With the election fast approaching, I feel it is necessary to provide the Ansonia taxpayers with another perspective to the Charter Revision questions that will be on the ballot.
There are basically 3 areas of change: (1) Section 3 – Wards and Section 5 – Election of Aldermen are tied together, (2) Section 8 – Powers of the Mayor, and (3) Sections 38 thru 43 – Board of Apportionment and Taxation & the Budget Process.
I will explain what I consider to be problems with these changes, however, be aware that the biggest problem is not what is contained in these changes, but what is no longer there.
Starting with the Wards & Alderman, the idea is to reduce both the number of Wards (from 7 to 3) and the number of Alderman (from 2 per Ward (total 14) to 3 per Ward (total 9)).
Although I have no great objection, the premise was savings on polling places at elections.
I agree there would be a savings, but it would be minimal.
It would also make it more difficult for some seniors to get to the polls, create longer lines, and compound the already difficult parking situation. The small savings is not worth the inconveniences.
As for the Alderman, it doesn’t really matter if it is 9 or 14. It is just tied to the Wards.
As for the Powers of the Mayor, I don’t know why all of a sudden we need to give him sole power for hiring and firing. Is this done in other city/towns? Does this power exist at the State or Federal levels?
Now we finally get to the main problem with these Charter Revisions, BOAT & the Budget.
The Board of Apportionment and Taxation is a non-political board, entrusted to set a budget and tax-rate, weighing the needs of City Services and ability to pay of the Taxpayers, without regard to any politics.
These revisions will now place this control in the hands of the politicians.
BOAT will become a redundant advisory board as much of the Sections 38 thru 43 have been rewritten and renumbered.
Section 38 deals with the composition of the Board of Apportionment. The current board consists of 12 members. The revision will reduce the number to 7. Hmmm, a 7 member financial advisory board to the Board of Alderman. Sounds exactly like the Financial Committee of the Board of Alderman. Redundancy?
Section 39 is completely new and deals with Financial Transfers and requests for Additional Appropriations. Any transfer request between line items within a department that does not increase the department’s budget will be reviewed by the Comptroller and approved or denied by the Mayor without review by BOAT or BOA. Really? Any request for Additional Appropriations to a department’s budget will be reviewed by BOAT and recommendations passed on to BOA. BOAT’s review usually includes hard questioning of the requestor. BOA can alter any BOAT recommendation by a 2/3 majority of members present and voting. Recommendations of BOAT that are not acted on will be deemed approved by BOA. Whether the recommendations are altered or not acted upon (approved), the final decision is with BOA. Again, BOAT serves only an advisory role and the politicians control the budget.
Section 40 is the old Section 39 and deals with quorum and voting requirements. These changes are tied to the reduction in the composition as discussed in Section 38.
Section 41 is the old Section 40 and deals with the BOAT Secretary. There are no changes here.
Section 42 is the old Section 41 and deals with the power of BOAT to request any books or information from city officers. Again, there are no changes here.
Section 43 is the old Section 42, dealing with the Budget Process and Budget Referendum, and has been completely rewritten. First, the Mayor proposes a budget. I have absolutely no problem with this. It should have been done long ago. Next, the budget goes to BOAT. Finally, it goes to BOA, which is not actually true. It really goes to the Financial Committee of BOA who will in turn recommend the final budget to the full Board of Aldermen. So there you have the budget going from one advisory board to an advisory committee before going to BOA. Redundant, redundant, redundant! And of course the politicians get the final say. The rest of this section deals with the Budget Referendum process and I have no problems with that.
The next Section is Section 44, the same as the old Section 44, that starts dealing with Public Works. So that is the end of the BOAT & Budget sections of the Charter. OR IS IT? When I started, I warned that the biggest problem was in what is no longer there. So here it is: The old Section 43 is gone
Sec. 43. – Fiscal year; partial appropriations; limitation on appropriations and city expenses; special appropriations.
The fiscal year of said city shall begin on the first day of July in each year and end on the thirtieth day of the succeeding June, both inclusive. Said board of apportionment and taxation shall not have power to make any appropriations in excess of the revenues of said city for any year as estimated by said board, and in no case shall the expenses of said city exceed its revenues for any year, except in cases and for purposes for which said city is authorized to issue bonds and when bonds or temporary notes in anticipation thereof are so issued. No money other than that appropriated shall be expended for any purpose, unless a special appropriation therefor shall first be approved by a two-thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of all members of said board present and absent; but such board shall have no power to make such special appropriations, unless the unappropriated revenues of said city are sufficient for the purpose. If a special appropriation in excess of the unappropriated revenues of the city is required an estimate of the same shall be prepared by the board of aldermen and submitted to said board of apportionment and taxation at a special meeting called for that purpose by the mayor, and said board, at said meeting or any adjournment thereof, shall have power to make an appropriation, and to lay a special tax to meet the same, but no appropriation shall be made unless a special tax is laid sufficient to cover the amount, when such appropriation is in excess of the unappropriated revenues of said city. Any appropriations so made for any specific purpose shall not be expended for any other purpose, and, if unexpended shall be placed back into the treasury at the expiration of the fiscal year. Upon approval of this section (as per current law) this section of the City Charter shall become the procedure for preparing a budget for the July 1 to June 30 fiscal year commencing July 1, 1994. The city shall use the current budget adoption procedures when adopting the conversion year budget (October 15, 1993 to June 30, 1994).
The plain English of the above:
Sets the Fiscal Year
Requires a balance budget where Expenditures cannot exceed Revenues
Departments cannot over expend their budgets
Establishes that only BOAT can make special appropriations from the Reserve Fund by 2/3 vote, but only if the Reserve Funds are sufficient
Establishes that only if the Reserve Funds are insufficient, the Aldermen must provide to BOAT an estimate of the amount above that in reserve and that only BOAT may by 2/3 vote lay a special tax and that any actual excess of that special tax above that required for the initial requested purpose must be returned to the Reserve.
This means that all of the Reserve Fund (monies previously paid by taxpayers) must be expended before any additional special taxes can be laid. With all the Charter Revisions giving final fiscal authority to the politicians and the elimination of the old Section 43, BOA may lay a special tax on the taxpayers for any project at any time.
There has been no mention of its elimination of the old Section 43 in any news articles or public hearings, but it is gone. Not only is this unethical, I believe it may also be illegal. I am not making any accusations as to any intent. It may have been an oversight. The bottom line . . . a key protection for the taxpayers has been removed and we are vulnerable.
I urge all voters to vote “NO” on all of the Charter Revision questions.
The writer is a former BOAT chairman.
I respect anyone’s right to vote NO and I appreciate the arguments for the case. I intend to vote YES on all three measures ‘especially’ the BOAT revision. I do not believe a group of appointed persons should be making decisions affecting taxpayer funds and spending. The ‘people’ should have the ultimate say in how their money is spent and what it funds. If they are unhappy with it there should be recourse – (vote the people out). In the past the elected officials have hidden behind this appointed board to claim immunity from tax increases and poor fiscal practices. “It wasn’t my fault. It was BOAT”. I don’t agree with this practice. If anyone in 7th ward was unhappy with tax policies or fiscal decisions made by me, then the option is available to run for office in my place or vote for any other that is more in line with their own opinions. This option is not available with APPOINTED officials. The option exists at the Federal level, at the state level and should especially be an option at the local level. I will vote YES to return this power to the people and their ELECTED Officials. Danny Evans Ansonia Seventh Ward Alderman
Both the Charter Revision Commission and the Board of Aldermen discussed, debated and passed that these questions go on the ballot Tuesday, November 4th. I will be voting YES to all four. If Ansonia is going to give itself a chance to grow and prosper, we need to try new things, not keep old practices in place forever. I did not run for office to keep the status quo. I don’t think there was such an overwhelming change in elected officials last November because the residents wanted to do business as usual. We must explore new ways to operate the city in order to get ahead. There is nothing in these questions that can’t be reversed or tweaked by future Charter Revision Commissions that the current or a future mayor is free to organize as often as they like.
Above all folks, please come out and vote!
Alderman Pat Henri, 6th Ward
YES, folks please come out and vote and PLEASE VOTE NO on the Charter Revision questions. PLEASE read the questions The gentleman that was the guest writer for this article made very valid points, read the article don’t just vote yes because you think it’s the thing to do: educate yourselves: I am voting NO
First, I’d like to thank Rick Sturges for quite the comprehensive explanation of the charter questions. I have always respected Mr. Sturges’ opinion and insight.
Next, with all due respect, Mr. Evans, if the concern is APPOINTED officials (Board of Apportionment and Taxation) making financial decisions, why not change the charter to an ELECTED tax board? Why give all the power to the Board of Aldermen. I believe that checks and balances are essential in any municipality. This would not “return the power to the people” but put the power in the hands of a few.
Mr. Henri, ending your comments with “there is nothing in these [charter] questions that can’t be reversed or tweaked” by the current or future mayor. Really? Do voters want to change the charter every time they go to the polls? Why should we take this seriously? This doesn’t sound well thought out.
I agree with Ms. St. Jacques, PLEASE read the questions carefully before voting!
I am voting NO.
Question #2 on the ballot proposes reduction of alderman to 9 representatives. I believe this question also carries a change of voting majority at a meeting to consist of majority of members PRESENT at a meeting. this could allow as few as 3 aldermen to pass legislation that can affect the entire town. this is not good. Question #3 deserves a NO vote. question #4 deals with Mayor and BOA duties and question #5 speaks to general cleanup,update and clarification of the charter. Absolutely to much for informed voters to consent to in one ballot.
I say vote NO to all the questions .
As an aside, I had to goto the State Secretary of State web site to view the ballot wording of the questions. This ballot should be visible on the city site.
Where were all these insightful folks when the charter revisions were under review this summer? We wait until a week before the vote to start a debate? Politics as usual! I am insulted at the suggestion of impropriety by Mr. Sturges. Many volunteers spent countless hours trying to make the charter more efficient and effective.
It’s time to run this city like a business. The buck stops at the top. A CEO can fire any one in the corporation. Guess what? The city is a corporation and the Mayor should have the same power.
No more hiding behind appointed boards when the taxes are in dispute. Boat is comprised of many dedicated professionals including people like Mr Sturges. We need to have that board hammer out the details of the budget. then, have the Alderman have the final say. It’s common sense. We the voters, elect the Alderman. If I don’t like the budget the Alderman have proposed, I am going to be on the phone with him/her is a flash. You just cannot do that with boat.
In response to Mr. Phipps, If we have just 3 Alderman showing up to meetings, then the voters need to elect some new representatives.
Ansonia is on the right track. I believe we have a team that can finally make our city a place of pride and prosperity. It won’t happen overnight.
Vote YES on the charter revisions. They are common sense changes.
William Luneski (U)
Charter Revision Commission – Retired
No, Mr. Luneski, the City of Ansonia should not be run like a business. The priority for business is Profit/Loss. Ansonia is a Government. The priority for government, while remaining cognizant of financial issues, is People/Services.
You completely misinterpreted Mr. Phipps concern with the 3 votes. He never said only 3 aldermen would attend a meeting. With a reduction to 9 aldermen, 5 would be needed for a quorum. From this simple quorum, only 3 votes represent a majority of those present and voting.
I understand that the Charter Revision Commission has worked hard. I never said that they didn’t. That doesn’t mean we should blindly vote “Yes” because the Charter Revision Commission and Aldermen are in favor. To date, no one has even denied the issues that I have pointed out and there are others. There is no review or reaffirmation by BOAT or BOA of the decisions made within the Emergency process and no reporting requirements. With the current meeting schedules of BOAT (3rd Monday of the month) and BOA (2nd Tuesday of the month) there will be an automatic delay of almost a month for final decision by BOA.
The Charter Revision process requires that you document and inform the public of all additions, subtractions, and changes. A section of code is being eliminated that provides for restrictions and limitations on the use of the Reserve Fund and the ability to lay Special Taxes. These are protections for the Taxpayers of Ansonia. This code could have been rewritten to give the authority to BOA, but it was not. It is being eliminated! Why? The elimination of these protections was not in any public notice, not in the Summary or Explanatory. So, of course, there was no discussion or questioning of this at the Public Hearings. Again, no one has yet to explain this. And yes, the ability to lay a special tax was brought up during budget discussions of the Finance Committee of BOA 2 years ago.
Alderman Henri thinks we should vote “Yes” because we have the ability to create another Charter Revision Commission to make fixes and additional changes. We need to vote “No”. We need to stop rushing into things that we know will need fixes. Although I am personally against it, we can make the changes to give the Aldermen the final authority and accountability they seek. But because of the political nature, we need to do it with more oversight, restrictions, limitations and protections, not less! We need to slow down and get it right!
Voters need to read and understand this. For their own protection, they need to vote “NO”!
This is a simple decision, every resident should Vote NO ! Both Mr. Sturges and Mr. Phipps spell out exactly why. There is No Way a Mayor, any Mayor regardless what party they belong to, should have absolute power to hire and fire. This is absurd and a year ago this same party lobbied to give Less power to the Mayor! Please residents Vote NO !!!
Mr. Sturges has wrongly interpreted and misrepresented my thoughts. I’m sure most understood that my point was that the risk here is low. On another note, I am happy to see the free flow of thoughts here from different perspectives. Hopefully it will be motivating and helpful to voters regardless of how they decide to vote. I hope to see a great turnout for the 6th ward at Prendergast School. Please take the time to participate.