Charter Revision Question #3

This is the fifth in a seven part series regarding the Charter Revision Questions that will be on the Waterbury ballot on Tuesday. Remember that Questions 1 and 2 will be on the front of the ballot, while Questions 3 through 8 will be on the back of the ballot.

QUESTION 3:

Shall the Charter be revised to (1) eliminate the elected positions of City Clerk and Town Clerk; (2) substitute therefor a city clerk and town clerk each appointed for a term of five years pursuant to the procedure for appointment of department heads set forth in Chapter 7, Part A, of the Charter; and (3) provide the city clerk and town clerk the option each to appoint a deputy clerk in accordance with civil service procedures?

This revision is proposed for three reasons: (1) the duties of these positions involve recording the actions of those who set policy and preserving necessary and important records; they do not involve establishing policy or setting political direction, and, therefore, should be removed from political influences as much as possible; (2) the two-year cycle for holders of these positions is detrimental to the efficient and effective functioning of these offices; and (3) the training for state certification for the town clerk takes approximately three years to complete and only individuals already working in the capacity of town clerk can take the required courses.

When this issue came before the Charter Revision Commission we saw an opportunity to streamline government and remove for the highly contentious political arena two positions that have no executive or legislative power within the City of Waterbury.

As we researched this issue we found some very interesting facts about the positions of Town Clerk and City Clerk. One thing that is important to remember is that state law requires all towns and cities have a Town Clerk. The role of the Town Clerk and the steps for their removal are clearly stated in state law. Also, while we did find that 73 of 105 towns surveyed have elections for their Town Clerks, only eight of those elections are regularly contested. Therefore, out of 105 Town Clerks, 97 of them face little to no political scrutiny in their towns.

We also discovered a rather interesting quirk in state law regarding the position of Town Clerk. For a Town Clerk to earn a State of Connecticut certification, they must complete five courses. These courses are offered every six months and only one course at a time. Therefore, to complete the certification process takes AT LEAST two and a half years! Also, you can only take the certification classes if you are currently working in a Town Clerks office.

This means that, under the current system, the Town Clerk needs to be elected and re-elected at least once to complete the classes. Therefore, unless you have a Town Clerk who is forward thinking, like Mrs. Spinelli, and has their assistants take the certification classes, a town who keeps the Town Clerk an elected position is likely to have a revolving door of Town Clerks who have to learn on the job.

As we have approached election some interesting arguments have arisen about why this question should be rejected. A few of the arguments raised are valid; however, most are based on fear tactics, and in one case, an outright lie.

The one valid argument that I have regularly heard is that the citizens of Waterbury should have the opportunity to vote for as many City Officials as possible. I can understand this argument and would consider supporting it if we were discussing officials that have legislative or executive authority.

However, the only time the City Clerk and Town Clerk have even been considered to have any of sort of authority is during the 2007 mayoral campaign of Alderman Odle. During that campaign, the candidates for City Clerk (Mrs. Karen Mulcahy) and Town Clerk (Alderman DePillo) spoke frequently of running the city as a “triumvirate”. While I applaud their desire to work as a team, by doing so Mrs. Mulcahy and Alderman DePillo would have been stepping far beyond their roles as City Clerk and Town Clerk.

Another argument that I have heard against this question is based on the fear-mongering that has become the standard fare from Alderman DePillo. With little to no justification, Alderman DePillo is trying to scare the citizens of Waterbury into voting against this question with veiled threats of voter fraud and intimidation being committed by future Town Clerks and City Clerks. Alderman DePillo bases these accusations of what MIGHT happen on the fact that the City Clerk is the person who receives and verifies all ballot petitions and the Town Clerk is the person who handles absentee ballots.

In the past ten years there has been no evidence or incidents to support any claims of mismanagement against our Town Clerk, and only one incident against our City Clerks who have served during that time. That singular issue revolved around some petitions that were misplaced, and I believe they were only misplaced temporarily. Also, our current City Clerk, Mr. Mike Dalton, is two people removed from that incident in 2004.

Furthermore, our City Clerk is responsible for maintaining the records of Waterbury’s many Boards and Commissions. As Mr. Dalton will show to anyone who asks, when he assumed the office in 2006, Waterbury’s historical records were in disastrous condition. It took a considerable effort by Mr. Dalton and his staff to restore and recover those historic records, some of which date back over 150 years.

Leaving the positions of Town Clerk and City Clerk in the hands of politicians who may be more interested in furthering their career instead of doing their job is just looking for trouble.

The final argument against the approval of this question is based on an outright lie.

Lie – an inaccurate or false statement.

The lie that has been spread to encourage rejection of this question is that, if the positions become appointed the salary of the Town Clerk and City Clerk with double or triple in size, with no recourse by the Board of Aldermen or the voters. I have heard Alderman DePillo say this several times. Whether he does this out of malice or ignorance is a question only he can answer.

I realize that calling something a lie is a strong statement and I do not make it lightly. However, if you look at the City Charter, you will find a section that is NOT being altered as a result of Tuesday’s election.

Section 2D-3
Compensation for the City Clerk and Town Clerk

Effective on December 1, 2005 the City Clerk and Town Clerk shall both be paid an annual salary in an amount equal to fifty (50%) percent of the salary of the Mayor. The salary of for the City Clerk and Town Clerk shall be adjusted only at the commencement of the Mayor’s Term of Office, to reflect any changes.

When you consider the above section, it becomes obvious that the only way for the salary of the City Clerk or Town Clerk to double, the salary of the Mayor would also have to double.

In conclusion, while there is a valid argument for maintaining accountability of our elected officials by frequent elections, I feel that argument best applies to those officials that have legislative or executive power. When you have positions that are nothing more than record keepers, I feel the need for consistency and competence outweighs the few potential political gains. That is why I support this issue, and encourage you to do the same.

As always, let me know if you have any questions.

Charter Revision Question #4

This is the fourth in my seven part series detailing the Charter Revision Questions that will be on the Waterbury ballot on Tuesday. This post will focus on Question #4.

QUESTION 4:

Shall the Charter be revised to require a five-point preference for City residents on all civil service examinations?

Under this revision, the five-point residential preference given on entry-level civil service examinations would be extended to all civil service examinations.

The idea of changing the way residency points are awarded was actually supported by two members of the Board of Aldermen. Alderwoman Anne Phelan came to the Charter Revision Commission with a proposal to extend the 5 point bonus that is currently given to residents on entry-level exams only, to all “open exams”.

An “open exam” is any exam that is being taken by people not already employed by the city seeking to move up within a department.

Within the City of Waterbury there are a number of City jobs that are listed with both a title and a number. Examples include “Maintainer 1” and “Maintainer 2”. In this system the Maintainer 1 is considered an entry level position, the Maintainer 2 is not. Therefore, someone who does not currently work for the city would get 5 bonus points on the Maintainer 1 exam, but not on the Maintainer 2 exam. Also, someone who worked for the city as a Maintainer 1 would not get any bonus points if they took the test required to be promoted to Maintainer 2.

Alderwoman Phelan’s proposal would equalize the disparity between the two candidates not yet working for the city by given both candidates the five extra points.

The second member of the Board of Aldermen to support this idea was Alderman DePillo.

Alderman DePillo’s idea, however, went further then Alderwoman Phelan’s. Alderman DePillo would have increased the number of bonus points from five to ten, and included promotional exams in addition to the open exams. In this situation, all three candidates mentioned would receive ten bonus points.

After our deliberations, the Charter Revision Commission decided to split the difference between the two proposals, and give five points on all exams.

If you have been keeping an eye on the Republican-American, you have seen letters both in support and in opposition to this particular issue. Fortunately the concept is fairly straightforward. However, you choose to vote, I encourage everyone to vote on every question.

As always, let me know if you have any questions.

Charter Revision Question #5

This is the third in an expected seven part series discussing the Charter Revision Questions that are located on this year’s ballot in Waterbury. This post will focus on Question #5.

QUESTION 5:

Shall the Charter be revised in order to reestablish the City’s ability to contract to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system?

This revision is a result of court decisions that redefined the term “surplus water”, as used in the Charter’s Special Acts and Historical Provisions, in a way that called in to question the City’s power to contract to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system. The proposed new §4-10 is meant to provide an alternative to the existing language thus preserving the City’s ability to enter into such an arrangement.

As I stated on WATR on Tuesday this particular question has a much smaller impact on the City of Waterbury than meets the eye. As mentioned in the explanatory text, this question arises out of a lawsuit that was filed against the city back in 2000 regarding the Shepaug River. As a result of the lawsuit, it was determined that the City of Waterbury can no longer use the term “surplus water” in its Charter language. As a result, one of the historical sections of the Charter, Section 11A-2(b), could no longer be enforced. Since Chapter 11 of the Waterbury Charter contains language that has been in place for decades, and almost all of this language is a result of Special Acts passed by the State Legislature in Hartford, the Charter Revision Commission was reluctant to alter that language.

As a result, if this question is approved, the historical section will be superseded by a new section of the Charter, Section 4-10. The new section is almost identical to the historical provision, which was passed by Special Act in 1931. For comparison’s sake, the two sections are shown below. The underlined portions of the two sections show language that has been changed.

Section 11A-2(b)
The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen, is empowered to contract and agree on behalf of the City, upon such terms as the Mayor and Board of Aldermen may deem advisable, with any electric power company, incorporated and doing business in this state, in such manner and form as will enable such power company to develop electrical energy by water power from any surplus waters which may exist in any present or future reservoir or reservoirs of said City. The term “surplus water”, as used herein, shall be construed to mean such water impounded in or escaping from such reservoir or reservoirs as is not actually needed by the City for the public use and convenience of the inhabitants. All water so used for the purpose of developing electrical energy shall be returned to the stream from which taken. The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen of the City, is empowered to contract to lease any land owned by the City to such electrical power company for such length of time and on such terms as may be agreed upon for the location thereon of power houses, conduits and transmission lines and for such other purposes as may be necessary or convenient for the creation, development or transmission of electrical energy developed from such surplus water by the power company contracting for its use.

Section 4-10
In addition to or in the alternative to any and all powers conferred by federal and state law, constitutions, statutes and regulations, notwithstanding anything in this Charter to the contrary other than the requirements of Sec. 3A-2(d), the Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen, is empowered to contract and agree on behalf of the City, upon such terms as the Mayor and Board of Aldermen may deem advisable, with any electric power company, incorporated and doing business in this state, in such manner and form as will enable such power company to develop electrical energy by water power from any water within the City’s municipal waterworks system, so long as use of such water for electric power purposes does not materially impact upon the City’s ability to meet its water supply obligations. The Mayor, with the consent of ten (10) members of the Board of Aldermen of the City, is empowered to contract to lease any land owned by the City to such electrical power company for such length of time and on such terms as may be agreed upon for the location thereon of power houses, conduits and transmission lines and for such other purposes as may be necessary or convenient for the creation, development or transmission of electrical energy developed from such surplus water by the power company contracting for its use.

As you can see the phrase in the historical section talking about “surplus waters which may exist in any present or future reservoir or reservoirs of said City” has be replaced in the new section with the phrase “water within the City’s municipal waterworks system, so long as use of such water for electric power purposes does not materially impact upon the City’s ability to meet its water supply obligations”. It is my opinion that these two phrases mean essentially the same thing. In both cases the power company cannot use so much water that the City of Waterbury suffers as a result. Beyond that definition, and the new introduction, the sections are identical.

Furthermore, the introduction in the new section actually adds a layer of protection to the residents of Waterbury. Section 3A-2(d) of the Charter includes a subsection that requires a referendum for any lease that totals over $5,000,000 in value.

If you were listening to WATR yesterday, you heard me get into an intense discussion with Alderman DePillo regarding this question. Alderman DePillo seems convinced that any such lease will wind up hurting the city, as he expressed no faith in anyone in the City accurately determining how much water can be used before it would “materially impact” the City’s obligations.

While I respect his concerns, I feel obligated to point out that this is contradictory to Alderman DePillo’s campaign claims, in his failed 2005 Mayoral bid, that he was going to bring in a water bottling plant to downtown Waterbury. During the campaign Alderman DePillo never revealed the name of the company that was considering moving to Waterbury, though yesterday he told us that it was the Nestle Corporation. He also mentioned that Nestle had been banned from several states due to the large impact that they had on the water supplies in those states. However, according to Alderman DePillo, in Waterbury Nestle would have only used “20% of the excess” water.

This claim by the Alderman begs the question of how he can be so confident that Nestle would only have used 20% of the City’s excess water to run a water bottling plant, but have no faith in a power plant being able to ever come in and not materially impacting the City’s water. Sometimes I wonder if the reason that Alderman DePillo is against this plan is because he didn’t introduce it.

Alderman DePillo also felt it was inappropriate for the City to lease land to a private company for a hydroelectric plant, preferring to have the City build and staff such a power plant using City funds to construct the plant, and City employees to run the plant.

This claim is especially confusing to me, as Alderman DePillo has built his reputation on fighting what he has seen as excessively high costs on City capital improvement plans, and the high pay of city employees. As Alderman DePillo has been so consistent on suggesting that City workers are overpaid, and City bonding projects are overpriced, why would he push for the construction of a power plant with City funds that would easily run to the millions of dollars, and advocate for the hiring of more City employees?

It seems clear to me that Alderman DePillo has changed his tune drastically on this issue, for reasons that are known only to him.

It is my opinion that this question should be approved. First, approval of this question only restores rights that the City of Waterbury has had since 1931. Second, if it is run properly, a hydroelectric plant would have less impact on our water supply than a water bottling facility. Finally, if a company comes in and leases City land, that would bring money to the City in rent, and jobs to the City.

As always, if you have any questions, let me know.

Charter Revision Question #6

This is the second in an expected seven part series discussing the Charter Revision Questions that are located on this year’s ballot in Waterbury. This post will focus on Question #6.

QUESTION 6:

Shall the Charter be revised to allow the Board of Education to hire the superintendent of Schools without using civil service procedures?

This revision eliminates the requirement that the Board of Education appoint the Superintendent of Schools through civil service procedures.

This is a Charter change that is, in my opinion, long overdue. Waterbury is the only school district in Connecticut that requires Superintendent Candidates to take a civil service exam to be considered for the job. In fact at one point Waterbury was one of only two districts in the entire country that requires such a test.

My reason for backing the approval of this question is based on a concern that the presence of a civil service exam has been limiting the number of candidates for Superintendent of the Waterbury Public Schools. Furthermore, by limiting the number of candidates, we may be (inadvertently) reducing the quality of the candidates that are brought before the Board of Education.

As an example of my concerns, I would like to discuss a Superintendent search that took place in Waterbury many years ago. (The Superintendent search in question predates the search that resulted in the hiring of Dr. Snead.)

After the Civil Service exam, the Waterbury Board of Education was presented with three names. As a result of the rules of Civil Service, the Board of Education was required to choose one of these three candidates. Each of these candidates had flaws in their resumes that could have been considered fatal.

Candidate 1 had no experience in an urban school system.

Candidate 2 had been fired from a school district in Rhode Island under suspicion of the misuse of funds. Candidate 2 was later hired by a different school system and arrested for misuse of funds in that district.

Candidate 3 had been arrested for indecent exposure at a rest stop in New York.

The Waterbury Board of Education hired Candidate 1; however they realized that none of these three individuals were a good fit for Waterbury.

If this change is approved, when the Board of Education begins its deliberations for Dr. Snead's successor, they will be able to publicly vet as many candidates as they choose. They will not be limited to the top three scores on a test. This will allow for a more open discussion and a higher standard for the candidates who are looking to be our next Superintendent.

As with Questions 7 and 8, I encourage all voters to support this proposal. I will be posting the information on Question 5 tomorrow.

As before, if you have any further questions, let me know.

Charter Revision Questions #7 and #8

In an effort to inform the citizens of Waterbury about the Charter Revision Questions that they will be voting on this year, I have decided to write a series of posts on the 8 questions. These questions will be found on the right side and the back of your ballot. Please take the time to vote on these important measures.

As I discuss each question I will include both the text of the question (in bold) as well as the explanatory text (in italics) that can be found in the informational booklet the City will provide at each polling place.

To start my informational series, I will be discussing Questions 7 and 8. I have chosen these questions because they are the easiest to explain and (in my opinion) the least controversial.

QUESTION 7:
Shall the Charter be revised to replace the term “water rents” with the more accurate and appropriate term “water charges and/or sewer charges”?

This is an editorial revision to update the language used in Charter provisions dealing with charges for the use of City water. These charges, once referred to as “water rents” are now called “water charges”. In addition, there is now a charge for the use of the City sewer system which is treated in a manner similar to water charges. To bring the Charter up to date, this revision replaces the term “water rents” with “water charges and/or sewer charges”.

Personally I feel this question is a non-issue for the voters. As the explanatory text says, the changes implemented by the approval of this question are merely cosmetic in nature. Approval of this question will not change anything in the way the city does business, all it does is modernize the language in the Charter. Since we cannot "rent" water, I feel the changes are useful and should be approved.

QUESTION 8:
Shall the Charter be revised to replace outdated position and department titles with the appropriate titles?

This editorial revision replaces outdated job titles with the appropriate, currently-used titles as follows: “Superintendent of Police” becomes “Chief of Police”; “Chief Engineer” becomes “Fire Chief”; “Health Officer” becomes “Health Director”; “Director of Personnel” becomes “Director of Human Resources”. In addition, the “Department of Personnel” becomes “Department of Human Resources”.

Again, I feel this question is a non-issue. As you can see in the explanatory text, these are changes in name only. Nothing about the workings of these offices will change. Since it has been several years since I've heard anyone refer to the head of the Waterbury PD as anything other than "Chief", these changes seem long overdue. Again, these are changes that I feel should be approved.

For the sake of your sanity, I will stop here for now. I will get the other 6 questions posted between now and Election Day. If you have any questions, just let me know in the comments and I'll do my best to answer them.