered terms would have allowed for continuity and experience on the Town Council in order to assist new members on the procedures of government and to allow for projects to move forward. She was not sure why the Town of Canton was considering having staggered terms in 2011.
Chairperson Concannon stated that the Town of Canton wanted consistency for the Town Council since all their boards and commissions have staggered terms.
Vice Chairperson read a comment from the chart in which Wethersfield did not have four year staggered terms because it was too long of a commitment for a volunteer.
Commissioners Tuttle and Engel mentioned one of the reasons for the lack of volunteers willing to serve was due to time constraints.
A discussion from the “Let’s Talk” which took place the evening before covered the amount of plans and studies which have been shelved and the need to implement and educate the public on what is available. Many of the comments on what was needed in the Master Plan is already available, but needs to be presented in an easy to find and understand format. Vice Chairperson Ciucias mentioned her term on the Economic Development Commission and the amount of studies and plans presented and the need to implement the plans already available.
Commissioner Tuttle mentioned the lack of turnover in the members on the Town Council illustrates that the public was happy with the course the Town Council was going.
Town Manager O’Keefe felt that Hebron from a facilities, recreation and senior perspective was very advanced due to the structure of their government. He was very impressed with the size of the town and their development of villages and industrial parks which illustrates a comprehensive plan.
Town Clerk Wieleba contacted Hebron in order to obtain an explanation as to why they have staggered terms for the Board of Selectmen and how it worked. She was informed:
o Staggered terms had been in place since 1989 for all their boards and commissions.
o Their Charter was adopted in 1988 and this was implemented in 1989.
o The Board of Selectmen is made up of 5 members
o The town did not identify a downside of staggered terms.
Chairperson Concannon stated for the record:
o Continuity with having a staggered four-year term was a pro.
o An individual can win and still lose the seat due to minority representation and the rancor it could cause by the public could be a con.
Commissioners Tuttle and Engel mentioned that four year staggered terms works on the Board of Education and also in Hebron. Commissioner Tuttle also agreed that four-year terms would allow the Town Committees to identify and run qualified candidates.
Chairperson Concannon called for a vote on the proposed language for Section 2.1.
Motion: Commissioner Tuttle moved to recommend to the Town Council that it amends its Charter that it outlays four year overlapping terms for the Town Council beginning in the next election in 2011” seconded by Vice Chairperson Ciucias.
The text of Section 2.1 Election to read as follows
CHAPTER II. THE TOWN COUNCIL
Section 2.1. Election.
At each biennial election there shall be elected members of the Town Council, hereinafter referred to as the "council", for four year overlapping terms, who shall serve without compensation. Not more than five of the members shall be of the same political party. At the biennial election in 2011, the top four candidates receiving the highest number of votes will serve the first four year term, the next three candidates receiving the highest number of votes, will serve a two year term. Provided, that no more than five of the members shall be of the same political party. The subsequent number of candidates for each biennial election thereafter, will be determined by those whose terms are expiring and will be elected for four year overlapping terms. No member shall hold any 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 position of profit under the government of said town.
Commissioner Tuttle asked for clarification on who would run for the four-year term.
Town Manager O’Keefe suggested the top four vote getters would get the four-year term and the next three vote getters would get the two-year term.
Commissioner Engel explained the minority representation rule and how it would work.
All Commissioners voted in favor of this motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Review 2.2 to consider the organizational meeting
Chairperson Concannon confirmed that all of the Commissioners were in agreement with the proposed language for Section 2.2.
Motion: Commissioner Engel moved that Section 2.2 is changed to reflect that the organizational meeting of the new council will be held at the next regular Town Council meeting for the purpose of choosing one of its members to be Chair and that one member is to be named Vice Chair” seconded by Vice Chairperson Ciucias.
The original Section 2.2 did not include a provision for the naming of a Vice Chair.
All Commissioners voted in favor of this motion. Motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Tuttle asked if a red line version of the changes proposed for the Charter be available to the public.
Section 2.2. Chair/Vice-Chair.
The council shall hold an organizational meeting at the next regular Town Council meeting immediately following the regular biennial town election in November, 2011 and biennially thereafter, for the purpose of choosing one of its members to be Chair, and Vice-Chair but this office shall not deprive the Chair of their vote on any question. The Chair shall preside over all meetings of the council and perform such other duties consistent with this office as may be imposed by the council. 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 Chairs absence or disability the duties shall be performed by the Vice-Chair or another member chosen by the council except as otherwise specifically provided in this charter.
Review Section 3.1
Vice Chairperson Ciucias felt that guidelines could be included while still retaining flexibility. She felt that traveling 30 miles was a reasonable commute, but not more than that. She suggested language be added to include a mileage radius and with the approval of the Town Council. She referred to Charters recently amended that included residency requirements with the approval of the Town Council.
Commissioner Tuttle did not support any specific distance of travel in the Charter. He also mentioned that the Town Council was the hiring body and could include language that residency would be at the councils’ discretion. He did not feel it was unreasonable telling a potential candidate that they would be expected to live within a reasonable distance from their job at the time of hiring. He mentioned his scenario at the March 4th meeting which he felt was a personnel issue.
Commissioner Engel did not support the language “at the councils’ discretion” and stated:
o It would become a politicized issue.
o She did not support language that included a specific mile radius
o The expectation would be that the Town Manager would reside in a reasonable, commutable area to this town
o This council might not object to a Town Manager living in Old Saybrook while another Council might want to remove the Town Manager and use the language in the Charter in order to accomplish this
o The main focus was the Town Manager performing his/her job.
o She also felt that having staggered terms allows the Council to perform an evaluation of this position and provide a better structure to be sure the Town Manager is performing up to their standards.
There was a brief discussion concerning the difference between no requirement on residency and charters that are silent on this issue.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias acknowledged that the Town Council is the hiring body and she did not want to politicize this issue. She did not wish to limit the hiring of a qualified individual by placing language in the Charter.
Commissioner Tuttle pointed out that there were no residency requirements for school principals or critical personnel working in the schools and he agreed with Commissioner Engel’s comments.
Chairperson Concannon pointed out that:
o There were two towns that allowed the Town Manager to live outside of town with the approval of the Town Council.
o Seventy-five percent (75%) of the towns required the Town Manager to be a resident of the town. This would be 27 out of 36 towns.
o Two of the Charters which were recently amended added a residency requirement.
Chairperson Concannon stated that there were benefits to living in town:
o Ownership
o Residents would also see that he/she was impacted by their decisions
o The Town Manager is visible and involved with the town
o Gets to know many that are not involved in town politics, but outside of the immediate circle of town government.
Chairperson Concannon:
o Referenced a situation in another town in which the Town Manager did a superb job, but because he resided outside of town he was unable to gain the support on issues which resulted in a budgetary crisis. The Town Manager was dismissed.
o She also mentioned emergencies and the recent explosion in Middletown.
o She mentioned a flood in June several years ago which resulted in the inability to travel cutting individuals off from entering certain towns.
o She has never seen a specific radius mentioned in a Charter, but it might be in a personnel agreement at the time of the hiring.
o She supported flexibility and the addition of language in the Charter with the Town Council’s approval.
Commissioner Balthazar referred to last week’s meeting in which the Chief of Police mentioned the importance of separation between work and home. He too felt that language that would leave it up to the Town Council could result in a political issue and that if the Town Manager was unable to be available during emergencies was a personnel issue.
Commissioner Engel felt that the current Town Manager was doing a great job and that it did not matter where a Town Manager lived. She confirmed that there were disadvantages to living in town and distancing yourself from relationships in order to perform your job.
Commissioner Tuttle mentioned the potential for abuse and unethical issues living in town as opposed to living outside of the town. He mentioned living outside of town provides a better perspective and the ability to be objective with regard to performing the job. He also felt that the political risk was big by adding ‘with the Council’s discretion’ and suggested adding “the Town Manager can reside wherever with the hiring Town Council’s discretion” or “the council at the time of hiring”.
A discussion ensued concerning this language.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias felt it was a good way to remove eligibility without merit.
Commissioner Tuttle referenced the explosion in Middletown and emailing the Town Manager who responded in 15 seconds indicating that he was already on it.
Commissioner Engel felt that the Town Manager can perform his job living outside of town. She also felt that the Town Council’s presence in an emergency was important as well as the emergency personnel.
Chairperson Concannon pointed out that 75% of the town felt it was important to have a residency requirement.
Vice Chairperson asked if there was an explosion in East Hampton and the Town Manager was out of town what difference would it make.
Chairperson Concannon mentioned the calming influence of having the Town Manager present during an emergency. She mentioned the Mayor of Middletown being on the scene following the explosion.
It was pointed out that the town had an emergency response team in place in which the Town Manager was a member as well some Town Councilors, and the Fire Chief. The odds of all of these individuals getting to the scene at one time were not likely. A good emergency response, by State law, was in place.
Commissioner Engel mentioned an event with Sears Park and dead fish and four Town Councilors being present. She felt that the elected officials need to be present during an emergency.
Chairperson Concannon stressed the leaders being there and in charge.
Commissioner Engel stressed the elected officials being present was important.
Chairperson Concannon stated that New London had a mandatory residency restriction on all town employees and if someone moves out they would be dismissed. She asked if all of the members of the commission were prepared to vote on this issue or if they needed more discussion. All members were ready to vote.
Motion: Commissioner Engel moved that Section 3.1 of the Charter be revised to eliminate the last sentence which reads “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.” seconded by Commissioner Tuttle.
Town Manager O’Keefe recommending adding “and hired according to Connecticut General Statutes” at the end of the first sentence.
Commissioner Engel wished to have a separate motion on this suggestion and to take a vote on the first motion.
The text would read:
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.
All members of the Commission voted in the affirmative with the exception of the Chairperson that voted in the negative. Motion passed 4-1.
Commissioner Engel clarified that the second charge under number (3) states “Review State statute to insure language regarding appointment of Town Manager conforms to State Statutes. A review of Chapter 96 §7-98 (a copy is attached) confirmed that our Charter does conform to State Statute.
Commissioner Engel wanted to add language that would require an annual review.
Chairperson Concannon wanted to put this issue onto the next agenda so that they can review the language.
Commissioner Tuttle mentioned that the Charter had to conform to State Statute and that adding this language would be redundant.
Town Manager O’Keefe indicated that a Town Councilor had wanted to add this issue into the charge. The language in the Charter concerning the method used to hire a Town Manager should conform to State Statute, which it did.
Chairperson Concannon read from Chapter 96 §7-98 of the State Statute for the other members.
Commissioner Engel did not wish to add the language from State Statute to the Charter and did not find it helpful.
Chairperson Concannon mentioned that the language concerning the Board of Finance was old language. She suggested adding the portion concerning a three year contract.
A discussion about adding a three year renewable contract was debated. It was determined to hold off on making any decision on this until the Town Attorney could review it and also allow time for the Commissioners to review this issue.
Commissioner Engel agreed with the suggestion by Commissioner Balthazar to send all items voted on to the Town Attorney for review and approval rather than wait until all of the issues have all been amended. She suggested sending the Town Attorney this section for her recommendation as to how to phase this and make it compatible with State Statute.
Chairperson Concannon mentioned that an annual review was not included in State Statute.
Commissioner Engel wished to add language that the Town Council would perform an annual performance review of the Town Manager. She felt that this would compel them to perform this annual review if it were part of the Charter.
Commissioner Tuttle mentioned that the private sector was doing their reviews on an 18 month timeframe.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias supported this language which would provide accountability. She said it was meaningful to perform an annual performance review and not just for merit increases. She remembered that an annual performance review was not done in the past due to other pressing issues,
Commissioner Engel felt that having this issue be part of a personnel requirement did not have enough weight whereas if it were a part of the Charter it would be viewed as a directive rather than a procedure. She felt it might be an odd addition to a Charter, but the review would be done. She was not concerned if it was done annually or every 18 months.
Chairperson Concannon asked that this be added to the agenda for next week.
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.
The members of the Commissioner agreed that the public wished to keep the method of voting on budgets as is.
Motion: Commissioner Engel moved to take no action with regard to changing the budget referenda process seconded by Commissioner Tuttle.
All members of the Commissioner voted in favor of the motion. Motion passes 5-0.
The issue concerning adding a threshold amount for public easements was agreed to be included on the next agenda. It was agreed that the Director of Public Works will be at the next meeting to be held on March 18th.
Chairperson Concannon mentioned some Charters include a specific dollar amount and others indicate a specific percentage with regard to this issue.
This easement would be limited to town acquired easements.
Commissioner Tuttle confirmed that the issue on Planning & Zoning Commission is just cleaning up the language.
Motion: Commissioner Engel moved to combine zoning commission and town plan commission into the Planning & Zoning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Tuttle.
Vice Chairperson Ciucias confirmed that this change would not interfere with State Statute.
CHAPTER IV. TOWN MEETING
Section 4.1.
The town meeting shall have the power to adopt the annual budget (the Town Councils proposed annual budget, however, will automatically be scheduled for a budget referendum, by the Town Council) and shall approve the issuance of all bonds and notes. Any additional appropriations made during the fiscal year, to a board, commission, department or agency in excess of an amount specified by town ordinance shall be approved by the town meeting. Any ordinance or resolution authorizing the purchase or sale of any interest in real estate shall be acted upon by the town meeting, after approval by the Board of Finance. The power to enact and amend zoning regulations shall continue to be exercised by the planning & zoning commission and the power to enact subdivision regulations shall continue to be exercised by the planning & zoning
commission, all in accordance with the General Statutes or as they may be amended, subject to change made by ordinance enacted pursuant to the provisions of the General Statutes governing planning & zoning.
All members of the Commission voted in favor of this motion. Motion passes 5-0.
A discussion as to the charge listed above under A.) clarified that there is no State Statute governing that a budget must go to a referendum.
Motion: Commissioner Engel moved that the charge under 4. A). be removed from consideration as being null and void, seconded by Vice Chairperson Ciucias.
Town Manager O’Keefe mentioned that this came about because of the question as to why the town budget could not be voted at a town meeting. Town Clerk Wieleba referred to their Charter Section 4.4 Referendum and Ordinance Finance and Budget Chapter 45
Section 4.4 Any item, or items on the call of any town meeting, including items resulting from petitions filed pursuant to Chapter IV, or Section 4.2 or 4.3 of this charter, shall be subject to vote by ballot or voting machine pursuant to the provisions of General Statutes Section 7-7, as amended. Any such items may also be submitted to a vote by ballot or voting machine in accordance with Section 7-7, as amended, by vote of the council.
§45-11 All budget meetings commencing in 1998 shall be adjourned to a machine vote (referendum). Pursuant to § 7-9b of the Connecticut General Statutes as amended, voting shall be from the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Chairperson Concannon stated that the Charter and Ordinances needed to be consistent.
Commissioner Engel thought that the desire was to eliminate the town meeting to send the budget to a vote. She confirmed that the Town Council could set the date and time for the vote on the budget rather than hold a special town meeting.
Town Manager O’Keefe suggested language that the Town Council would set the date and time of the vote on the budget after adoption of the budget.
All members of the Commission voted in favor of this motion. Motion passes 5-0.
Any Other Business to Properly Come Before the Commission
Commissioner Engel clarified that the meeting on March 18th at 7:00 p.m. would:
o Review State Statute concerning the Town Manager section in Charter conforms.
o Director of Public Works Hayden will be present to discuss the threshold amount on easements.
o Number of individuals needed to vote on a petition and clarify whether State Statute needs to be considered.
o Town Attorney at the meeting in order to guide the Commission
o Town Attorney will have reviewed the items voted on today.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned until the next regular meeting of March 18th at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall in the Eaton Smith Meeting Room.
The meeting adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Tuttle and seconded by Commissioner Engel to adjourn at 10:50 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted
Sandra M. Wieleba, Town Clerk
| 
