Ansonia Charter Revision Off To Rough Start

ANSONIA — A commission weighing possible changes to the city’s government will have to undergo a change itself after a member of the public pointed out its current makeup violates state law.

The chairman of the board also said they’ll try to do more to publicize their meetings after members of the public raised transparency concerns about its activities.

The Charter Revision Commission met for the second time Wednesday (Aug. 1) since the Board of Aldermen voted April 10 to form the commission.

A city charter is essentially its constitution, a set of rules dictating how local government should function.

Periodically, municipalities make changes to the documents, in accordance with several state laws that spell out how towns and cities should do so.

In their resolution appointing the commission, the Aldermen instructed the board to ​“make recommendations to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of city government” and ​“identify opportunities for reducing bureaucracy and increasing accountability to the public.”

After a public hearing July 24, the commission is researching a number of possible changes:

• referendums for the school district and city budgets

• changing the length of terms for the mayor and aldermen

• changes to the recreation commission to make Alfonso Smith, one of its current members, a lifetime honorary chairman

• reducing the number of wards

• prohibiting aldermen from receiving salaries or payments from the city or school district

Any changes would need to be approved by voters at referendum.

Membership Violates State Law

The commission’s members are Republicans Lorie Vaccaro, president of the Board of Aldermen, and Domenico Filippone, a Third Ward Alderman, Democrats Robert Knott and Sharon Voroschak, and Robert MacDowell, an unaffiliated voter.

That’s a problem, because state law governing how municipalities revise their charters indicates that Ansonia’s charter revision commission, as it is currently constituted, is illegal.

The law says that ​“not more than one-third of (members) may hold any other public office in the municipality.”

Vaccaro and Filippone — 40 percent of the commission’s membership — are Aldermen, which violates the law’s ​“not more than one-third” provision.

The city made the same mistake in 2015, when the Aldermen appointed a Charter Revision Commission which had four of five members who held other office at the time. 

Though the commission’s meeting Wednesday did not include a public session, former Town Clerk Beth Lynch called a point of order to note the violation.

“This board is not in compliance with the state statute,” Lynch said.

“Alright, thank you for that comment,” Vaccaro said.

He said after the meeting he’d research the issue and, if need be, have Mayor David Cassetti nominate another person to the board who isn’t a public official.

“If we have to add a member I’ll ask the mayor to add a member to make the math balance out,” Vaccaro said. 

Lynch noted the commission already held a public hearing last week, wondering whether the board should be re-formed completely.

“They can add people but they’ve already started,” she said. ​“Can you add them after the fact?”

John Marini, the city’s corporation counsel, said that didn’t seem necessary, but it’s up to the Aldermen.

“The only cost of reconstituting the board would be an additional two notices in the New Haven Register, which is not unreasonable,” he said. ​“Maybe it will help involve more residents and their suggestions.”

Transparent Enough?

The question of whether the city is doing enough to publicize the commission’s work was raised by William Luneski, a member of past charter revision commissions, in a letter to the editor posted on the Valley Indy Tuesday.

In the letter Luneski contrasted the lack of publicity from the city regarding the commission with its notices of other events. 

“A band is playing at Nolan Field and we have posters, banners on fences, stories in the news, postings on Facebook and CodeRed notifications thru the emergency system,” Luneski wrote. ​“Changing the laws of Ansonia, zero stories, postings, calls, and texts.”
 
Luneski said Wednesday he only knew about the Charter Revision Commission meetings because he happened to see it on the city’s website.

Not all residents have time to actively look for the information.

“I have previously served on past charter revision commissions and it was an priority among all the commissioners to get the public engaged,” he said. ​“In addition to stories posted in the Valley publications, I personally tweeted and posted information to engage the public prior to the public sessions.”

The lack of publicity ​“certainly brings up suspicion that this process is so quiet and so fast, with limited public input.”

Leslie Navarette said the process raises ​“serious concerns.” She said minutes of the commission’s public hearing and first meeting last week didn’t make it clear where all of the items under consideration came from. 

“I was made aware of all the proposed changes yesterday after I posted my concern on Facebook which prompted neighbors to quickly respond with similar concerns,” she said. ​“Many of the neighbors who engaged in the public (Facebook) discussion questioned the city’s motive for wanting to rush through this important process and the city’s ethics, while others expressed anger in a process that did not provoke dialogue or information to the broader public.”

At the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting, Vaccaro tried to assure the two dozen or so people at the meeting that the commission isn’t looking to put any items on the ballot until the November 2019 election.

“Mayor Cassetti is not in a rush to push these recommendations through. We have 16 months to vet these recommendations when we’ve heard from the public and commissioners here,” he said.

Marini also stressed the long timeline before Wednesday’s meeting, while agreeing that the city could do more to promote public involvement.

“The commission has 16 months to make recommendations. No changes would be ​‘approved’ without research and drafting, and at this point the commission has not indicated what it wants to study,” he said. ​“Certainly nothing would be ready for approval by the November ballot.”

Both noted that if the commission votes to make any recommended changes, the Board of Aldermen will have to hold a public hearing on them before they go to voters.

Filippone wondered whether the recreation commission proposal would need a revision to the charter. He also noted voters in 2014 narrowly rejected a proposal to reduce the number of wards in the city from seven to three.

The board then voted to have city staff do more research on the proposals under consideration, and invite the recreation commission and registrars to meet with them.

Vaccaro said afterward that the commission will also try to publicize its meetings more.

“We want to be transparent through the whole process,” he said. ​“There is no rush to get any of this done.”

Navarette said she’d wait to see what happens. ​“If we didn’t make noise, if we didn’t bring it up, would they have considered that?” she said.