Final Report of the 2016 Groton 2016 Charter Revision Commission November 2017 Appointing Resolutions By resolution 2015-0298 on May 3, 2016 the Town Council of the Town of Groton established a Charter Revision Commission “whose membership shall consist of 11 electors of the Town, not more than one-third of whom may hold any public office in the Town, and not more than a bare majority of whom shall be members of any one political party, and that such Commission shall make its report including any proposed revision of or amendments to the existing Charter to the Town Council not later than 16 months from the date of this resolution.” By resolution 2016-0135 on May 16, 2016 the Town Council set the date for the Charter Revision Commission to make its report to the Town Council to be not later than September 2, 2017 and appointed the following persons, effective immediately, to the Charter Revision Commission: Scott Aument Kathy Chase Jane Dauphinais Robert Frink Patrice Granatosky Dee Hauber Rosanne Kotowski Brandon Marley Daniel Mello Darcy Peruzzotti Jennifer Lobrin White The Town Council further provided lists of Charter Revision items they wanted the Commission to consider. Those lists are provided as Attachment 1 and the CRC gave due consideration to the items on those lists. The members of the Charter Revision Commission wish to thank the Town Clerk, Betsy Moukawsher and assistant Nathan Caron for their untiring assistance throughout this process. We would also like to thank all the citizens who spoke at our Public Hearings, Citizens Petitions and sent us written communications for their thoughtful input. Executive Summary The Commission first met on May 23, 2016. At this inaugural meeting, Dee Hauber was elected Chairman of the Commission, and Scott Aument was elected Secretary of the Commission. The diverse membership of the Commission consisted of two former Mayors of the Town, a former Town Councilor, 4 former members of the RTM and 4 members with no prior experience in Town Government. The Commission held thirty-one meetings, approximately two each month including two public hearings, one on June 6, 2016 and one on August 21, 2017. Meetings were noticed in advance, open to the public and included a period for citizen comments. The minutes of all the meetings and Public Hearings are available on the Town Web site. This is the link; http://www.groton-ct.gov/meetings/minutes.asp?mt=68. Cindy Landry, Groton Director of Finance, attended the June 25, 2016 meeting and provided the members with detailed background and answered questions on Groton’s budget process and items regarding Town financial management. Mark Oefinger, Town Manager, attended the September 12, 2016 meeting and provided his overview of Town Government, suggestions for the Charter Revision and answered many questions. Ms Mary Ann Jacob, the Chair of the Town of Newtown Legislative Council addressed the Commission at its May 22, 2017 meeting by telephone and discussed and answered questions regarding their budget referendum process. The Commission held its second Public Hearing on August 21, 2017 and subsequent to that submitted its Draft Report to the Town Council in accordance with the September 2, 2017 deadline. The Town Council held a Public Hearing on the proposed Charter revisions on October 3, 2017, discussed its recommendations at the October 10, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting and voted on those recommendations at the October 17, 2017 Town Council meeting. The Commission then held meetings October 23 and 30 and November 2, 6, 13 and 15 to resolve the Town Council recommendations which also included comments from the Town Attorney. Attachment 2 lists the Town Council’s recommendations that were favorably voted on, the Commissions resolutions are indicated for each one. Resources referenced include the Office of Policy and Management (OPM); the Sacred Heart University publication, “Financial Performance in Connecticut’s Municipalities: A Comparison of Manager, MayorCouncil and Selectman Forms of Government”; Office of Legislative Research (OLR); Connecticut School Finance Project, District Reference Groups; City of San Luis Obispo, CA, “Integrating Goal-Setting into the Budget Process”; Government Finance Officers Association The recommendations resulted from 97 motions that were made and voted on by the members. The list of motions is included as Attachment 3. Finally when revising the Charter with the recommendations, the red-line method was used throughout except for Chapter IX, Budget and Finance, which was extensively re-written. The marked-up Charter is included as Attachment 4. Highlights- Groton Charter Revision Commission Recommendations The Charter Revision Commission is recommending the changes to Groton’s Charter as indicated on Attachment 4. The list below contains the more significant changes and is not all-inclusive. 1. That the RTM be eliminated on approval of the revised Charter. This was voted on at the Feb 13, 2017 meeting and it passed 7-2-0. Although the subject of the RTM came up many times, the pertinent RTM discussions and debate were held at the following meetings; o o o o o 2. Sept 12, 2016 – Town Manager Mark Oefinger provided his input and thoughts. Sept 26, 2016 – The CRC conducted a straw poll on government structure. Oct 3, 2016, Dec 10 and Dec 19, 2016 General discussions and debate Jan 9, Jan 23 and Feb 13, 2017 General discussions and debate Oct 23, 2017 – Resolution of Town Council comments That a 7 person Board of Finance be implemented. This was also voted on at the meeting on Feb 13, 2017. It passed 7-2-0 The pertinent Board of Finance discussions and debates were held at the following meetings; o Oct 3, Nov 11, Dec 5 and Dec 19, 2016 o Jan 9, Jan 23 and Feb 13, 2017 o June 19, 2017 – vote to make the BOF 7 members o Oct 23, 2017 – Resolution of Town Council comments o Nov 6, 2017 – Resolution of Town Council comments In response to Town Council comments the interim 7 BOF members will be appointed by voting district. The election of 7 BOF members will be by voting district. 3. That the annual budget development process shall be revised to include the following additional elements; Board of Finance, Community input, Budget Guidance from the Town Council and an Annual Budget Referendum. The initial vote on this item was at the March 27, 2017 meeting and passed 6-2-0 and was on the overall budget process leaving the question of an Annual Budget Referendum to a future vote. The flow chart depicting the overall budget process is included as Attachment 5. The specific Charter language for the annual budget development process was discussed, debated and voted on at the following meetings; March 27, April 10, April 24, May 8, May 22, June 19, July 10, July 17 and July 24 2017. In response to Town Council / Town Attorney comments the Commission also discussed this item at the October 30 and November 2, 2017 meetings. During these meetings the term ‘Budget Workshops’ was replaced with ‘Community input’ and the Budget development no-later-than dates were adjusted. The initial vote on the Annual Budget Referendum was at the March 27, 2017 meeting and it passed 6-2-0. The vote was for a referendum with no conditions; no minimum voter turn-out; no “trigger’; and no limit to the number of referendums. Those elements were discussed, debated and passed by individual votes at the May 22 and June 5, 2017 meetings. Those votes approved the following recommendations; o o o o o o That the Annual Budget Referendum shall be bifurcated, That the Town and BOE budgets shall be voted on separately; That there be no requirement for a minimum voter turnout; and That there be no limit to the number of referendums, ie., keep voting until the budgets are approved. There will be advisory questions as to the budget being too high or too low. That if there is no approved budget by June 30, previous year’s budget is adopted until a new budget is approved. The Commission made one change to the last bullet above during its meeting on Nov 13, 2017. That was that if there is no approved budget by June 30, the Town Council will use its April 30 approved budget as an interim budget for the next year until a final budget is adopted by referendum. 4. Recommended changes related to the Town Council. The meeting dates of the votes are indicated for each item. Discussion and debate on these votes occurred during the meetings in September through November of 2017. o That the Town Council term of office shall be 4 year staggered – June 19, 2017. o That the Town Council can change Town Attorneys any time by majority vote – June 19, 2017. o That new Town Councils are seated the first Tuesday after election – June 19, 2017 o That Town and Board of Education employees are not allowed to serve on Town Council – Sept 17, 2016. o That the number of affirmative votes needed to remove the Town Manager is reduced from 7 to 6. – Feb 3, 2017. o That Town Council members shall be limited to 3 consecutive terms – June 19, 2017. o That the Town Council shall issue an Annual Report of the Town (not the Town Manager) – June 19, 2017. o On elimination of the RTM the CGS minority representation rules shall apply to the Town Council – Feb 13, 2017. (Note this is a change to the charter that is required by the CGS that results from the recommendation to eliminate the RTM). The Commission made the following changes to the bullets above during its meetings discussing its responses to Town Council comments in October and November 2017. o o To the 1st bullet; that the Town Council term will not be staggered. To the 4th bullet; That CGS will be followed in regard to Town and Board of Education employees serving on the Town Council and Board of Education. o o 5. To the 6th bullet; that there will be no term limits for Town Council members. To the 7th bullet; that the Town Manager, not the Town Council, will issue the Annual Report. That the duties of the Board of Finance shall be to support all fiscal decisions of the Town Council by providing research and data and support to the budget development process as delineated in Chapter IX, including but not limited to the following: o Develop the schedule for annual budget development and communicate it to the citizens of Groton. o Support the Community input with fiscal data including a five year financial forecast of spending and revenue. o Provide input regarding the form of the Board of Education and Subdivision budgets o Provide critical analysis and visibility to the Town’s public financial reports. All of these items were voted on June 19, 2017. The pertinent discussion and debate on the Board of Finance occurred on Oct 3, Nov 11, Dec 5 and Dec 19, 2016 and Jan 9, Jan 23 and Feb 13, 2017. In response to Town Council / Town Attorney comments the Commission also discussed this item at the October 30 and November 2, 2017 meetings. During these the term ‘Budget Workshops’ was replaced with ‘Community input’. 6. Other Recommendations o That the Town shall have an Ethics Commission and that the requirement for an Ethics Policy is eliminated – July 10, 2017. o That the dollar limit for emergency appropriations is raised from $75,000 to $100,000 per occurrence and that the limit of one emergency appropriation per year is eliminated – July 17, 2017. To the first bullet; in response to Town Council / Town Attorney comments the Commission deleted the requirement for an Ethics Commission at the November 9, 2017 meeting. Attachments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Town Council CRC Focus Areas Town Council recommendations with Commission comments List of Motions Marked-Up Revised Charter Budget Flow-Chart CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION MINORITY REPORT OF Jane Dauphinais and Jenn White November 16, 2017 We, the undersigned, do not support the introduction of an annual budget referendum into Groton's budget process. We prefer a process that is deliberative rather than political. We believe Groton's budgets should reflect town-wide needs and balance factional ones. We see substantial financial costs and practical challenges associated with conducting annual referendums. Town meetings and budget referendums are generally devises of small town governments. It may also be said that they are a product of our oldest town governments and of a simpler time when New England towns more accurately represented genuine communities of interest and when a voice in local government required individual participation. There are 75 municipalities in Connecticut which still decide their budget by referendum. Some automatically go to referendum every year and some only by a trigger mechanism. None of these towns are as large as Groton. Among the 75 towns, 63 have populations under 20,000. The largest town with a referendum is Vernon, pop. 29,000. None are as complex governmentally as is Groton. And importantly, only 3 of the 75 municipalities have lower mill rates than Groton. (Source: CT Office of Policy and Management) Deliberative vs Political Budget Process These days, we are all busy people, busier than we were in the past. Many Groton taxpayers who juggle work and family, health issues, travel requirements and other commitments, do not have the ability or willingness to devote to public office or to developing a Town budget. In 1958, when it was judged that Groton had outgrown a physical Annual Town Meeting, it was replaced with a form of representative government, the Representative Town Meeting (RTM). This was a recognition that elected representatives could be better informed and, as a body, better able to represent the whole town. Today, we, the undersigned, have the same preference in representative government. Town Councilors and RTM members spend hundreds of hours listening to all interests, learning the short term and longer-term needs and preferences of citizens. They volunteer and campaign to do the job. They are held accountable and chosen every two years by voters to fulfill that responsibility. They work closely with a professional staff. In public hearings, budget workshops and countless meetings, Groton's budget process has incorporated months of input from taxpayers, staff and subdivisions into Town Council and RTM decisions. This Charter Revision Commission has recommended increased public input, budgetary guidance from the new Board of Finance and from the Town Council to the Town Manager. These elected officials are highly informed when they approve the final Town budget! We are concerned that voters in a budget referendum are not as informed and are less apt to have the whole Town in mind when they vote. Further, those who vote may not represent an accurate crosssection of Groton residents. Voters in referendum could instead reflect whichever interest group ran the best organized and funded political campaign or had the most yard signs while the priorities of nonvoting residents are voiceless in a referendum. Town-wide vs Factional Interests Groton is not always a single, cohesive community of interest. While our diversity and strong neighborhoods are blessings, they also can result in parochial identities. We say we live in "The City", "PQ" or Mystic rather than Groton. Residents in one section of Groton are often not impacted at all by circumstances in another part of town. It is only after much listening, learning and deliberation that elected representatives can set priorities for all of Groton. Unlike individual voters, these representatives have volunteered to listen to all citizen's views. We believe this is the best way to ensure that all Groton residents have a voice and that Town policies serve the whole community. Practical Challenges - Timing This Commission's recommendation includes a budget calendar that begins with budget workshops in January, is followed by Town staff and Board of Education work in February, Board of Finance review in March and Town Council review and adoption by April 30. In May, voters would begin to vote in budget referendums and continue to vote on amended budgets every 2 weeks until a majority votes to approve one. In allowing the month of May to be used for referendums, the Council loses the ability to know state revenues for the coming year. Without referendums, the BOF and Council reviews could take place a month later when, in normal times, the legislature has passed a budget and adjourned. The mill rate could be set when revenues are known. Under Connecticut law, municipalities must adhere to a July 1 fiscal year. Under our current Charter, a mill rate must be set by June 9th. This barely allows time for tax bills to be printed, mailed and payable starting July 1. Between mid-May and June 9, it is possible to hold a maximum of two referendum. This Commission's recommendation does not specify a deadline for setting a mill rate. Instead it specifies a referendum be held every two weeks until approved. If a budget is not approved by June 30th, the Town Council's budget is temporarily effective and would be the basis for setting a mill rate for the fiscal year. Several of problems arise: This mill rate might result in over-taxing residents if the final budget is lower than the Council's or under-taxing residents if the final budget is increased. Tax bills would not arrive until sometime in July and be immediately due. Alternatively, the Council may delay setting a mill rate until a budget is approved. In this case bills would not be sent on time and the Town would be challenged to pay its bills without the normal July cashflow. Financial Costs In 2016, our Town Registrar and Town Clerk estimated the cost of conducting a town-wide election to be $22,590. This includes the printing of ballots and the staffing of 7 polling places. It does not include the cost of printing in newspapers the legal notices of public hearings and each budget referendum as required by law. We do not feel this is a justifiable expense for the taxpayers of Groton. We believe all good government elicits robust public participation and we have supported measures in this revision to improve public engagement in budget development. But we also know that a system of pure democracy that requires each person to participate is not practical or fair. The many Groton citizens who can't vote in referenda also deserve representation. We believe the best government structure for Groton is a representative democracy. Therefore we, the undersigned oppose introduction of an annual budget referendum into Groton's budget process. Respectfully submitted, Jane Dauphinais, Jenn White August 14, 2017 (Revised 08/17/2017) 1 Charter Revision Commission Minority Report In 1955, the Town of Groton commissioned "Groton: Its Community Characteristics and Governments, Report of Town Government Committee Study" to examine the structure and function of municipal government. The Committee included members of the League of Women Voters, the Chamber of Commerce, and members of a taxpayer's association among others. In the 1950s, the Town of Groton had a population of 25,000. The form of government was selectman--board of finance--town meeting. The report of the Committee of Nineteen noted that at the time Groton was, "the second largest town in Connecticut still operating under the general town meeting--board of selectmen--board of finance form of government." The Committee also noted that with Groton being so large, at 25,000 people, the people's' "interests would be better served by substituting a relatively small popularly elected legislative body for the town meeting." The Committee of Nineteen recognized that with the growth of population "the town meeting ceases to be an effective instrument of democratic control" and that there was the need to adapt to new realities and implement a change to Groton's government structure--an adaptation to reflect our nation's republic with popularly elected representatives governing. "For a town meeting--board of selectmen--board of finance form of government the organization of Groton is relatively good. This form of government, however, is designed for a small town where the duties of office are simple enough to be performed adequately by part-time officials. But Groton is no longer a small town and as it continues to grow its administration will become more timeconsuming and more complex. The management of the Town's affairs will then require the fulltime services of technically trained personnel." This was in 1955. In 2017, we should not regress to a reliance on non-professionals for financial advice and guidance in the form of a board of finance. The high stakes of our current economy demand non-partisan professionals providing the advice and guidance to elected officials. Along with the elimination of the board of finance, the Committee of Nineteen also recommended the elimination of the town meeting. When the new form of government was adopted in 1957, a system of checks and balances came into existence. The RTM serving as a check on the Town Council, with the Town Manager providing full-time, non-partisan professional management of town matters. For sixty years, Groton, with a Town Council--RTM--town Charter Revision Commission: Minority Report August 14, 2017 2 manager structure, has functioned efficiently and enjoys a hard-earned reputation as being well managed and fiscally responsible. Indeed, neighboring towns are receiving favorable press as they are just starting to implement practices that the Town of Groton has had in place for years (i.e. the fleet reserve fund to be implemented in Stonington as reported in The Day, January 26, 2017). With a population of 40,000 and the Town's revenues over $100 million, this is not the time, nor is there a need to change the structure of Groton's government. Keeping the RTM is in the best interest of the whole town of Groton. By its very nature, the body is truly representative of every corner of town. Throughout the year, the members live and work with their constituents, driving the same roads, playing at the same parks and visiting the same classrooms with their children. These elected officials are the voice of the people in each of our seven districts. Based on population, and with guaranteed minority party representation, the RTM is the essence of our republic. Throughout the year, the RTM meets to keep apprised of town matters and in the spring the heavy lifting begins. Each member is charged with reading, questioning, and understanding the entire town budget--town departments, education, subdivisions, debt service, insurance and claims, etc. In addition to the broad scope, each member is assigned to at least one subcommittee, where they serve as an "expert" on several accounts. The job of the subcommittee is to delve into detail with the Town staff, superintendent of schools, or subdivision representative. The depth of understanding can only be achieved by this detailed analysis. Just as you send a representative to Washington, DC to tend to national matters, you send your neighbor to tend to town matters. The informed decisions made by the RTM represent the people in every neighborhood in town, unlike a budget referendum, where a very small special interest group could form, and drive the outcome to suit their specialized needs. Every budget will be a political battle and does not need to be. In a report from the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) on Forms of Local Government, it was reported that, "between 1991 and 1997 only one town" changed forms of government. "Berlin--which changed from mayor council to council manager." (Note that this is a move to become more like Groton's current system of government, not a regressive move as are the suggested charter changes.) More pertinent to this particular point, the author expressed concerns with the perils of "a small but well-organized group having disproportionate Charter Revision Commission: Minority Report August 14, 2017 3 influence." In fact, a speaker during the Commission's citizen's petitions recounted his experience with just such a small PAC. As to the partisan composition of the RTM, it was noted in a 2005 article in The Day that, "Historically, Republicans have held the majority on the RTM." In addition, over the past several decades, the moderator's post and subcommittee chairs have been fairly equitably split. Not only does the RTM guarantee representation, including minority representation, for each district in the Town, the leadership roles have not stagnated and adapt to the changing political climate, all the while maintaining much needed stability in government processes. Towns of our size, by measure of population and budget, do not have boards of finance and budget referendums. The classification system used by the Connecticut State Department of Education, District Reference Groups (DRGs), uses factors such as income, education, and poverty to classify municipalities using letter codes A through I. Groton is in DRG G which is midsize to large towns, suburbs, slightly lower income, rate of low-income students above DRG F, and the 3rd highest in single parent households. (For comparison purposes, the highest DRG is I for big cities like New Haven; with Stonington, a DRG C--mid-size suburban,3rd highest income and education levels.) Only four municipalities in our DRG have referendum--East Windsor, Killingly, Naugatuck and Windsor Locks. Please note that Glastonbury, which was used as a touchstone for comparisons throughout the Commission's meetings is a DRG B--smaller rural and suburban, low poverty levels, high incomes, above average in education attainment and percent of management professionals. At the public hearing, five people asked for the elimination of the RTM. Twenty asked for a budget referendum. Out of 17,000 registered voters. The argument has been made that the general public is just as informed on fiscal matters as the RTM. Statistics on Town budget website hits and sale of budget books say otherwise. As an example, for the FYE 2015 budget, the total number of downloads/viewings as reported by the Town IT department was 42 clicks and 37 unique visitors. The Town Clerk's office reported no budget books sold during that time. For comparison, as stated earlier, each of the 41 RTM members reads the budget book, then attends hours of meetings in subcommittee, followed by hours of whole RTM meetings reviewing each account in great detail, prior to any vote on any budget account. Charter Revision Commission: Minority Report August 14, 2017 4 Elections are not cheap. According to the Registrars of Voters, a municipal election in Groton costs $22,590. A referendum in all seven districts costs $21,740; and a referendum in only one location costs $14,890. In an OLR document, it was stated that between 1997-2002, voters rejected budgets 236 times in 51 towns and 12 school districts. A sampling of the municipalities with rejected budgets shows that the dollar amount of change from one vote to the final ranged from $5,800 to $28,000. In addition to these monetary concerns, the percent of voter turnout is consistently low in budget referendums, falling below what Groton experiences for municipal elections. In conclusion, this report outlines opposition to the elimination of the RTM; opposition to the reversion to a board of finance; and opposition to the implementation of the budget referendum. In addition, the terms of office suggested for town council are too lengthy. Term limits will constrain your pool of talent, as will barring municipal employees from serving in elected office. Service on the Charter Revision Commission has been an honor. It has also been a valuable experience in that it was an exercise in the virtues of current town government. As outlined here, the current charter does not require the revisions suggested by the Commission. Respectfully submitted, Patrice Granatosky Darcy Peruzzotti Revised 08/17/2017 to include additional signatory.