1995/06/14APPROVED
SPECIAL EX~CUT/VE BOARD MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING: CHARTER~SION DRA~ REPORT
JUNE 14,1995
Mayor Robert Peters called the Public Hearing to order in the .~ i'1
Meeting Room at 7:00 p.m.. Present were Deputy Mayors Thcmas Veronesi
and Arthur Powers, Janice Serafino-Secretary, Sandra James-Hartford
Courant reporter, Kelley Beaucar-Herald reporter, and approximately
seven residents.
Before taking testimony from those present, the Mayor read a letter
fr~n the Taxpayers for Berlin into the record. Copy attached as
Addend~n A.
The following residents spoke:
William Gibne¥, 405 Percival Avenue
Mr. Gibney stated that the 1994 Charter Revision Cc~ssionwas the
third attempt of a group wanting to change the form of gove~t in
Berlin. He said those who signed the petition are only requesting one
try to reverse this vote. Mr. Gibney also said that those appointed to
the three cc~ssions previous to the present one were individuals who
had requested appointment. However, this was not the case with
appointments to this ccm~nission. He said that the Tax Payers for
Berlin had suhnitted a list of eight people who wished to serve and of
those eight only one was appointed and all others were nc~ainated by
Deputy Mayor Powers.
Mr. Gibney stated that when obtaining signatures on the petition to
call for another vote on the present form of governme_nt, the most
cc~-~i¥~)n cc~ment was that people had not seen the question on the ballot.
Mr. Gibney's recc~x~_ndations were that the C~%m~ssion honor the request
ofthepetition and allow the residents a chance to vote again; if this
is not robe, that the Council members be elected bydistrictwithtwo
at-large; there be unlimited budget referendums each year; and that the
Board of Finance be restored in its present capacity.
Robert Weiss, 136 Whispering Brook Drive
Mr. Weiss stated that he was one of the few whowent on record, when
serving on one of the first Charter Revision C~¥~ssions, and voted in
favor of a Town Manager form of govermne~t. He said he did so because
that was what the public outcry was during their Public Hearings.
Mr. Weiss said he supported the change proposed by this Cc~mission that
each party nc~zinate six candidates for the Council rather than nine.
He questioned whether the changes recc~me~nded in the Cu~,~.{ssion's draft
report were significant enough to go to referendum. Mr. Weiss said he
felt it was tim~ to move forward and give the Council/Manger form of
government a try and correct any flaws in the Charter at another time.
Mark Russak, 38 West Lane
Mr. Russak stated that the two elections on Charter Revision prior to
1994 were on a Mayor/Council form of govez~-.~-.'~nt and both were defeated.
He said the 1994 election was the only one on Manager/Council form and
it passed, with over 2500 voters voting in favor.
Mr. Russak said that the Charter is not a static document but was
dynamic. He stated he would like to see the new Council appoint a
Charter sub-cc~ttee that would take constant reccmmendations for
change and at scme time put them together for consideration. Mr. Russak
stated that the Council can appoint an advisory Board of Finance if it
wishes under the Charter. He also stated he believed there was an
error in the Cut,L~ssion's draft report, Chapter 2, Section 2-3. He
said he believed it should read that the electors can vote for nine
candidates, not six and asked that this be verified.
Pat Spring, 160 Butternut Lane
Mrs. Spring said peoplewere playing withnumbers, that over 2500
voters also voted against the change in government in 1994. She said
that if the 1600 people who signed the petition to reverse the 1994
election were added to the 2500 who voted against the change it adds up
to more than those who voted in favor of it.
Linda Cimadon, West Lane
Mrs. Cimadon, a member of the present Charter Revision C~,',~-Jssion,
stated that she, too, believed there was an error in the draft report
in Chapter 2-3.
She stated that the C~-~i¥,~ssian worked hard and believed that no one
went into that work with a mind-set, but tried to get as much
information as possible. Mrs. Cimadon said that one reason she favored
the Manager/Council form of government was that in testimony presented
to the C~'L~.~ssion, this form will centralize departments and make
things more streamlined. She said she thought it was time to move
forward and hoped the Council and Manager would work to refine the
Charter and improve upon it.
Paul Argazzi, 17 Edgerly Street
Mr. Argazzi, also am ember of the present Cc~raission, said he did not
believe there was an error in Chapter 2-3. He said in information
received from the Town Clerk it was tantamount that if six from each
party are nominated voters can only vote for six. He, too, suggested a
clarification be obtained.
Mr. Argazzi stated he believed the onlyway to put to rest the division
on this issue is to give the people another vote. He said that a 55
vote majority is not a mandate to change the form of gove~t. He
asked the Executive Board to rec~t~-nd to the Charter Revision
C~'~ssion that they reconsider puttingthe present form of govez~.,~nt
to referendum, as it cannot hurt anything. However, if that is not
done, he said he did not feel the changes rec~¥i~nded by the C~uission
warranted a referendum.
-2-
David Martin, 114 Worthington Point Road
Mr. Martin asked that the Executive Board reject the findings of the
Charter R~vision C~,L,~ssion or recc~n~nd that they go back and do more
research. He stated that the changes they came out with did not merit
a referendum.
Mr. Martin said he believed the concern should not be so much w/th
numbers but with getting more people to participate in the current form
of government, not abolishing it. He said that the whole point of the
Executive Board/Town Meeting/Finance board form of government is that
there are checks and balances, but with the Town Manager/Council form
there are not. In conclusion, Mr. Martin asked that this n%atter be
allowed to ~ back to the people and not stop with the Charter
Revision Cc~ssion or the Executive Board.
with no one wishing to make further cc~-iYents, Mayor Peters adjourned
the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. at which time the Executive Board
continued its meeting.
The Board then entered into a discussion of their views. Deputy Mayor
Powers stated that Chapter 2-3 be referred to Corporation Council for
an opinion; that there be an advisory Board of Finance, to be
determined by the Charter Revision C~-~i¥,~ssion whether it be appointed
or elected; and that the budget go to an indefinite number of
referendums rather than be decided upon by the Council. Deputy Mayor
Veronesi asked Deputy Mayor Powers how many people he felt electors
should vote for in the Council election, to which he responded, six.
Mayor Peters said that they heard a lot about numbers tonight but it
was one vote, the 4/3 vote of the Charter Revision Co~n~ssion that is
keeping this from going back to the citizens. The Mayor said that if
the Council/ Manager form of government is so great, why not let the
people have a say once again. He stated he also believed it would be a
waste of money to take any of the r~dations of the Cc~-~i-~-,~ssion to
a referendum. In conclusion, the Mayor said that in the 1994 election
neither side can answer why 2500-3000 voters did not vote on the
question and that this will keep a split in the Town for years to cctv,
adding that he was so convinced it was unfair that he would not run for
Mayor if the people were given a chance to vote again. Deputy Mayor
Powers responded that a 4/3 vote was majority rule, that the voters had
voted for a change and he felt there was a moral obligation to accept
the mandate that was given and allow the Council/Manager form to
operate.
At the conclusion of the discussion the Executive Board voted on the
following to be recc~ed to the Charter Revision Cc~anission:
1. Deputy Mayor Powers moved that each party nominate six candidates
for the Council and electors vote for six, seconded by Deputy Mayor
Veronesi, for discussion purposes, who said he wanted a clarification
-3-
on the intent of the Cu,.,,~ssion on Chapter 2-3. The motion died with
Deputy Mayor Powers casting one vote in favor and Deputy Mayor Veronesi
and Mayor Peters voting an opposition.
2. Deputy Mayor Powers moved to have Chapter 2-3 clarified, seconded
by Deputy Mayor Veronesi, passed unanimously.
3. Deputy Mayor Powers motioned that there be an advisory Board of
Finance, with the determination as to whether it will be elected or
appointed left to the Charter Revision Ccmm%ission, seconded by Deputy
Mayor Veronesi. In the discussion Deputy Mayor Veronesi stated that he
was in favor of an advisory Board of Finance if the Council has veto
power. He said he is of the belief that there is a need to do
something to unite the Town and if a Board of FiD~nce will accomplish
this, he would be in favor. Mayor Peters said this would just add
another layer of bureaucracy, that it is playing to both sides and
believed the Council should be given a chance to do its job. The
motion passed with two votes in favor, Mayor Peters voting in
opposition.
4. Deputy Mayor Powers moved to rec~,,,~nd unlimited referendums on the
budget if the Town Meeting does not approve it, seconded by Deputy
Mayor Veronesi, passed unanimously.
5. Mayor Peters moved to abide by the request of the petition and ask
the Charter Revision Cc~nission to readdress its decision on the form
of gov~t and put the question back to a vote, seconded by Deputy
Mayor Veronesi, passed unanimously.
6. Deputy Mayor Veronesi moved to agree with the Ccn~ission's
recc~l-~¥~nded revision to Chapter 3-4, seconded by Mayor Peters, passed
unanimous ly.
7. Mayor Peters moved to agree with the Cc~nission's recc~mendation on
Chapter 3-6, seconded by Deputy Mayor Powers, passed unanimously.
8. Mayor Peters moved that the political parties nc~inate six
candidates for the Council and electors vote for nine, seconded by
Deputy Mayor Veronesi. The motion passed with tw~ in favor, Deputy
Mayor Powers voting in opposition.
It was decided that the Charter Revision Chairman be notified to
reconvene the Cc~mission and address the Board's recc~mendations.
Copies of the recc~m~ndations to be hand delivered to all Con~ission
m~mS~_rs.
A copy of the Charter P~vision Ccnm~ssion recc~mendations attached as
Addendum B.
adj =m nt
Mayor Peters moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m., seconded by
Deputy Mayor Powers, passed unanimously.
-5-
ADDENDUM A
TAXPAYERS FOR BERLIN
Berlin, Connecticut
June 6, 1995
Hon. Robert J. Peters
and Executive Board
240 Kensington Road
Berlin, CT 06037
Re: Charter Revision Referendum
Dear Mayor Peters and Executive Board:
The Taxpayers for Berlin strongly encourages the Executive
Board not to put forth to referendum the recommendations of the
1995 Charter Revision Commission.
The three minor changes made by the Commission do not
address any of the concerns of the 1500 Berlin residents who
signed the petition seeking a new vote on the Town Manager/
Council form of government approved by a slim majority in 1994.
Taxpayers for Berlin does not believe that the recommended
revisions warrant the expense of a townwide referendum, nor
does it believe that the fifteen percent of the Town's registered
voters required for passage will even bother to vote for such
revisions.
As an organization concerned with government efficiency,
we believe such a referendum will simply be a waste of time and
money and therefore recommend its abandonment.
~ truly yours,
David M~rtin,
Acting Chairman
1995
Town Clerk
Town of Berlin
240 Kensington Road
Kensington, CT 06037
Dear Madam Clerk,
At its meeting of May 30, 1995, in accordance with Section 7-191(b), the
Charter Revision Commission is submitting its draft report to the Town Clerk
recommending the following changes: TO RETAIN THE CHARTER WI{ICH WAS PASSED
BY THE ELECTORATE IN 1994 WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS:
ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR: Commissioner Bernardi, Commissioner Cimadon,
Commissioner Rosso. VOTING IN OPPOSITION: Commissioner Argazzi,
Commissioner Kevorkian and Commissioner Warner. Chairman Marier voted
in favor to break the tie. Vote being 4-3.
CHAPTER 2 - ELECTIONS
SECTION 2-3. TOWN COUNCIL. At said meetings there shall be elected,
on an at large basis, nine (9) Town Council Members to serve for
terms of two (2) years each. The nine (9) highest vote totals among
Town Council candidates shall make up the Town Council, provided not
more than six (6) Council members can be of the same political party.
(Each elector shall vote for a maximum of nine (9) Council members.)
EACH ELECTOR SHALL VOTE FOR A bikXIMUM OF SIX (6) COUNCIL MEMBERS.
ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR: Commissioner Warner, Commissioner Bernardi,
Commissioner Kevorkian and Commissioner Marier. VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
Commissioner Rosso and Commissioner Cimadon. Commissioner Argazzi
abstained. Vote being 4-2-1, MOTION APPROVED.
CHAPTER 3 - THE TOWN COUNCIL
SECTION 3-4. SPECIAL M~ETINGS. The Mayor, or in the case of the Mayors
absence or disability, the Deputy Mayor of the Council, may at any time
call a special meeting withintwenty-four(24) hours written notice to be
hand delivered to the the Council members residence prior to said meeting.
(Upon written request of three (3) Council members, the Mayor, or in the
case of the Mayors absence or disability, the Deputy Mayor, shall call a
special meeting of the Council to be convened within three (3) business
days after receipt of such request.) UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF FIVE (5)
COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE MAYOR, OR IN THE CASE OF THE MAYORS ABSENCE OR
DISABILITY, THE DEPUTY MAYOR, SHALL CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL
TO BE CONVENED WITHIN FIVE (5) BUSINESS DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF SUCH REQUEST.
ALL THOSE ~VOT!NG IN FAVOR: Commissioner Kevorkian, Commissioner Warner,
Commissioner Bernardi and Commissioner Marier. VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
Commissioner Rosso and Commissioner Cimadon. ABSTAINED: Commissioner
Argazzi. Vote being 4-2-1. MOTION CARRIED.
SECTION 3-6. PROCEDURE. (The Council shall operate under Roberts Rules of
Order unless or until such time as the Council, by resolution, adopts
different rules or procedure, unless specifically provided otherwise, by this
Charter. Council approval requires affirmative votes by a majority of
Council members present to vote on an issue provided at least five (5)
Council members must be present to vote on a matter for said vote td have
legal effect, except in"the case of the annual town budget where seven (7)
members must be present for it to have legal effect.) THE COUNCIL SHALL
OPERATE UNDER ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER UNLESS OR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
COUNCIL, BY RESOLUTION, ADOPTS DIFFERENT RULES OR PROCEDURE, UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE, BY THIS CHARTER. COUNCIL APPROVAL
REQUIRES AFFIRMATIVE VOTES BY A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT TO
VOTE ON AN ISSUE PROVIDED AT LEAST FIVE (5) COUNCIL MEMBERS MUST BE
PRESENT TO VOTE ON A MATTER FOR SAID VOTE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECT, EXCEPT
IN THE CASE OF THE ANNUAL TOWN BUDGET WHERE SIX (6) MEMBERS MUST BE
PRESENT FOR IT TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECT.
ALL THOSE VOTING IN FAVOR: Commissioner Bernardi, Commissioner Warner,
and Commissioner Marier. ALL THOSE VOTING IN OPPOSITION: Commissioner
Rosso and Commissioner Cimadon. Commissioner Argazzi and Commissioner
Kevorkian abstained. Vote being 3-2-2. MOTION CARRIED.
Dated at Berlin, Connecticut on this 1st day of June, 1995.
Very truly yourS,
Paul A. Marier
Chairman