Public to Vote on Proposed Referendum Change

The Legislative Council voted not to endorse the recommendations of the Charter Revision Commission but instead accept the commission’s report and bring the matter to a public vote.

That means by the time the public votes on the proposed budget amount for next year, they may have three options from which to choose -- "yes," "no, it's too high" or "no, it's too low."

The difference between “accepting” as opposed to “endorsing” was made at the request of council member Gary Davis who appeared ready to vote against the measure.

But council chairman Jeff Capeci said he saw little difference in the word change because whether the council endorsed the report or accepted it, the matter still must go to a public vote.

“I don’t think the word we use as the adjective in the sentence changes the meaning,” Capeci said. “If we can pick up a vote, it’s certainly an olive branch that I would be willing to accept.”

The council approved the measure by a vote of 11 to 1 with Kevin Fitzgerald being the sole dissenter.

The council shortly after last year's tumultuous budget season, to investigate the possibility of splitting the budget into one for town services and the other for education and voting on them separately.

The commission nixed that idea but instead recommended the ballot be changed to offer the three choices.

For the proposed charter change to take effect, the council must approve it and then hold a special referendum -- scheduled for March 29 -- for voters to decide. At least 15-percent of Newtown’s voting public and the majority of the voters who show up at the polls must approve of the change.

Due to those requirements, Capeci urged council members to rally behind the proposal.

“I would like to get a very close to unanimous vote,” he said before the council voted. “If we are going to make a change to the process, we are going to need everyone to help sell it.”

Last year, offering voters only a “yes” or “no” choice caused the council confusion after a vocal group of education supporters who wanted more money added to the education budget, launched a campaign urging like-minded voters to reject the referendum.

Their ranks were bolstered by residents who also rejected the referendum, but because they believed the budget was too high.

“Last year, we were constantly wondering…what does this ‘no’ mean? Is it too high or too low,” Capeci said. “Come budget season, if we have a failed referendum, we are going to be in the exact same spot…With this change to the charter, we will be able to make the changes, to make a failed referendum more passable.”

But Fitzgerald and Davis argued that changing the ballots was only one step. Both advocated for additional changes to give the council more insight into voter intent.

For instance, during the 1980s, the town once offered the public several different choices to weigh in on whether town or education budget was too high or too low.

“There really is no definition of what part is too low or too high,” Davis said.

But Democratic Registrar of Voters LeReine Frampton said state officials told her the town could not ask questions on only one part of the budget. If the council wanted more detail, the budget would have to be bifurcated, one for schools and the other education.

Few council members were in favor of bifurcation, saying the commission researched that topic, and after entering into discussion with officials in other towns believed that splitting the budget into one for schools and the other for towns would prove too divisive for Newtown.

Fitzgerald said divisions during budget season already run deep in town.

“Those worse-case scenarios are happening today,” he said. “Bifurcation makes very clear what the voters want.”

Still, other council members said they believe offering the three ballot choices would be a step forward.

“At the last budget deliberations when the audience was here looking to restore funds to the school budget, I did not know whether they were representative of the ‘no’ vote or not,” Ben Spragg said. “I think had we had the opportunity of ‘no, too high,’ ‘no, too low’ it would have given me a better idea of how many votes in fact the audience was representing.”

Capeci also said the town could in the future form another Charter Revision Commission to look into bifurcation if the ballot change proved inadequate. He said it was worth it to take one step and make this change now.

“Why throw away information, why not take this information, go for a charter change later in the future,” he said.