Dear First Selectman Roy:
I just read an article in the Valley Independent Sentinel entitled “Seymour Dems Want to Bypass Finance Board.”
If the statements and reporting in this article with respect to the now planed approval process for the five year capital plan and related funding are true, I am very concerned and disappointed by the apparent approach. I say this for two reasons.
First, I do not believe that such an approach complies with our Town Charter. Secondly, as a former member and Chairman of the Board of Finance, I think it is very unwise and shortsighted to attempt to bypass a Board that in almost every respect is responsible for the budgeting, financial oversight and overall financial management of our town.
How can we recommend to voters the approval of such a significant financial plan when the board directly responsible for such issues is left out of the process? I would think such an approach would confuse voters and ultimately lead to rejection of the plan at referendum, perhaps not on the merits but instead due to the process.
As you know, in past years, both near term and long term capital project funding (with the exception of very large projects, such as schools or a police station, all of which were financed by bonds) has always been part of the normal annual budget process, under the provisions of our Charter.
I realize fully that because such items were not addressed as they should have been in our normal town budget process in the last two years, we now have a backlog that is ever growing. I also understand that a different process to deal with the approval and funding of such capital projects might be a viable approach at this point in time, given what will be a very difficult regular budget process this spring, but we must not depart from our Charter, nor from the new spirit of transparency and communication that voters demanded in our last municipal election.
The five year capital plan approval and funding process as described to us at our recent Board of Selectmen meeting would have to comply with the various relevant provisions of the Town Charter. Under those provisions, namely Sections 12.4(b) and 12.4(f), as well as the provisions of Section 13.2, approvals are clearly required by both the Boards of Selectmen and Finance prior to any public vote. Given the size of this funding plan, as well as the reliance on financing, such public vote must occur via referendum and I thought that you had intended to fully comply with the Charter in the approval process we had embarked upon, but given the statements in the news article, that is no longer clear to me.
Although Democratic Town Chairman Kulas is an attorney, he is not the town counsel responsible for offering opinions on our Town Charter provisions. In fact, where he has attempted recently to put forward such opinions either in land use matters or with respect to the WPCA, other town attorneys actually responsible for the relevant subject matter have overruled him.
If the news article is true, I would urge you to take a step back, carefully examine the relevant Charter provisions, seek guidance from the proper legal authority, and publicly adjust course. Otherwise, you will be embarking on a path that violates our Charter and the public trust, creates further division between Town boards, and ultimately leads to rejection of the five year capital plan. We will have wasted precious time and resources and accomplished nothing for the betterment of our town.
I look forward to further discussion of these topics with you and our whole Board of Selectmen at our next meeting. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
The writer is a member of the Seymour Board of Selectmen.
