Loading...
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