From the Mind of Jason Zandri

As published in the Record Journal Sunday November 1, 2009

Editor: On July31st the Town Attorney provided the Council with an explanatory text explain­ing the proposed revisions to the Charter. If adopted by the council it would have been made available to the public for review.

At the August 11th Town Council meeting four Republican councilors voted no to making it available in an effort to prevent voters from understanding the questions.

A similar mes­sage ‘ just vote no’ is now being promoted by the PAC ‘Save Our Charter’ to which the mayor is a major contributor. Say ‘NO’ to their message and cast your vote on each in­dividual question.

JAMES BROSNAN, WALLINGFORD

What would be happening now if the ques­tion concerning the Wallingford Town Coun­cil’s power to override a mayoral veto was not on the ballot?

The issue of charter revision would be a big yawn. There would be no PAC instructing folks to “Save our Charter.” Political opera­tives would not be telling voters to just vote “No.” It would be a duller election and Steve Knight wouldn’t be giving much of a hoot about this.

The anti-charter revision forces, however, anxious about preserving the Mayor’s power, have decided that the first ballot question should be the poison pill to kill all of charter revision. It’s easier to tell voters to vote “no” on every­thing, than to tell them: “Think about each ques­tion; learn about the complexities of Walling­ford’s gov­ernment ; read the ex­planatory text . . . bla bla bla.”

Woe is me. I am in the bla, bla, bla crowd.

Nine members of the Charter Revision Commission met September 2008 through June 2009 to discuss, debate, and, yes, com­promise their differences in an honest effort to recommend to voters where the Town charter needed to be changed. They were not puppets on a string. Five Democrats and four Republicans, all strong and independent thinkers, worked together for the good of the Town.

After all was said and done, after all the is­sues were examined and debated, there was only one party-line vote that approved of a change that will end up on your ballot. This was a remarkable achievement that reflected non-partisan Democracy and Wallingford governance at its best.

Each question on your ballot reflects a fa­vorable recommendation by the Charter Re­vision Commission.

Let’s see how the mem­bers voted:

Question One: Should the council be able to over-ride a mayoral veto by six votes in­stead of seven? 5-4 party-line vote.

Question Two: Should the Town Clerk be hired and su­pervised by the Mayor instead of appointed, every two years, by the Town Council? 7-0, unanimous vote.

Question Three (Part A) Should the Mayor appoint two members of the Board of Ethics; the council appoint two; and those four appoint a fifth? 5-3 bi-partisan plurality.

Question Three (Part B): Should the charter contain specific provisions (see ex­planatory text) intended to diminish the po­tential effect of political influences on Board of Ethics decisions? 8-0 unanimous vote.

Question Three (Part C) Should the Board of Ethics complaint procedures be strength­ened? 6-3 bi-partisan vote. (2 Democrats and 4 Republicans voting in favor.)

Question Four: Should the term of Board of Education members be increased from two years to three? 7-1 vote.

Question Five: Should the Council be able to veto actions by the PUC by 6 votes instead of seven? 7-1 vote.

Question Six: Should the required the voter turnout needed at a special election on an ordinance, by initiative or referendum, be decreased from 20 percent to 15 percent? 7-1 vote.

Ques­tion Seven: This question includes all the other changes recommended by the Charter Revision Commission, most by unanimous vote.

The explanatory text prepared by the Town Attorney, available at the Town Clerk’s office or at www.town.wallingford.ct.us, de­scribes just 9 of these changes. Five of the nine were approved by unanimous vote. Two changes were approved 7-1. One vote was 6-2. Another vote was 5-4, but it was not along party lines, as the four Republicans split evenly on that question.

Such a serious, non-partisan effort should not be cast aside as a sham.

In 1774, John Adams popularized the phrase “Ours is a nation of laws, not of men.” The foundational documents underpinning govern­ments at all levels were written with this prem­ise in mind and the best and most effective con­stitutions and charters essentially live up to that ideal.

Certainly a thorough reading of the Walling­ford Town Charter in its current form gives the reader a clear sense that the people who wrote it understood the sacred trust placed in them to design a system protecting the structure of gov­ernment from being manipulated for political purposes by those who hold office.

The set of revisions Wallingford voters will have in front of them this Tuesday do not meet that standard. On the contrary, the revision drive was conceived by the mayor’s political opponents, and the commission was designed to produce a specific political outcome. The re­vision commission was virtually handed a set of recommendations that addressed “prob­lems” that did not exist. Because of the makeup of the commission, another engineering project of the mayor’s opponents, the output of the commission was predetermined.

If we are going to make major changes in the town’s basic governmental structure, there has to be some reason for doing so. There has been no evidence presented that warrants a Yes vote on these seven questions.

Override a mayoral veto by only six rather than seven councilors? Has this power been abused? Should we shift power away from the only full-time elected official to nine part-time councilors?

Reshuffle the Board of Ethics? Right now, the mayor appoints and the council approves. Is it an improvement to separate the appointments with no counter-approval from the other body? Does that not inject politics in appointments where none has previously existed?

Board of Ed members run every three years? So we want them to have to sometimes run campaigns during presidential election years? Will their voices possibly then be heard? Did anyone ask BOE members for their opinion?

Public Utilities decisions overridden by a vote of six councilors rather than seven? Has the independence of the PUC posed a problem? Do we want to inject politics into the decisions regarding the business enterprises they over­see?

Reduce the percentage required to pass a ref­erendum? Towns shifted away from town meet­ings to a representative form of government because the town meeting form was becoming government by interest group. Do we want to head back that way?

Change the number of PUC commissioners to five? Has the commission not functioned ad­mirably with three? Do we really want to infuse politics into that body and jeopardize the qual­ity of the services we receive?

And exactly why can’t a PUC Commissioner serve on the Economic Development Commis­sion? Just what is the conflict here? Would this little gem be aimed specifi­cally at one person now serving on the PUC? Is this the kind of personal, get­ even- with ­him politics the voters of Wallingford should sup­port?

Contrary to the mythology being put out to the contrary, the Save The Charter— Vote NO committee is depending on the voters being in­formed about these seven questions. The more voters examine the background of this revision effort and see why these particular changes found their way on to the ballot, the more they will come to realize that it is imperative that they vote NO.

This effort has been the classic “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and it is the proponents — not the opponents — that hope the voters don’t have the time in their busy lives to become in­formed, where they would quickly recognize the real damage inherent in the adoption of these Charter revisions.