A townwide division over charter changes
01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, July 24, 2008
By Gina Macris
Source: http://www.projo.com/ri/tiverton/content/EB_TIVERTON_CHARTER_24_07-24-08_BJAVH4R_v8.412207c.html
Journal Staff Writer
TIVERTON — The tortuous deliberations of the Charter Review Commission during the last year have exposed a deep divide in the people’s willingness to finance town government — or to let go of the time-honored principle of direct democracy in the process.
The split in opinion is such that even the chairman of the Charter Review Commission says he doesn’t believe voters will approve any change to the annual Financial Town Meeting, despite the clear signal they sent at the polls two years ago that they wanted an alternative.
Two commission members, Frank Marshall and Richard Joslin, have bemoaned the lack of consensus on the nine-member panel, elected last July by just a few hundred voters in town.
The Town Council will at least move forward with a public hearing next Monday on a Charter Review Commission recommendation that an all-day referendum replace the annual Financial Town Meeting.
Another alternative, proposed by Town Council member Brian Medeiros, would delegate the Town Council with budget-setting authority.
A third plan, put forward by council member Joanne Arruda, would simply move the Financial Town Meeting from a Wednesday evening to a Saturday.
The Charter Review Commission would limit the authority of the Budget Committee in that it could not add money to fiscal proposals once they are approved by the Town Council or the School Committee.
And it would put pressure on operating revenues by requiring that the town’s unrestricted general fund be increased from 3 to 5 percent of the annual budget over the next eight years.
The fund would not be permitted to dip below 3 percent of annual operating costs at any time except in a state of emergency, and then only if three quarters of the electorate approves.
In other recommendations, the commission would limit the power of the Town Council in two ways.
Voter approval would be required of any decision to sell town-owned land, apart from property in the town Industrial Park.
And the commission would vest the appointed town administrator with the sole authority to hire and Fire Department heads.
If such a provision had been in effect last year, the council could not have reversed the decision of former town administrator W. Glenn Steckman III to fire Police Chief Thomas Blakey.
THE DIVISION in the community over alternatives to the Financial Town Meeting mirrors the tug between elected officials and so-called “anti-tax” voters, who in May tried to cut nearly $2 million from the Budget Committee’s recommendation for the fiscal year that began July 1.
The Town Council, the School Committee, and the chairman of the Budget Committee warned that the reductions would cripple the town financially, not allowing it to meet its legal obligations.
After a week’s recess in the meeting, the position of the elected officials won enough support to restore all but $100,000 to the original sum.
Since then, the Charter Review Commission has completed yearlong deliberations, putting forth its version of an all-day referendum.
In the event voters reject the Budget Committee’s recommendation, the town could raise the tax levy by no more than 4 percent, or the consumer price index at the time, whichever is less, according to the proposal.
There would be no exceptions to that rule, not even to make up for unexpected losses in outside revenues or to meet debt, as the Budget Committee had recommended in May.
The Charter Review Commission’s proposal received such a chilly reception that the commission amended the final language to allow for a special referendum in case voters initially reject the Budget Committee’s recommendations.
But Town Council president Louise Durfee says the final language is flawed because it does not provide for any finality to the budget process, allowing an “endless override.”
Two members of the Charter Review Commission, Laura Epke and Deborah Pallasch, had proposed a charter amendment that would move the town beyond direct democracy by granting the Town Council the authority to set the budget.
While the majority of the commission did not endorse that proposal, council member Brian Medeiros plucked that idea, tweaked it, and has offered it as an alternative to the all-day referendum.
Medeiros’ proposal would allow a minimum of 5 percent of the electorate to petition for a referendum to override the council vote.
The petition must clearly state the alternatives to the council’s figures, according to the proposal, the same as one approved handily by voters in neighboring Portsmouth last November.
In that town, there was backlash against a divisive special Town Meeting in 2006 in which the taxpayer group Portsmouth Concerned Citizens engineered a cut of about $1.7 million to the school and municipal budget then in effect.
HERE, THE CHARTER Commission first came up with the idea of a Grand Committee of elected officials representing the Town Council, School Committee and Budget Committee to decide the budget.
But Leonard, the chairman, said the idea was discarded because of reluctance to let go of direct democracy.
In the last seven or eight years, he said, voters have rejected two proposals to turn over the budget-making authority to the Town Council, Leonard said.
Because there was no widespread support on the commission for any one alternative, commission member Frank Marshall suggested that the panel forego making any recommendation. But that idea never even came to a vote.
Leonard said that the commission was bound to fulfill the charge of voters, who clearly said in 2006 that they wanted to see an alternative to the Financial Town Meeting.
Not that the members of the commission were elected by a broad mandate.
In a town of about 10,000 voters, 229 cast ballots. Of the nine commission members, six ran for office and three were write-in candidates.
Town Council members have indicated that, while they generally favor having a public hearing on the commission’s recommended alternative to the Financial Town Meeting, they are not enthusiastic about placing the question on the ballot.
Leonard, who says he doesn’t believe voters will go for a change, nevertheless is making an issue of the council’s authority to decide what questions will be on the ballot — or not.
He said the voters who called for a Charter Review Commission should decide whether to accept or reject the results of the deliberation.
Town Solicitor Andrew M. Teitz, however, said the council’s authority to set the language on the ballot flows from the Rhode Island Constitution.
The Constitution is not crystal clear, he said, but it has been the practice for many years for town councils in Rhode Island to decide what questions will appear on the ballot.
gmacris@projo.com
__________________________________________________________________________________
Decision on Tiverton budget referendum off ballot
01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, July 29, 2008
By Gina Macris
Journal Staff Writer
01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, July 24, 2008
By Gina Macris
Source: http://www.projo.com/ri/tiverton/content/EB_TIVERTON_CHARTER_24_07-24-08_BJAVH4R_v8.412207c.html
Journal Staff Writer
TIVERTON — The tortuous deliberations of the Charter Review Commission during the last year have exposed a deep divide in the people’s willingness to finance town government — or to let go of the time-honored principle of direct democracy in the process.
The split in opinion is such that even the chairman of the Charter Review Commission says he doesn’t believe voters will approve any change to the annual Financial Town Meeting, despite the clear signal they sent at the polls two years ago that they wanted an alternative.
Two commission members, Frank Marshall and Richard Joslin, have bemoaned the lack of consensus on the nine-member panel, elected last July by just a few hundred voters in town.
The Town Council will at least move forward with a public hearing next Monday on a Charter Review Commission recommendation that an all-day referendum replace the annual Financial Town Meeting.
Another alternative, proposed by Town Council member Brian Medeiros, would delegate the Town Council with budget-setting authority.
A third plan, put forward by council member Joanne Arruda, would simply move the Financial Town Meeting from a Wednesday evening to a Saturday.
The Charter Review Commission would limit the authority of the Budget Committee in that it could not add money to fiscal proposals once they are approved by the Town Council or the School Committee.
And it would put pressure on operating revenues by requiring that the town’s unrestricted general fund be increased from 3 to 5 percent of the annual budget over the next eight years.
The fund would not be permitted to dip below 3 percent of annual operating costs at any time except in a state of emergency, and then only if three quarters of the electorate approves.
In other recommendations, the commission would limit the power of the Town Council in two ways.
Voter approval would be required of any decision to sell town-owned land, apart from property in the town Industrial Park.
And the commission would vest the appointed town administrator with the sole authority to hire and Fire Department heads.
If such a provision had been in effect last year, the council could not have reversed the decision of former town administrator W. Glenn Steckman III to fire Police Chief Thomas Blakey.
THE DIVISION in the community over alternatives to the Financial Town Meeting mirrors the tug between elected officials and so-called “anti-tax” voters, who in May tried to cut nearly $2 million from the Budget Committee’s recommendation for the fiscal year that began July 1.
The Town Council, the School Committee, and the chairman of the Budget Committee warned that the reductions would cripple the town financially, not allowing it to meet its legal obligations.
After a week’s recess in the meeting, the position of the elected officials won enough support to restore all but $100,000 to the original sum.
Since then, the Charter Review Commission has completed yearlong deliberations, putting forth its version of an all-day referendum.
In the event voters reject the Budget Committee’s recommendation, the town could raise the tax levy by no more than 4 percent, or the consumer price index at the time, whichever is less, according to the proposal.
There would be no exceptions to that rule, not even to make up for unexpected losses in outside revenues or to meet debt, as the Budget Committee had recommended in May.
The Charter Review Commission’s proposal received such a chilly reception that the commission amended the final language to allow for a special referendum in case voters initially reject the Budget Committee’s recommendations.
But Town Council president Louise Durfee says the final language is flawed because it does not provide for any finality to the budget process, allowing an “endless override.”
Two members of the Charter Review Commission, Laura Epke and Deborah Pallasch, had proposed a charter amendment that would move the town beyond direct democracy by granting the Town Council the authority to set the budget.
While the majority of the commission did not endorse that proposal, council member Brian Medeiros plucked that idea, tweaked it, and has offered it as an alternative to the all-day referendum.
Medeiros’ proposal would allow a minimum of 5 percent of the electorate to petition for a referendum to override the council vote.
The petition must clearly state the alternatives to the council’s figures, according to the proposal, the same as one approved handily by voters in neighboring Portsmouth last November.
In that town, there was backlash against a divisive special Town Meeting in 2006 in which the taxpayer group Portsmouth Concerned Citizens engineered a cut of about $1.7 million to the school and municipal budget then in effect.
HERE, THE CHARTER Commission first came up with the idea of a Grand Committee of elected officials representing the Town Council, School Committee and Budget Committee to decide the budget.
But Leonard, the chairman, said the idea was discarded because of reluctance to let go of direct democracy.
In the last seven or eight years, he said, voters have rejected two proposals to turn over the budget-making authority to the Town Council, Leonard said.
Because there was no widespread support on the commission for any one alternative, commission member Frank Marshall suggested that the panel forego making any recommendation. But that idea never even came to a vote.
Leonard said that the commission was bound to fulfill the charge of voters, who clearly said in 2006 that they wanted to see an alternative to the Financial Town Meeting.
Not that the members of the commission were elected by a broad mandate.
In a town of about 10,000 voters, 229 cast ballots. Of the nine commission members, six ran for office and three were write-in candidates.
Town Council members have indicated that, while they generally favor having a public hearing on the commission’s recommended alternative to the Financial Town Meeting, they are not enthusiastic about placing the question on the ballot.
Leonard, who says he doesn’t believe voters will go for a change, nevertheless is making an issue of the council’s authority to decide what questions will be on the ballot — or not.
He said the voters who called for a Charter Review Commission should decide whether to accept or reject the results of the deliberation.
Town Solicitor Andrew M. Teitz, however, said the council’s authority to set the language on the ballot flows from the Rhode Island Constitution.
The Constitution is not crystal clear, he said, but it has been the practice for many years for town councils in Rhode Island to decide what questions will appear on the ballot.
gmacris@projo.com
__________________________________________________________________________________
Decision on Tiverton budget referendum off ballot
01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, July 29, 2008
By Gina Macris
Journal Staff Writer
Source: http://www.projo.com/ri/tiverton/content/EB_TIVERTON_CHARTER_29_07-29-08_Q7B195T_v9.42cebe1.html
TIVERTON — On a 5-to-1 vote, the Town Council balked at putting before the voters a proposed change in the Home Rule Charter which several members said was deeply flawed in the way it would replace the Financial Town Meeting with an all-day referendum.
Instead, the council agreed to ask voters in the November general election whether to retain the annual Financial Town Meeting, changing only the date, or whether to delegate the budget-setting authority to the Town Council.
It appears that most people don’t like the Financial Town Meeting, but finding a workable alternative “has defied a lot of people,” said Louise Durfee, council president.
When she has expressed doubt that the all-day referendum should go before the voters, Durfee said, people have told her she is not giving respect to the Charter Review Commission, which spent a year coming up with the plan.
“I respect everyone in this room,” Durfee said, presiding over a public hearing in the high school auditorium attended by fewer than 100 people.
But the details of the proposed budget preparation process did not reflect a sense of community and furthermore, provided “gold mine for lawyers,” said Durfee, a lawyer herself.
Jay Edwards, another council member, said the proposal of the Charter Commission was “so incredibly flawed it would be irresponsible to let it go through.”
Of the six members present, all agreed except for the council’s vice-president, Donald Bollin.
While he did not favor the Charter Commission’s proposal, Bollin said “this is an issue where people should speak for themselves.” Bollin drew applause from the relatively meager audience.
Cecil Leonard, a candidate for Town Council and the chairman of the Charter Review Commission, has maintained that the council did not have a right to keep any of the commission’s recommendations off the ballot.
But Andrew M. Teitz, the town solicitor, said both the Home Rule Charter and the Rhode Island Constitution give the council the responsibility for deciding what questions go on the ballot.
Durfee said she found it disturbing that the commission proposal, by allowing only a yes or no vote on the budget, could undercut community obligations.
“We have an obligation to provide rescue and library services,” she said.
A no vote would limit the maximum increase in the tax levy to 4 percent or the consumer price index, whichever is lower. There would be no exception to build a new library or take on any other new debt.
As a result, the town would have to cut essential services, she said. “I can’t support this.”
Leonard said that the existing Financial Town Meeting has the potential for disaster, recalling the session on May 21 in which voters initially cut nearly $2 million from the proposal of the Budget Committee. That decision was largely reversed the following meeting.
“I don’t understand how the council assumes that any voter will vote no, that we don’t care about the town,” Leonard said.
Durfee pointed out that the Financial Town Meeting, unlike the proposed all-day referendum, provides room for discussion and compromise.
“At the Financial Town Meeting, you can whack each other in the heat of battle,” Durfee said, but “there is flexibility if you want to cut a budget or increase a budget.”
The council approved a ballot question offered by council member Brian Medeiros that will ask voters to put the budget in the hands of the council.
“We’re not a direct democracy,” he said. “Why single the budget out as the one thing subject to direct democracy and then have three to four percent of the people come out” to decide the town budget for the next year.
“We’re a council-administrator form of government,” he said.
Also approved was the proposal of council member Joanne M. Arruda, which would move the annual Financial Town Meeting from the fourth Wednesday of May to the second Saturday of the month.
Arruda said she believed the change in date would allow more people to attend, although Leonard disagreed, saying people are too busy to come out on a Saturday morning in the spring.
Christopher Cotta, the chairman of the town Budget Committee and a candidate for Town Council, favored Arruda’s proposal as a “baby step” toward change.
“Any time you’re dealing with people’s taxes, you need to take very small steps,” he said.
gmacris@projo.com
TIVERTON — On a 5-to-1 vote, the Town Council balked at putting before the voters a proposed change in the Home Rule Charter which several members said was deeply flawed in the way it would replace the Financial Town Meeting with an all-day referendum.
Instead, the council agreed to ask voters in the November general election whether to retain the annual Financial Town Meeting, changing only the date, or whether to delegate the budget-setting authority to the Town Council.
It appears that most people don’t like the Financial Town Meeting, but finding a workable alternative “has defied a lot of people,” said Louise Durfee, council president.
When she has expressed doubt that the all-day referendum should go before the voters, Durfee said, people have told her she is not giving respect to the Charter Review Commission, which spent a year coming up with the plan.
“I respect everyone in this room,” Durfee said, presiding over a public hearing in the high school auditorium attended by fewer than 100 people.
But the details of the proposed budget preparation process did not reflect a sense of community and furthermore, provided “gold mine for lawyers,” said Durfee, a lawyer herself.
Jay Edwards, another council member, said the proposal of the Charter Commission was “so incredibly flawed it would be irresponsible to let it go through.”
Of the six members present, all agreed except for the council’s vice-president, Donald Bollin.
While he did not favor the Charter Commission’s proposal, Bollin said “this is an issue where people should speak for themselves.” Bollin drew applause from the relatively meager audience.
Cecil Leonard, a candidate for Town Council and the chairman of the Charter Review Commission, has maintained that the council did not have a right to keep any of the commission’s recommendations off the ballot.
But Andrew M. Teitz, the town solicitor, said both the Home Rule Charter and the Rhode Island Constitution give the council the responsibility for deciding what questions go on the ballot.
Durfee said she found it disturbing that the commission proposal, by allowing only a yes or no vote on the budget, could undercut community obligations.
“We have an obligation to provide rescue and library services,” she said.
A no vote would limit the maximum increase in the tax levy to 4 percent or the consumer price index, whichever is lower. There would be no exception to build a new library or take on any other new debt.
As a result, the town would have to cut essential services, she said. “I can’t support this.”
Leonard said that the existing Financial Town Meeting has the potential for disaster, recalling the session on May 21 in which voters initially cut nearly $2 million from the proposal of the Budget Committee. That decision was largely reversed the following meeting.
“I don’t understand how the council assumes that any voter will vote no, that we don’t care about the town,” Leonard said.
Durfee pointed out that the Financial Town Meeting, unlike the proposed all-day referendum, provides room for discussion and compromise.
“At the Financial Town Meeting, you can whack each other in the heat of battle,” Durfee said, but “there is flexibility if you want to cut a budget or increase a budget.”
The council approved a ballot question offered by council member Brian Medeiros that will ask voters to put the budget in the hands of the council.
“We’re not a direct democracy,” he said. “Why single the budget out as the one thing subject to direct democracy and then have three to four percent of the people come out” to decide the town budget for the next year.
“We’re a council-administrator form of government,” he said.
Also approved was the proposal of council member Joanne M. Arruda, which would move the annual Financial Town Meeting from the fourth Wednesday of May to the second Saturday of the month.
Arruda said she believed the change in date would allow more people to attend, although Leonard disagreed, saying people are too busy to come out on a Saturday morning in the spring.
Christopher Cotta, the chairman of the town Budget Committee and a candidate for Town Council, favored Arruda’s proposal as a “baby step” toward change.
“Any time you’re dealing with people’s taxes, you need to take very small steps,” he said.
gmacris@projo.com
For more on the Financial Town Meeting in Rhode Island, see: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:hp52wrKcZM4J:www.muni-info.state.ri.us/documents/publications/Financial%2520Town%2520Meetings.pdf+rhode+island+town+meeting&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=safari
No comments:
Post a Comment