3 Charter Questions Head to Ballot; Trumbull Debates Hiring Auditor

The November ballot will ask voters if they favor all the Town Charter changes, and two referenda thresholds.

The last two cover a $15 million threshold for capital expenditures and an operating budget referendum. All will stand on the their own and rejection of one does not affect the other two, said Carl Massaro Jr., president of the Town Council.

The panel approved the questions and hired the auditor, McGladrey & Pullen, at a special meeting.

The council debated whether it was too early for the document to be shown to the public for voting.

Member Martha Jankovic-Mark, D-5, said, "You could have a bit of a mess. There are still many mistakes in that document."

The next steps are for the town clerk to formulate the questions and post the explanations for the charter changes as required by law. The explanatory document will be posted at polling places and the Town Clerk's Office, Massaro said.

But that may not be enough for the public to digest and understand the document, critics said.

Still, Council Vice Chairwoman Suzanne Testani, R-1, said the public is responsible for approving or rejecting the charter changes.

She quoted Charter Revision Commission member Paul Timpanelli as saying, "The general population of Trumbull doesn't care about the charter revision process."

It's up to the people to take an interest in the process, she said.

Some council members said more time should be taken to review the changes, but a motion to postpone failed 9-10.

Member James Meisner, D-6, said, "We have a sloppy document," and asked for another review by a Town Council committee.

Approving the questions passed 10-8, with one abstention.

Debating an Auditor

The council also debated whether to accept the lowest bid for a new auditor or to spend more money on a firm that already knows the town's finances.

The auditor will be working until the end of the year on the town's books.

It was noted that the auditor should have been hired shortly after a May request-for-proposal, but conflicting schedules prevented several early meetings.

The auditor needed to be hired at the meeting because otherwise it would have to wait until the council's Sept. 8 meeting, creating a further delay.

"We were told waiting till Sept. 8 is not a good idea. It would be a disaster," said member Tony Scinto, R-7.

But council member John DelVecchio Jr., D-4, said the other applicant firms' time was wasted because of the delay.

"Hopefully we can tighten this up in the future," he said.

Altieri said he couldn't approve of rejecting the lowest bidder. "There's so many questions I would like to ask about this," he later added.