I appreciate the time put in by commission members. However, the timeframe required by the administration to allow the Mayor to potentially run for a 4‑year term at a significantly higher salary hampered the commission’s efforts, condensing their time to research the issues, and provide sufficient clarifying language for voters. As one commission member I spoke with put it, we had to “paint with a broad brush.”
Nowhere is this more evident than with question 3 recommending a full-time Mayor. The recommended change simply adds “and the position of mayor shall be full time.” That’s it! There is nothing requiring the Mayor to be present in City Hall during normal business hours, and at various board and commission meetings as provided in the charter and ordinances unless representing the city elsewhere. There is nothing requiring the Mayor to be exclusively employed by the city of Derby preventing the Mayor from holding other jobs or having other employers to ensure full devotion and attention to matters of the city, without distraction or potential conflict. Other charters outline in detail the duties and responsibilities of full-time mayors. Why not ours?
Additionally, no mention has been made regarding the cost of a full-time Mayor. A Connecticut Council of Municipalities salary survey, such as the one the administration has used to justify a $25,000 increase for the Finance Director and salaries for positions in the Building Department, shows that full-time chief municipal officers statewide average a salary of over $100,000 plus benefits. Benefits typically add 30 – 40% to the cost of employment. How can residents be expected to approve such a change without such clarifying language and being given an expectation of the cost?
Question 2 recommends 4‑year terms for all elected officials. This even though less than 20% of Connecticut municipalities have four-year terms. Elections are basically performance reviews held every two years to allow the voters to “throw the bums out” as the saying goes if they’re unsatisfied. Have our elected officials performed so well that they deserve to have the period extended? In just the last two years there has been a 10% increase in taxes, part of which resulted from financial mismanagement of more than a million dollars, which the voters were promised an explanation of that has yet to be given. Our school district is among the 33 lowest performing in the state, which is what it means to be an Alliance District, and our crime rate is the 7th highest in the state. I’d say two-year terms should stay.
Question 5 Designates the BOA as the “Superior Board” giving them “final authority in decision making.” Currently, when Aldermanic action requires an expenditure the BOAT and BOA had to be in agreement. This change would force the BOAT to fund anything the BOA passed. City spending by charter is the BOAT’s responsibility. This change would allow that authority to be usurped by the BOA that has no financial authority or responsibility and eliminate the basic check and balance that exists.
The remaining questions have similar drawbacks in language and logic. However, the word restriction on letters to the editor prevents discussing those in similar detail. As a result, I urge Derby voters to vote no on charter revision.
The writer, a Derby resident, is the city treasurer.
