Charter Revision Commission

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MIDDLETOWN CONNECTICUT WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2020 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order Commission Chair Robert Blanchard calls the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. 2. Roll call Present: Commissioner Robert Blanchard, Chair; Commissioner Tawana Bourne; Commissioner David Greaves, Vice-Chair; Commissioner Edward McKeon (Councilmember); Commissioner David Ribnicky; Commissioner Selena River; Commissioner David Roane, Secretary; Commissioner Linda Salafia (Councilmember); Commissioner Molly Salafia; Commissioner Kelly Sweeney; and Commissioner William Wilson Also Present: Councilman Eugene Nocera, Ex Officio; Hon. Benjamin Florsheim, Mayor; Steven Mednick, Esq. – Consulting Legal Counsel; Brig Smith, Esq. - General Counsel; Linda SK Reed, Clerk of the Common Council Councilmembers Jeanette Blackwell, Grady Faulkner, Jr., Darnell Ford, Edward Ford, Jr., Anthony Gennaro, Sr., Vincent Loffredo, Anthony Mangiafico, and Philip Pessina This meeting is livestreaming on WebEx and on the City’s Facebook page. Members of the Public: WebEx – 41 attendees; Facebook livestream (unknown number of viewers) 3. Old Business: A. Public Hearing -- Opens -- continuation of public hearing of November 4, 2020 (5 minutes maximum per speaker; 45 minutes maximum) Commission Chair Blanchard opens the public hearing at 7:08 PM. He encourages people who are watching, if not able to participate in the public hearing or if looking to elaborate on testimony, people may send their suggestions or ideas to CharterRevision@MiddletownCT.gov. Those emails will be delivered to all Commission members for consideration. Members of the public, looking to speak, will have five (5) minutes to address the Commission. Commission Chair Blanchard calls on Councilman Eugene Nocera. Councilman Nocera states that they have seen the upside and downside to the current situation. Not everything is strained, as there is cooperation. He hopes that the Commission takes this issue seriously. He knows that rewriting procedures may be difficult. He believes that should give the hiring completely over to the Board of Education as they know their needs. They will do a tremendous job, Supervision is the sole responsibility of the Board of Education. The restructuring should be the sole responsibility of the Board of Education, adding that it should not have to go to the City to restructure. He feels this is at the top of his list. When he looks at the Charter, he thinks it is in good shape. He agrees with Attorney Mednick on this matter: it is not complex or overdone, but the narrative needs to be improved. Work needs to be done to better organize the document with headers, with definition of terms, with starting each section with a statement of purpose. This would help the community in the future. The other issue being disseminated is a fuzzy issue in the Charter and needs to be strengthened. These are his issues. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Linda Salafia, who calls a point of order. Councilwoman Salafia states that, per the agenda, the Council is slated to speak last. The public hearing – the first part – is for members of the public, adding that she understands that people are waiting. The Chair states that he sees that. He notes that the public will also have an opportunity to speak at the next meeting. They will follow the order of the agenda, as Councilwoman Salafia has pointed out. He notes that Councilman Nocera will finish his comments and then they will call on the public. Councilman Nocera states that he has completed his time and comments. He agrees with Councilwoman Salafia that the public should go first.  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 2 Cathy Stebbins: (414 Farm Hill Road) She is participating in the public hearing as a Middletown taxpayer and the former Vice-President of the Westfield Residents’ Association. She wants to comment on Robert Blanchard’s proposal to approach the State legislature and revoke the Westfield Fire Department’s Charter, which would free up the path for Middletown to consolidate all of its fire departments. She does not support this. On behalf of Westfield residents, they do not support this either. No one in Westfield Fire department requested that anyone try to revoke its charter. She thinks it’s a strong-arm for anyone to approach the legislature without the community requesting a change. She is here to say it is not appropriate for the City to try to do. She believes it is important for the community to continue to have volunteer firefighters as part of the fabric of the Westfield community. It part of the culture of the Westfield community. For someone to try to wrestle control and take away the opportunity to have a volunteer run fire department as well as low mill rate that it brings to the community of Westfield is inappropriate. She is asking that the Commission not do that. Commission Chair Blanchard asks Ms. Stebbins to state her address for the record. She replies that she is taxpayer, no longer a Westfield resident, and lives at 414 Farm Hill Road. She is the former Vice-President of the Westfield Residents’ Association, She also pays South Fire District taxes in South Farms, noting that it is $1,000 and is becoming very expensive between Middletown taxes and the fire taxes in South farms. Her Westfield fire taxes for the 50 years that she lived there were never more than a couple of hundred dollars because people are volunteers. It is part of that community culture. Commission Chair thanks Mr. Stebbins for her comments. He also explains that here are no proposals yet by the Commission They are at the beginning stages of this process. It is a blank slate taking in ideas from the public, elected officials, and others involved in government in volunteer and public service capacities. He reiterates that there are no proposals Greg Amy: Chairman of the Westfield Fire District Commission read the following prepared statement. I’m Greg Amy (g‐r‐e‐g a‐m‐y). I am a resident of Westfield and the Chairman of the Westfield Fire District Commission. I am here on behalf of the Commission to read into the record a prepared statement regarding the proposed City charter revision. I attended the Nov 4th charter revision meeting. During that meeting, the subject of fire district consolidation was mentioned. When a resident asked if your commission was aware that the Westfield Fire District was an independent body with its own charter directly with the State of Connecticut, the chairman acknowledged that fact, noting that in order for consolidation to happen – and I quote – "the Middletown delegation would have to push through [the State Legislature] some legislative package or omnibus proposal that would then take effect if it were to pass the chambers and be signed by the governor". End Quote. The Chairman’s comments were alarming for a number of reasons. First, I infer from these comments ‐ and many others have as well ‐ that the City of Middletown is considering legislation that would revise or revoke the Westfield Fire District’s charter with the State of Connecticut. That is troubling. Second, how can a plan for consolidation proceed without all relevant players participating in the process? The Westfield Fire District Commission has not been invited into a conversation about consolidation. Since the City has no legal jurisdiction over the Westfield Fire District, how could the city proceed with planning without our input? This process is effectively disenfranchising the residents in our district, and it’s incredibly disrespectful on top of that. Next, it appears that considerable thought, at levels higher than this commission, has gone into this plan already. There is a legal process defined in the Connecticut State statutes about how to dissolve a fire district, and introducing legislation to revoke its charter is not how it would happen. So why is anyone even talking about that possibility, and why does it appear that the city is trying to force Westfield into something it hasn’t asked for? Finally, there is no plan on what consolidation would look like, or how it would be accomplished. Even if Westfield was asked to consider such a thing, then without an objective plan to evaluate how we cannot possibly determine if consolidation would be in the district’s best interest at this time? Given all this, we would not agree to consolidation under current circumstances. If any member of the Charter Revision Commission would like to visit us and learn more about why we wouldn’t support consolidation, we would be delighted to give you a tour of the facilities and tell you more about the Westfield Fire District ‐‐ properly socially distanced, of course. Everyone is welcome to join us at any of our monthly commission meetings, held on the second Tuesday of each month at 6:30PM. Please monitor our web site, westfieldfd.com, for meeting time and place notification, as, given current circumstances, the meeting may be moved to Zoom as needed. We also welcome any thoughts, ideas or feedback, and can be contacted through the links on our website. That’s westfieldfd.com I will provide a transcript of this statement to the Secretary for the meeting minutes, and I would be glad to answer any questions that any commission members may have. Thanks for your time. Brandon Chaffee (73 Ten Acre Road): He is the Representative-elect for the 33rd District at the State House. He wants everyone to know that he is here to hear from the public. He knows of no legislation that has been drafted to change the charter of any of the firehouses. Before any decision would be made, he would want to have a conversation with the Westfield fire department, members of the community, and al involved stakeholders. He reiterates that, to his knowledge, there is no pending legislation, in the coming months, he would like to discuss this matter with the Westfield Fire Commission members. He wants everyone’s input before any decisions are made.  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 3 Brian Biales: He is speaking at the issue of district consolidation he read the statutes and he does not think that the State has authority to dissolve a fire district commission. He thinks it is a good topic to discuss, the pros and cons of consolidation, he does not think it should be part of the Charter revision conversation. He thinks that the topic of employees of the Board of Education being under the City has been discussed by many over the years, he thinks it is time for the Charter to be revised to give the Board of Education ability to manage their own place. Commission Chair Blanchard is disconnected from the WebEx meeting. Vice-Chair David Greaves assumes Chairmanship and resumes the meeting. The Council Clerk indicates that here is a message from an attendee asking the Commission to notify Westfield residents of this matter. Vice Chairman Greaves states that anything that will happen with the Westfield Fire Department, especially in this manner, all residents will need to be notified well in advance. He notes that the Representative—elect would also be notified. Commissioner Molly Salafia offers a point of order. She asks whether or not this matter is in the Commission’s jurisdiction since it is an action of the State. She asks if it should even be a point of discussion, asking that the question be deferred to the Commission’s consulting counsel, Attorney Mednick, because, if not in their jurisdiction, perhaps a motion should be made to take the issue off the table for any discussion. This would allow the Commission to move on to other issues. Commission Edward McKeon offers a point of order, stating that the topic seems to be out of order right now based on the agenda. We are taking public comment, whatever it is. It is something that the Commission will discuss later. He believes that the Commission should continue to gather public comment and save the discussion for later. There is obviously (inaudible). Commissioner Molly Salafia replies that she does not want to get too much into public discussion on topics that are not even on the Commission’s agenda. Commissioner McKeon replies that he believes that people may offer whatever comments they want, whether far off or not. It is something that we are to listen to. Vice-Chairman Greaves states that he understands where Commission Molly Salafia is coming from. The reason for the public hearing is to hear input from people of possible changes to the Charter. Honestly, throughout this meeting and previous meetings, it has never been brought up that here would be a consolidation of the fire departments. In reading The Middletown Press, he was extremely surprised to read that. It was discussed briefly at meetings a, at the last meeting as to what it would take for that to happen should that be an object that the commission considers for Charter revision. As Commissioner Molly Salafia pointed out, the conversation of having it considered as a Charter revision to be tabled at this point because there is nothing that this Carter revision Committee can do to even begin to fathom the process since there are so many hurdles to go through before even getting there Commissioner McKeon said there has been no decision of what is appropriate or not; rather we are listening an open-ended fashion as to anything that may be said. Vice-Chair Greaves relies that he is more than willing to listen to what the public has to say, but, whet the public is saying now, is that they are against Charter revising that doesn’t exist – and cannot exist – because of the way that the laws and the individual Charters exist. He asks that the Commission move on to the next speaker in line. The Council Clerk states that at the moment, there are no additional people in the queue. Perhaps this is last call for any members of the public. There is a new speaker: John Giuliano. John Giuliano (162 Old Mill Road): He is a building superintendent for the Board of Education. He is not against Carter revision, but he is against any provision that potentially allows privatization of services that he currently provides. He has been a member of UPSEU when he was a custodial manager. He does see the pros and cons. He is against any modification that will make services private. Commission Chair Robert Blanchard is reconnected to the meeting. Charlotte McCoid (626 East Street): With regard to the first topic brought up by John Giuliano, in terms of Charter revision, as a 40-year teacher in the school system, she believes that custodians should be under the Board of Education., not under the City, I sometimes becomes very political and perhaps this will help with that issue. She never can tell. That is her suggestion. In addition, she is very vested in the Westfield Fire  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 4 Department and the direction that the Commission may be pursuing, She definitely wants take the fire department as a volunteer comp au for many reasons. She note that she sent in an email, short, but she feels strongly that this in in the best interest of the people of Middletown. Additional written comments from Charlotte McCoid: City Charter Revision Committee Middletown CT. November 18, 2020 7:00 p.m. To: Committee Members I’m submitting my concerns for the new proposal to change by consolidation and revocation, the charters for both Westfield Fire and South Farms Fire Depts. through the City of Middletown’s charter revision process. Westfield Fire is well run and very efficient. It has the latest equipment and helps to train new fire fighters through its volunteer program. Volunteering was eliminated in South Farms when they had undergone changes in their fire district. Volunteers of decades of experience were instantly removed and then replaced with full time fire fighters. That raised taxes in South Farms because of salaries and was a cultural shock to families who were active members as volunteers for generations in that area. Westfield has been incorporated for 89 years and has a similar history of volunteering. Unfortunately, it will suffer the same consequences as South Fire with the same dire results. Why are you trying to change a city organization run by residents who have a vested interest in its success? More importantly, why are you doing it in such a manner that circumvents the democratic process and removes their ability to oppose this consolidation? This decision will not save any Middletown taxpayer monies and in fact, it will be higher for all. Westfield Fire Dept. should be thanked for saving taxpayers serious dollars, not scrambling to keep their department as is. I will appreciate your response to these concerns and an explanation how this will save tax dollars. Thank you for your consideration, Charlotte McCoid 626 East Street Middletown, CT Vice-Chair Greaves states that with Chair Robert Blanchard reconnected, he passes the reins back to him William Balch (Basswood Drive): He is wholeheartedly against consolidation. He thinks that it is disrespectful of all the players. He asks the Commission to reconsider even looking at it all together. Tom Latimer (Sabona Drive): It sounds like this fire district proposal is groundless in the sense that consider that this Commission is even denying that it’s a consideration. To the extent that it does become a consideration, he believes that everyone in the district would appreciate hearing the merits of it before it is put forward to anyone in the State though legislative action, even if it is a possibility. He understands that he has heard at least two statements that his action is groundless, that this is without merit. He hopes that there will be no effort to have it proceed forward without having a conversation with the community regarding the benefits of such an action, he thinks this is what allured him most when he first heard about it. These are his comments. Jeffrey Kanakal (71 Russel Street): He is a plumber at the Board of Education and for the City, he is also the President of Chapter B, Local 466. He is very much against the Board of Education taking over any of the employees of 466. They feel that this is not a good thing. It will not work. They have heard rumors of privatization, if they can get control of these employees. They do not want this to happen as it will definitely ruin this City and the members of the City, including constituents, he would like to see the City take over the whole payroll of 466 and UPSEU and take over all of the buildings and facilities. He thinks that the City can manage the buildings better than the Board of Education if educational. He has worked for then for 16 years, reiterating that he works for the Board of Education and the City, all of the departments in the City. He is not sure how they can do this and not affect a lot of people/s jobs. Marie Acri (30 Pearl Street): She has many concerns about Charter revision for Local 466 employees. As she said at the last meeting, she has been a Board of Education employee for the past 18 years. One of the biggest concerns that she has is transparency on this topic. A lot didn’t even know that this was even that through. They hear a lot of rumors about it, which, unfortunately, makes a lot of people panic. She thinks it would be a huge change and would be very upsetting, concerning. When they were hires, they were hired under a contract, noting that, unfortunately, the contract is not always adhered to strictly for Board of Education members. She asks what will happen to them and to their families. They are working toward a goal and for this to change their  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 5 lives is not fair; it is not consists net. A lot of people don’t know what is going on, suggesting that the Commission should talk to their Executive Board and some of their members. The Council Clerk confirm that tree are no other members in the queue. Commission Chair Blanchard states that, if other people connect to the meeting, at the next meeting the public will be given more time to spec along with members of boards and commissions, department heads, and former Councilmember’s. The public will have another chance to speak. Before closing the public hearing, he explains that members of the public will have the opportunity to weigh in. There will be another public hearing at the end of this process, giving the public another opportunity to see what the Council will be reviewing. There will be another public hearing when the matter goes before the council, as they weigh an exchange feedback. Ultimately, nothing is approved until the voters approve it. Sometimes, noting he has been on a Charter Revision Commission in the past, there are a lot of ideas and it is whittled down to two or three. Sometimes it is a change in a position in the City or going from two year to four year terms. He wants the public to understand that the issues with 466 and Westfield are coming up a lot. There is a lot more that this Charter Revision Commission can do to improve or streamline or fix parts of the City Charter that antiquated or out of date or could perform better functions behalf of the public. He encourages members of the public to start honking creatively about other issues. Some ideas are listed in letters. He does not want these ideas to be overshadowed in other areas of the Charter that can be improved. B. Public Hearing – Closes There being no other members of the public looking to speak, Chairman Blanchard asks for a motion to close the public hearing Commissioner David Roane moves to close the public hearing. Commissioner Edward McKeon seconds the motion. There being no discussion, Commission Chair Blanched calls for a vote. The vote is unanimous with 11 aye votes to approve the motion, the latter is approved. The public hearing is closed at 7:41 PM. 4. New Business: A. Approval of Minutes of October 21, 2020 Organizational Meeting at 7:00 PM Commissioner Edward McKeon moves to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2020 Organizational meeting. Commissioner David Roane seconds the motion. There being no discussion, Commission Chair Blanchard calls for a vote. The motion is unanimously approved with 11 aye votes. The matter is approved. B. Approval of Minutes of November 4, 2020 regular meeting at 7:00 PM Commissioner William Wilson moves to approve the minutes of the November 4, 2020 regular meeting. Commissioner David Roane seconds the moiton. There being no discussion, Commission Chair Blanchard calls for a vote. The motion is unanimously approved with 11 aye votes. The matter is approved. C. Comments from Hon. Benjamin Florsheim, Mayor (10 minutes maximum) Commission Chair Blanchard invites Hon. Benjamin Florsheim, Mayor of the City of Middletown to offer comments. Mayor Florsheim thanks the Commission for the opportunity to seek. He thanks the member of the public for being involved. He thanks the Commission for taking on a thankless role for improving City goevernment for residents. He appreciates the process so far. Despite assumptions that have been made, this is stating as a public focus process and that is to be commended. At this stage, they did not start – by “they” he means the Commission – when the Council voted to establish this commission, it was a shared goal that it not come out of the gate with specific ends in mind; rather, it be left to the Commission and members of the public to set priorities that they would move forward. As the Chair stated, once proposals are made, there will be a separate round of public hearings to make sure that this is vetted appropriately by residents. He thinks that this is exactly as it should be. He has thoughts about some of the subjects under consideration He believes that the most important one that he wants to talk about is he proposed – adding he is using language that he should not since no proposals have been made - the sentiment that has been express about separating hiring or the City and Board of Education is something that he thinks is important to achieve. Equally important is the details, getting it right. Folks, who have spoken tonight, there are converse among city and Board of Education staff as to how this will affect their jobs and livelihoods. It is very important as we try to move City government into a model that it frankly needs to move into, as is every other community in Connecticut. It is clearly the  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 6 most efficient way to run government. It has to be first and foremost listening to, talking to, and looking out for the employees, first and foremost, both current and future, who so ably serve the City, especially over the past six (6) months, during the pandemic. We have seen how hard our workers, our custodial workers, so many others have been working and given of themselves to make sure that the City is able to continue functioning, and that the school district is able to continue educating. With all that said, it is important to emphasize that we are unique in the State in the way that we do hiring between the school district and City government. It stands to reason that the schools and the superintendent has the right to hire as he chooses and run the district as they choose, in accordance with a strong labor contract. He will 100percent unabashedly agree with the speakers from the public m who said they oppose privatization of City services. He opposes that unequivocally on the City side and Board of Education side and would work in any shape that it takes, but he would say that the superintendent and the schools have the right to hire and manage as they see fit and the City has the right to hire and manage as they see fit. That includes not handling human resources and handling labor practices for the Board of Education for their employees. He believes that each is entitled to work within its domain to make sure that we are delivering the best that we can for employees, residents, and students. He is eager to see this Commission dig in on this further and work with the Council, work without bargaining units ad employees to make sure that we come to an outcome that works for everybody. He also states that this ones up a great opportunity for people to come up with ideas that may come. He echoes what he Commission Chair has said: that we really, speaking for himself, that he is eager for their ideas as to how they can improve government efficiency. One idea that was brought up at the last meeting by the Planning & Zoning Commission Chair was to bring Middletown in line with the rest of the State and not require a supermajority for zoning decisions Another that was brought up by someone working in the Assessor’s office is to change the name of the ax Assessor’s Office – adding it has been done in communities across the State – change the name from the Tax Assessor’s Office to the Assessor’s Office. Apparently about half of the calls they get in the Assessor’s office are calls that should be going to the Tax Collector’s Office and a simple change in descriptive language could remedy that. Lastly, he wants to address, he is surprised and interested to learn that there is a separate commission formed, independently of this one, with a proposal to revoke the Charter of the Westfield Fire district. He thinks that we need to make sure that the integrity of this process means something and be questioned asked and answered in good faith, in a public setting, in a meeting such as this, and it be taken in good faith This is a public process and we want to make sure that issues raised are duly discussed. He thinks that jumping to conclusions that appears to be happening on proposals that have not even started to be made. Suggests that here is a little way to go to ensure that we have these conversations in a way that leads us to an outcome. He is always a phone call away, the Council a phone call away, and this Commission, he hopes, will be a phone call away for anybody who has concerns. Before things get raised for discussion, it is important that we treat this as discussion, Moving forward his priority will continue to be public outreach to make sure that here is total agreement in the facts and total effort being made through public outreach as to what is being planned and how it will go, one way or another, before it ultimately goes to the voters. That is his priority and this Commission’s priority. As discussions move forward in this setting, for the most part, it is positive and he is excited that this opportunity we are able to give one another and the residents. He is glad to be a part of it. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and he is looking forward to being at future meetings and working with the Commission moving forward. D. Comments from current Councilmembers (7 minutes maximum per speaker) Commission Chair Blanchard calls on Councilman Philip Pessina, Minority Leader: Councilman Pessina: He suggests that the Commission look at the following. He supports the plan to put 466 under the Board of Education. He doesn’t agree with privatization, noting that City employees work hard. The other areas that he wants to address: He notes that Steven Devoto spoke about the supermajority. He believes that this needs to be removed from Planning & Zoning as it is ludicrous that something is not passed because there are not five members. It has a profound effect on a decision by Planning & Zoning, so it needs to be looked at. Under section 6, taxation, he would like to see language so that when taxes are considered tree is some verbiage for the senior population and veterans. Wage budgets are developed and taxation is developed. We need language to reduce taxes for seniors and veterans. He also wants to respond to the terms. He does not think this needs to occur. We have a rich history of this Council, but he does like the idea of staggered terms. This year, there is a brand new Council except for two or three members. With staggered term, the Council would never be without experience. It would support ongoing projects and experience. A new Councilmember could hit the ground ruining and work collaboratively as we are doing now without great Council. The other area is language, which needs to be cleaned up. He is concerned with the language for powers of investigation by the Council. If there is a compliant to the Council about inappropriate alleged actions of a City official, the first thing that we should do is involve the Ethics Commission. That is their charge. If they validate it, if it is criminal, it goes across the street and is out of our hands. If it is non-criminal, it should come back to the Council after being vetted by the ethics Commission and then the Council, by majority vote would decide on any sanctions that Heywood have the power to do, up to removal. It makes the Council stronger and cleans up the process so we don’t get involved in the criminal area. Also, the seniors and vertans need a break during these time so he would like to see work on that. As far as the fire district goes, this is the first he has heard of it with Westfield. He notes that Ms. Stebbins brought up some good points, but before we do anything as a City we need to bring the stakeholders to the table and have a serious conversation. , not just willy-nilly decide to do something because it is a “good idea.” The citizens are the ones who benefit from these services whether in the City or the taxing district such as Westfield and the district where he lives, South District. NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 7 These are his comments Thanks you. Good luck to the Commission and he looks forward to the proposals. Remember, the citizens are the most important part of our community. We have to listen. We need to do it in a way that is respectful to all citizens. We can consolidate this Charter and cleanup the languages his partner, Majority Leader Councilman Nocera stated. Thank you. A Commission member, through the Chair, states that he has questions for Councilman Pessina. He states that Councilman Pessina mentioned tax breaks for seniors and vertans. He knows on the Town level and the State level, especially through the State statutes, that there are several programs available. He is the first to admit that they are not well known or common knowledge. Commissioner Edward McKeon makes a point of order through the Chair. He states that this is a discussion of a topic, noting the he may be wrong, but does not believe that this is the time for a give and take. A Commission member (unidentified) states that his point is that Councilman Pessina has brought up these things in Charter revision to have more tax relief. His questions what more is he looking for beyond what is already available. Multiple speakers (inaudible). Councilman Eugene Nocera states that he agrees with Commissioner McKeon that this agenda is not designed for a give and take; rather, these questions will come later. That information will come later, reiterating that he agrees with Commissioner McKeon that this is not a question and answer session. That will come later. Commission Chair Blanchard states that this forum is for the Council to give comments to the Commission. There will be opportunities for members of the Commission to interact with the Councilmembers. He encourages everyone either after this meeting or going forward to reach out to Councilmembers with any questions or vice versa for Councilmembers. Tonight’s session is for the Council , many of whom have served for a number of years and may have interactions with the Charter that may be helpful. Councilman Pessina asks the Chair for permission to speak. Respectfully, in presenting his comments, he wants to be sure it’s noted in that Chapter to clarify and eliminate an ambiguity. The Chair thanks Councilman Pessina for his comments and for his work on behalf of the public. . The Chair calls on Deputy Mayor Vincent Loffredo. Councilman Vincent Loffredo: He states that under Charter, the Common Council, he encourages the Council to be considered to be elected to wards or districts rather than at-large. In earlier discussion, there is some recognition, in that in the City there are several unique district like Westfield, South Farms, and Downtown/Central. If we use those as the basis potentially and some reasonable number in the election for each district say 4,000 residents with a total of 48,000. With this, we would have a Council of 12 from four from each district. Bring constituents more directly in contact with people in the neighborhood and their issues. He urges the Commission to explore this as many cities already have in their Charters. Also staggered terms makes a great deal of since the complexity of issues is not less, but more so and the value of having peel break it out to 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years to start and bring it out to staggered going forward. There currently exists with the Board of Education and Planning& Zoning, so there is recognition. It is something the City has recognized for years and bringing it to the Common Council makes sense. It is worth consideration. Under Section3, one of the Charter that comes up is the authority of the Common Council. Section 4 has to do with salaries of, “ to determine and appropriate such salaries . . .” he is not interested in the salary of the Common Council; rather the City needs to be more serious as to how it addresses the salaries of those who are elected or appointed as the chief elected official in the mayor’s office. To attract and retain folks with experience and willingness to serve and to take on all of the responsibility that comes with that office is significant. We have a strong mayoral form of government and the responsibility that he/she has needs to be recognized. The legislative arm of the City needs to have its own leadership; that is, the Common Council should be in terms of meetings, be chaired by a representative, deciding how that will be determined, who is a member of the Common Council, not by the Mayor. It is not appropriate for a legislative body. What we are talking about with these issues is actually to diminish the authority of the mayor. The mayor as the chief executive officer is responsible, as we are all well ware, in negotiating the terms and conditions of employment of all City employees, most of whom are under a collective bargaining agreement. In an earlier statement from Attorney Mednick is that, at the end of the day, what takes precedent over the Charter are the terms and conditions that get voted on and put into municipal contracts, they negate whatever is in the Charter if that the Mayor’s office and adopted by the Common Council. They can modify things. He is in favor of the diminution in the 466 contract, he is in favor of the terms and conditions that currently affect the folks who work under the supervision of the Board of Education: custodians, secretaries, cafeteria workers, and others. They are not classified, that reasonability should rest with the Board of Education they are elected officials so we are not turning this over to someone who is appointed to the job. It includes administrators, who get appointed. The slate is important the wards or district are important. The other issue is the issue of length of contracts. For whatever reason, the municipal contracts and the Charter may or may not be appropriate to look at this, we have 5- year agreements with changes and financial responsibilities that go beyond the term of the Mayor or the Council that needs to be looked at, he states that he is newly elected and what is set in place during the term of this Council these contracts may never come before them again. This has to do with the discussion regarding the fire districts, he is opposed to modifying the Charter in Westfield or South Farms. From his NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 8 perspective, the problem is the reality is that we have another department in the community – a department – but it is taxed 1/3. We have three districts and the district that carries the burden, central fire district. If you read the Charter for South Farms it’s the 2nd district as opposed to the first district. That is a major inequity. That body, that taxing district ought to have the same rights and responsibilities as exists in the other two fire districts. They have a Commission elected by the people in their district. The terms and conditions and so forth. If we look at City inequities, that is way out of line. They have no guaranteed representation at all, however, they are taxed. It is a misnomer. You look at the title of the agreement the 466, UPSEU, Police, and Fire and they all start out with an agreement between the City and the union. The City of Middletown collectively does not pay for and support financially the central fire district. It is minimal at best, not only but going forward, that responsibility. If all taxpayers were paying for it them the term “City of Middletown would be accurate. It refers to all – it is a falsehood. The responsibility is voted on as a separate taxing district and rests on people living in that taxing district He urges hat be changed. It is a fairness and equity. That is long overdue. It needs to provide for the same oversight that the other 2/3 of the City has in their responsibility. That is an area of gross inequity that has to be looked at. The Chair alerts Councilman Loffredo that he has 30 seconds left for his allotted time. Councilman Loffredo states that it would also be an area where the responsibility of the Mayor, in terms of negotiations, would also be diminished. Thank you. The Chair calls on Commissioner, Councilwoman Linda Salafia. Commissioner/Councilwoman Linda Salafia states that she is not prepared to give a list of pros and cons because she sits on this Commission. She is trying to keep an open mind, adding that she does have ideas, reiterating that she is trying to be open minded. She will refrain from offering a list at this time. The Chair calls on Commission, Councilman Edward McKeon. Commission/Councilman Edward McKeon states that he will also pass at this time. He has opinions, but is trying to keep an open mind as much as possible. The Chair calls on Councilman Edward Ford, Jr. Councilman Edward Ford, Jr. thanks the Chair. He does not have much, some questions. One concern is the possible implications of a would-be City Manager/ Council form of government to be brought up and discussed. He asks what that sort of government might have in achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion at City Hall. He asks if it befits that, if achieved greater equity and diversity of City Hall staff versus the form of government that we now have, a strong Mayor, strong Council form of government. Is what we have now sufficient? Can we use it to achieve the goals that we have, adding that we have the same goal. This is a question that he has at this time. Can we answer this as we go through this process over the next few months? Another thing that was brought up tonight is privatization of City jobs. He shares the same sentiment as the mayor and Councilman Pessina: totally against that. We need to protect our City employees and do what is best for them. He thinks that the members of the public, who share their voices, thank you for doing that. When it comes to the Board of Education, he does agree that the Board does need to have its own power and authority over hiring its non-certified staff as it does certified staff. He believes that Middletown is one of two municipalities in Connecticut that still operates so that the City has authority over hiring of non-certified staff. He believes it is Middletown and one other city. By moving to give that authority to the Board of Education will allow them to have more accountability in that area and more room to choose and select whom they bring into work of the district. It will allow for less friction, so to speak, where tree could be friction in a hiring situation. He also wants to bring up the question of wards and aldermen, His opinion is that, for a City of this size, it is well served by the current form of Council that we have. He is open to hearing other opinions that may prove otherwise, but he does believe that the at-large form well serves and well-represents the community. However, he is not opposed to staggered term, where elected official are on for a couple of years and the more can come on with a fresh perspective. It allows for a balance to have experience with a freshness, a newness to come together to serve the City. It is a health balance. Without that balance, you can spend a lot of time learning and going through the process of not having the tools to govern appropriately. This is something that he is interested in exploring -- staggered terms – how it can benefit us as a City. That is all that he wants to express tonight. The big item is the current Mayor form of government versus City Manager form, which has his interest. He will share whatever research he can. The Chair calls on Councilman Darnell Ford. Councilman Darnell Ford thanks the Chair. He doesn’t have too much to say. He has been taking in what other have said. What he does want to offer is that he is in full support of the Commission looking at placing the power with Board of Education where it belongs. He feels it would truly represent well balanced and equity in being able to hire, take a look at the right people for positions at he Boar of Education. He does not agree with any privatization or anyone who is working with the Board of Education, in 466 or any union (inaudible). He will continue to take it all in and, as things come up, he will add more issues that he thinks the Commission shoudl look at. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Jeanette Blackwell. NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 9 Councilwoman Jeannette Blackwell thanks all of the Commissioners for their service. She appreciates being able to put names with faces. One of the first things that she tried to do was to peruse the minutes of the first meeting that was held on October 21st. In reading the minutes, it was clearly articulated that the Commission should focus on four (4) areas: clarity, flexibility, accountability, and avoid a culture of disregard and paralysis. As she lays out her recommendations tonight, of other things that she will try to do was to put her recommendations, her thoughts, in one of these four buckets she also wanted to take a look at the Charter revision report of 2014. In the bucket of clarity, one thing that she tried to find and is not clear to her is: Are City employees evaluated? Is performance processed for City employees? It is her position that performance appraisals provide an opportunity for professional development, I is not clear to her, In terms of something she noticed in the minutes that she would like clarity on the creation of a civilian review board. She knows it was highlighted. Because recent police reform legislation, Public Act 17-01, it appears that e Board can be developed by ordinance, not Charter. She asks for clarification from this Commission. In the bucket of flexibility, she agrees that need to amend the affirmative votes to reflect and align with the State statute requiring a simple majority. She believes this will create more flexibility to create projects. Another area that could be flexibility or accountability is allowing the Board of Education to hire their own non- certified staff. She is a firm believer that the current system is bifurcated and that the Board of Education knows the needs of their schools and should have every opportunity to hire employees. In terms of the accountability bucket, one thing is that she hopes the Commission does, if they have not provided a platform for the Anti-Racism Taskforce, she hopes that they will. In full transparency, she is a member of that taskforce and she yields her time back to the members. She believes that this Commission should speak to the members of the Anti-Racism taskforce, which is thinly develop taskforce under Mayor Florsheim. In terms of personnel hiring practices, this is an area of great concern to her. She is concern about equity and inclusion in the City. She recommends that the City in hiring and promotional practices develop a hiring panel that is diverse. She has been a State of Connecticut employee for many years and they have developed a diverse hiring panel to ensure equity, inclusion, and to balance opportunities. She would like to see this explored. She is not sure it can be made an ordinance or Charter revision, but, looking at hiring panels, diverse hiring panels is something that she wants them to explore. In terms of anti-racism work that was recently done, she asks the Commission to look at the report – the National Conference for Community & Justice Report – a recent report that was completed through the City’s partnership with Human Relations and NCCJ and the Middletown Racial Justice Coalition. They completed this report as a result of many focus groups. There were six (6) areas highlighted and, when she thinks about hiring and opportunities, and area that was highlighted is housing, we know that without employment, you cannot obtain housing. This is an area that is of extreme importance to her. Her recommendation is that this Commission look at that report and look at the recommendations. In the area of hiring practices, on thing that she is trying to get her arms around and understand as a new Councilmember is the Labor/Management Committee process. She read in Chapter 74, Article 2 of the Charter that it appears that the classification review process if equivalent to the Labor/management Committee process. It looks like it was amended in May 2013 by way of Ordinance No. 11-13. Again, she is trying to understand the Labor/Management Committee process, adding that it could be tackled during this Committee’s process, but it is an area of interest to her, something hat she thinks needs further exploration. She concurs with Councilman Nocera that the Charter needs to be restructured and outlined differently, when she tried to navigate it, it was extremely challenging. This process if fluid and she remains committed to hearing and earning more. She looks forward to see their proposals. She thanks them for their commitment to this work. The Chair calls on Deputy Minority Leader, Councilman Anthony Gennaro. Anthony Gennaro, Sr., Deputy Minority Leader: He states that, having listened tonight, he has more to think about than to say tonight. Briefly, there are some things on his mind as he had heard from constituents. As to the Board of Education, he would like to hear the pros and cos on this. He thinks that the commission should listen to the members and the employees and gather feedback on a lot of the issues. Secondly, the fire consolidation issue that he continues to hear about, noting there was an article in the Press, if that is something that comes up, right now, personally, he is against it. He would need to see overwhelming pros” on that issue to think differently. The discussion of wards, at this point, without overwhelming information, he believes that the City is well served the way it is now being done. For him personally, he would not want to be ticked into one area of the City, but, rather help people Citywide, every district, he would want to help anyone he could. He does not think that would change with wards. The biggest issue is weighing pros and cons, listening to the employees that would be affected. He agrees with the housekeeping that needs to done with the charter to make it earlier to navigate. That is what he has tonight. He commends the Commission members for taking this up, noting that it will be challenging time. The Chair calls on Councilman Anthony Mangiafico. Councilman Anthony Mangiafico: Councilman Anthony Mangiafico’s prepared comments -- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening Charter Revision Commission members. I want to first thank you for your service on this committee. The work you have undertaken is very important to the future of our great town. Moving forward, I hope the committee takes a measured approach and does not put forth an extensive list of recommendations. During the last charter revision process, many recommendations that went to the ballot were ultimately unsuccessful. I recommend that you choose the two or three more pressing issues and put those forward to the Common Council. My first consideration tonight is the hiring of non-certified staff for the Middletown Public School system. Middletown is one of only a handful of towns in Connecticut where the superintendent and the Board of NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 10 Education do not hire their own non-certified staff. I think this should be amended in the charter. I am not an expert in bargaining unit agreements, and I do not know if this would mean new contracts of memorandums of understanding, but it is important that the Board of Education have this autonomy from the Common Council and Town Hall. My second and final recommendation is that something is put in place to allow for the removal of any elected official in Middletown. Currently, if a member of the Board of Education or the Common Council or any other elected office, is accused of a crime or commits unethical behavior, there is no mechanism in place to remove said person from office. All public officials should be held accountable and should be held to a higher standard than the constituents they represent. I leave it up to the commission to determine how an elected official could be removed, but one idea is to have a supermajority of Common Council members vote to remove an elected official from office. Perhaps requiring nine out of twelve votes to remove someone from office would make the process less partisan. I thank you for your time today and look forward to hearing the Charter Revision Commission’s recommendations over the next few months. Thank you. The Chair calls on Deputy Majority leader, Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr. Councilman Grady Faulkner, Jr., Deputy Majority Leader: states that he is listening this evening, having spoken at the previous session. The Chair calls on Councilwoman Megan Carta, asking if she is on this evening. Councilman Nocera replies that Councilwoman Carta was unable to attend due to another commitment. The Chair state that, if Councilwoman Carta has any comments, she is welcome to submit. He adds that if any member of the public was unable to get on to the meeting this evening, they are welcome to sublet written comments to CharterRevision@MiddletownCT.gov, noting that all Commission members will receive that message. Written comments Daniel Penny: Chairman Blanchard, I'm writing as a city resident and elector of the south fire special taxing district, in the capacity of a private citizen. As follow up to my initial comments both written and via testimony of 11/04/2920, I offer the following thoughts and observations relative to committee consideration of the possible fire services consolidation: I am commenting as the aforementioned resident and also share that I am not a content expert relative to such matters and welcome corrective comments as well as opposing views. My goal is to have comprehensive and productive discussions relative to the subject so as to encourage public participation and positive outcomes. As the subject has been introduced as a possible undertaking, it seems that such warrants comprehensive analysis. 1 . As I had offered in previous testimony, extensive research has long been completed via the completion of a masters thesis by an excellent content resource. I have available a partial copy of said (regrettably pages, 1 -10 missing) document that the CRC is welcome to have. 2. In general, it seems possible expense beneficial opportunities may be identified relative to such subjects but not limited to self-insured expenses/ conversions, capital equipment, common services, coordinated training and other unified operational protocols, etc. 3. It also seems opportunities for improvement (OFIs) may be possible relative to access to coordinated legal, purchasing, affirmative action, human resources, improvements relative mutual aid protocol, etc. 4. Consults should be initiated relative to review of existing Charters and By-Laws to determine the possibility of developing action pathways. Any such review of Charters should start with a review of the original filed copy of the CGS driven copy of said as well as notes of legislative discussion at the time of approval to best evaluate legislative intent. Again, not sure and not a content expert but it may be possible for the electors of certain districts , with a simple petition of some 100 signatures, to initiate certain actions that may complement possible city Charter actions but only following electors action via associated referendums ? Much appreciate the CRC public hearings in this all matters if concern. Respectfully, NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 11 Dan Penney 1101 Chamberlain Hill Road Middletown, CT 06457 Linda Turner To Whom it May Concern: I am definitely NOT in favor of the city Middletown assuming control of the Westfield Fire Department. I do not like the idea that Mr. Blanchard has gone around the back of the Westfield residents and just assumed he could get away with it all! We have voted on this more than once and we all want the Westfield Fire Department to stay a part of Westfield and not be controlled by the city of Middletown. Thank you for taking the time to read my email. Sincerely, Linda A. Turner, 33 Plumb Rd., Middletown, Ct. (P. S. - I have lived in the Westfield section of Middletown since 1974 and I do not want our fire department to change!!!) Kathleen Alderman I would like to comment on the charter revision proposal which recommends the consolidation of the three (3) Fire Departments. I believe it makes sense on a variety of levels. Consolidating these departments that provide the same services throughout the city would increase efficiency, reduce duplication of services (such as administrative and clerical services) and better utilize the budgeting. Certainly, to consolidate would be much more forward thinking and fiscally responsible. In today's environment of merger and consolidation it makes no sense to continue supporting the three distinctly different fire departments providing the same services. Thank you for presenting my suggestion. Kathleen Alderman, Middletown resident Richard Silverman I am against any change in the Middletown charter that removes the Westfield fire Department from its own independent position. As a Westfield resident I oppose this for reasons of it will require higher taxes and loss of a local control over the fire department Regards, Richard Silverman Former Councilwoman Deborah Kleckowski To: Charter Revision Commission From: Deborah Kleckowski (former member of the Common Council) Re: Comments regarding changes, additions etc. to Charter Regretfully, due to a family matter, I may not be able to participate in the Charter Revision public hearing. However, I am submitting my comments. Many of my comments are a direct result of my experience on the Common Council. Recommendations are noted in bold. Chapt. 11 Officers and Elections Sec. 1 If appropriate delete Sheriffs (City has no sheriffs) Sec. 2 Municipal Officers Delete the treasurer. There is no longer a need for this position. The Treasurer does not have any actual duties. Duties have, if fact, by determined, however, the past practice has been that no duties have been performed such as attending meetings, bond meetings etc. As such, the elimination of the position is appropriate, and, in addition, the city will save $4,000. Sec. 4 Municipal Elections Mayor needs to be elected in off-year of the Common Council. The Mayor is the executive branch and the Common Council is the legislative branch. When combined in a single election the separation of powers/duties are not clear. Additionally, the Mayor’s election during an “off-year” will help to endure a larger voter turn-out for the “under-ticket/positions”. Sec. 8 Vacancy in Office C…mayor’s inability to carry out duties of the office……the Common Council shall by 9 members (to replace unanimous vote). If this very serious matter was to ever come before the Common Council it is imperative that to move for medical examination of the mayor to determine if mayor capable to perform his duties that this vote be more that unanimous, the vote, to avoid a political vote, must include both parties, therefore 9 votes. Chapt. 111 Organization of Council Sec. 2 ….Common Council may appoint such staff, including the Council Clerk, as it deems necessary…… Staff appointed by the Common Council to assist in its duties will be responsible to the Common Council.  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 12 Sec. 3 C Eliminate Mayor as presiding officer of the Common Council meetings. Option: majority leader presides or Common Council elects “president” to preside over Common Council meetings. The mayor is the executive branch. The Common Council meetings are meetings of the legislative branch- the mayor has no role in the process/duties of the legislative branch. Chapt. IV Mayor’s Office Administrative Assistant—Change to Chief of Staff (this has already been changed in job descriptions). It is important for the Mayor’s “assistant” to have a title that embodies “power”/representative of the mayor’s office. Eliminate Corporation Council appointed by Mayor and add to the Common Council. The Common Council needs to have its own legal representative. The office of the mayor can utilize the City Attorney. Chapt. IV Sec. 4 City Treasurer. Eliminate as noted in prior recommendations (Chpat. 11 sec. 2). Chapt. VIII Planning and Zoning Sec. 1 #2 Mayor and Director of Planning, Conservation and Development to replace the Director of Public Works. shall be members without voting privileges RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DEBORAH KLECKOWSKI Lori & Jon Toussaint I don't feel consolidating our fire departments would be in the best interest of the residents of Westfield. I was brought up to believe, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Our fire department is a fine group of respectable men and women that take their responsibility serious and are getting the job done with the current funding and taxes they receive from us Westfield residents. We vote NO!! Lori & Jon Toussaint 287 Bell Street Middletown, CT 06457 Janice & Joseph Piscitello Janice and Joseph Piscitello vote no. We lived out here all our lives and are very happy with the Westfield fire department the way it is. Consolidating I believe would not be in the best interest of the Westfield residents Stephen Devoto Dear members of the Charter Revision Commission: At your first public hearing, your attorney indicated that Charter revision cannot force consolidation of the fire department. I agree with this, but disagree on his suggestion that this would be the province of our elected state representatives. He presented a different interpretation of how fire department consolidation would have to occur than I understood to be the case. Here is the CGS that I thought governs this, it seems to put all of the power in the hands of the voters within each district: Sec. 7-329. Termination of district. Whenever the officers of such district vote to terminate its corporate existence and whenever a petition signed by ten per cent of the total number of persons qualified to vote in the meeting of such district or twenty of the voters of such district, whichever is less, applying for a special meeting to vote on the termination of the district is received by the clerk, the clerk shall call a special meeting of the voters residing within such district, the notice of which shall be signed by the officers thereof, by advertising the same in the same manner as is provided in section 7-325. Not later than twenty-four hours before any such meeting, two hundred or more voters or ten per cent of the total number of voters, whichever is less, may petition the clerk of the district, in writing, that a referendum on the question of whether the district should be terminated be held in the manner provided in section 7-327. If, at such meeting, a two-thirds majority of the voters present vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, or, if a referendum is held, two-thirds of the voters casting votes in such referendum vote to terminate the corporate existence of the district, the officers shall proceed to terminate the affairs of such district. The district shall pay all outstanding indebtedness and turn over the balance of the assets of such district to the town in which the district is located, if the legislative body of the town authorizes such action. No district shall be terminated under this section until all of its outstanding indebtedness is paid unless the legislative body of the town in which the district is located agrees in writing to assume such indebtedness. On completion  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 13 of the duties of the officers of such district, the clerk shall cause a certificate of the vote of such meeting to be recorded in the land records of the town in which the district is located and the clerk shall notify the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management. -- Stephen H. Devoto cell: 860-754-4752 476 Country Club Road Middletown, CT 06457 Brian Robillard I believe that all elected officials under Section 4 should be limited to two (2) terms or eight (8) years in office. This helps to bring in new ideas, provides more opportunities for the community to contribute, gives more options to voters, helps reduce one party rule for extended periods and will do a better job at representing the concerns of the people. Thank you Brian Robillard Former Mayor and Councilman Sebastian N. Giuliano To The Commission Members: Having some experience with the Charter of the City of Middletown and the revision process, my comments and suggestions are too lengthy to present during the time set aside for public comment, so I have opted to submit them in writing and ask that they be made a part of the Commission's records. 1. Stagger Council/Mayor Terms In the Charter Revision approved in 2013, terms of Council members and the Mayor were increased from two years to four years. While this has worked well, it has resulted in "off-cycle" elections where one-half of the Board of Education and one-half of the Planning & Zoning Commission are the only offices on the ballot. I am suggesting shifting either the mayoral term or the council term by two years to place those offices on different four-year cycles. This will accomplish three things: First, it will increase voter turnout in the "off-cycle" election years, second, it will remove the "chilling effect" the current system has on council members considering running for mayor and, third, it will increase the accountability of those respective offices. Comparing voter turnout in the 2017 and 2019 municipal elections exposes a disparity that putting the mayor and council on different cycles would close, but that is not the only consideration. When the terms were two years, members of the Common Council were more inclined to run for Mayor but giving up a Council seat and not being able to seek re-election to it for four years is a disincentive to such a course of action; allowing council members to run "mid-term" would encourage more of them to do so. Also, changing the election cycle would allow the voters an opportunity to make a change in one or the other branch of municipal government, rather than be "stuck" for four years with a situation they may not like. 2. Remove The Mayor As Presiding Officer For Meetings Of The Common Council Under the current iteration of Charter, the Mayor is given the duty to preside over meetings of the Common Council and the power to break tie votes. Note that this does not make the Mayor a member of the Common Council, although the "optics" give that mistaken impression; it "blurs the lines" between two branches of government that have two separate and distinct functions. Also, having the Mayor - the Executive - preside over meetings of the Common Council - the Legislative - encourages the Mayor to exert an undue influence and a level of control over the Council that is unhealthy. The Common Council should choose, from among its members, a presiding officer. To those who raise the issue of tie votes, there are two ways of dealing with them. A tie vote is not required to be resolved; the subject of the motion not having garnered a majority of votes cast fails. Therefore, the current makeup of the Council can be retained without any impairment of its functionality. However, if it is deemed sufficiently important, the alternative is to increase the Council to thirteen members. In the interests of "full disclosure", I must point out that, in such case, state law would limit the majority party to eight seats. Finally, as to concerns about removing the tie-breaking power from the Mayor, I can tell you - from experience - that it is not a situation that arises often and, when it does, is encountered with some degree of trepidation. In my six years as Mayor, I was confronted with two tie votes (in both cases, I declined to break the tie) and, in my six years as a Councilman, there was only one tie vote. Tie votes arise from matters that are, by definition, controversial - if not divisive - and, in my personal opinion, if they don't win a majority vote of the legislative body, the executive should intervene only in the most extraordinary of circumstances, if at all. NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 14 3. Change Bond Authorization Process To Permit the Common Council To Approve An Aggregate Limit Per Fiscal Year In a previous charter revision, the Council authority to approve bonded debt was increased from $500,000 per item to $750,000. While the intention was to recognize the reality that a $500,000 limit on municipal capital projects subjected virtually everything to a referendum, there was an unintended consequence of the change that rapidly became apparent. The new, higher limit made it easier to "break down" larger capital projects into smaller (i.e., under $750,000) "phases" and, therefore, avoid the referendum requirement altogether. This has become a very common approach to many capital projects that, in truth, should be submitted to the voters and which the voters thought they would be given the opportunity to approve when they adopted that particular change. I suggest that the applicable Charter provisions be changed to grant the Common Council an aggregate limit - $1.5 million seems reasonable - of bonded debt that it can approve in each fiscal year, without referendum. Once that limit is reached, any additional bonded debt - no matter how little or how much - would have to be submitted to the voters. 4. Eliminate The City Treasurer Position This was a recommendation of the last Charter Revision Commission but was not accepted by the Common Council. The City employs a full-time Director of Finance and, as such, is not required to have a Treasurer. The position has few significant duties and they (accept the CFR from the City's auditors, confirm the best bid for the sale of municipal bonds, provide a signature sample for impression on the City's checks) may be performed by the Finance Director. It is a vestige of prior centuries and smacks of a system of political cronyism that we would do well to eliminate. 5. Oppose Changing From A Common Council Elected At Large To a Board Of Aldermen Elected Individually By Wards I have read of a proposal by which Middletown would change it legislative branch from the current Common Council to a Board of Aldermen. It is an idea so fraught with negatives that it should be summarily rejected by the Commission. Middletown's legislative body is a Common Council (emphasis added), elected at-large by all of the voters. Every Council member owes his or her election to all of the voters, not just a few from a single neighborhood. Every citizen is a constituent of every Councilperson and can approach any or all of them with his or her petitions. This proposal would change that dynamic so that, instead of electing and being represented by twelve, we would elect and be represented by only one. Citizens would soon find that eleven of twelve aldermen have little or no interest in them or their issues. Aldermen would quickly engage in "horse trading" and the Council - excuse me, "Board of Aldermen" - would take on a character more resembling a bazaar than a municipal legislature. And that's only part of the story. Wards would have to be drawn and the relative populations of those wards must be equivalent to one another. The current voting districts will not be in compliance, so get ready for the gerrymandering process at the municipal level. Also, every municipal election would require twelve different ballots, making the process even more complicated, more expensive and more prone to error. This is a proposal that appears to benefit the politicians, not the people. Anyone who wants to see its practical application need not look very far. There are cities in Connecticut that operate under such a system; ask yourselves whether they are worth emulating. 6. Oppose Removing Non-certified School Employees From The Classified Service Middletown's charter provisions - making all employees except those required by the Connecticut Department of Education to hold a certification to perform the job duties city employees - may be unique but that is no reason to discard it. This proposal falls into the category of "If it isn't broke - don't fix it". The proposal seeks to remove all municipal employees who work in the school system from the Classified Plan (members of municipal bargaining units, hired by the Mayor and subject to Personnel Rules approved by the Common Council) and make them employees of the Board of Education. The rationalizations for this include taking the "politics" out of hiring school workers. This presumes that the Board of Education and Central Office are not political entities, which they are; this change doesn't "take the politics out" of hiring, it only moves it from one political entity to another. Another rationalization is that the "Superintendent and the school principals should be able to hire the secretaries that they want". This is another red herring. In six years as Mayor, I selected ONE person who wasn't the Superintendent's top candidate (I selected the candidate who was second). One hire. Of all the hires I made in six years. One. And I should point out that the particular employee is still there, having served two more Superintendents and having been promoted by both of them; the Superintendent that opposed the hire is gone.  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 15 Finally, as previously stated, there are school districts that operate as this proposal seeks to do here. Are they markedly better than we are because of it? How does this idea make the students smarter or improve their lives? The answer to both questions is an obvious "no". This is another idea that benefits "insiders" at the expense of the students and the citizens. 7. Oppose Reducing The 5-Vote Requirement And The 4-Member Limit On The Majority Party for the Planning & Zoning Commission I have heard a proposal to remove one or both of these provisions and the reason offered is that it would make it "easier" to enact "progressive ideas". I find it necessary to point out the obvious: it's not supposed to be "easy". The enacting of zoning codes and regulations is much too important to be left to "bare" majorities or to a single political party. The impact of the P&Z Commission's decisions are far-reaching and long- lasting. For that reason, the people of Middletown, in their wisdom, have placed safeguards against arbitrariness, against impulsive action, against being inclined to blindly follow trends that have not stood the test of time and have preferred, instead, a process by which proposed actions have to be sufficiently sound to both convince a supermajority of the membership and in a bipartisan manner. These proposed changes seek to circumvent all of those safeguards and should make anyone hearing them uneasy. Respectfully submitted, Sebastian N. Giuliano 348 Maple Shade Road Middletown Nada von Mahland I oppose the Middletown City consolidation of the Westfield Fire Department into the other fire districts of the city. Nada von Mahland, 953 East St. Leah Meyer Dear Members of the Charter Revision Committee, I am lucky to live in the Westfield section of the great City of Middletown. I am told that there are those who would like to use the opportunity of charter revision to consolidate the three fire districts in the city. I am OPPOSED to any such change. The Westfield Fire District is a vibrant part of our community, providing a great tradition of bringing people together in service to one another. It is a well-managed organization that works hard to provide top-notch emergency care and to do it in a fiscally conservative manner. In doing so, it has not only kept fire district taxes low, but also has created close community ties among the many volunteers, their families and the neighbors they serve. If you consolidate the fire districts, you destroy this centerpiece of our community. And in doing so, you will see a great reduction in volunteerism, increased expenses, and ultimately, an elimination of the savings sought by this change. It will have been in vain. Worse still, it will result in an unnecessary tax increase for Westfield residents and businesses, with no improvement in service. I urge you to keep Westfield Fire District independent. Respectfully, Leah Meyer 43 Goodman Drive Middletown 5. Adjournment There being no further discussion, the Chair asks for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner William Wilson moves to adjourn. Commissioner David Roane seconds the motion. There being no discussion, the Chair calls for a voice vote. The motion is unanimously approved with 11 aye votes. The matter is approved The meeting is adjourned at 8:33 PM. ATTEST: LINDA S.K. REED, COMMON COUNCIL CLERK  NOVEMBER 18, 2020 CHARTER REVISION COMISSION –REGULAR MEETING Page 16 F: Charter Revision 2020/ minutes/ 2020 Nov 18 – minutes Charter revision – 18 Nov 2020