QUESTION 2:Though the explanatory text for this question seems couched in a myriad of legal jargon, the concept behind this proposal can be summed up rather easily. By approving this question, voters in Waterbury can add a layer of accountability to the appointment of Boards and Commission in the city.Shall the Charter be revised so that the non-majority members of the boards and commissions are chosen from a list of nominations submitted by each member of the Board of Aldermen not of the same political party as the Mayor?
This revision arises out of language in §4-2(b)(1) which restricts the right of the Mayor to make appointments to City boards and commissions by requiring that he fill minority positions from a list provided by the minority leader. This provision, designed for the two-party system, has become unworkable in a three-party system. The proposed revision creates restricted and unrestricted mayoral appointments and eliminates majority party and minority party references. The proposal provides for broader Aldermanic involvement in appointments resulting in a larger list of potential appointees from which the Mayor can choose. It also provides the opportunity for unaffiliated voters to serve on boards and commissions.
Regardless of the results of this particular referendum, there are certain rules that apply to the Boards and Commissions in the City of Waterbury. A typical Commission in Waterbury has seven members, one of these members is the Aldermanic Liaison, and no more than four of the members can be of the same political party.
Under the current system, the Mayor appoints all members of the various Boards and Commissions. Any Democrat who wishes to be appointed to a Board or Commission submits his or her name to the Mayor for consideration. Any member of the Republican or Independent Parties must submit their name to the Minority Leader of the Board of Aldermen, Alderman Cicero Booker Jr. For each vacancy on a Board or Commission, Alderman Booker then chooses two names from the Independents and Republicans t give to the Mayor. The Mayor is required to choose one of those two names.
Where this situation could run into trouble is based on the fact that Alderman Booker is not bound by any language in the Charter or any City Ordinance to be fair in his selections. If Alderman Booker wished to only submit the names of Independents to the Mayor, and ignore all requests from Republicans, there would be nothing that Waterbury’s 7,000 plus Republicans could do about it.
Fortunately, this situation has not arisen with Alderman Booker at the helm. He has made almost every effort to be equitable to members of both parties, though he has not been perfect.
Another problem with the current system is that the over 21,000 voters in Waterbury who have chosen not to register with a party (or who have chosen to register with one of the state’s minor parties) , are completely shut out. The dependence of the current language on the terms “majority party” and “minority party” exclude all unaffiliated voters, despite the fact that they make up approximately 37% of the registered voters in the city.
By approving this change, Waterbury can open the door to these currently excluded citizens. Also, they will release the potential stranglehold the Minority Leader of the Board of Aldermen has on appointments to Boards and Commissions.
If this question is approved, the Mayor will still be the person making all the appointments to the various Boards and Commissions. However, the Mayor will now have the ability to appoint four members to the Board or Commission from among any of Waterbury’s over 55,000 registered voters. If the Mayor wishes to appoint a Republican, or an Independent, or even a Libertarian, he can under this new system.
The remaining three seats on the Board or Commission will then be filled from a list of names submitted to the Mayor from any Alderman that is not of the Mayor’s party. (On the current Board, this would be the Republicans and Independents.) Each Alderman can submit up to two names, but there can be overlap. Also, the names can be of any voter in Waterbury, affiliated with a party or not. In theory, the Mayor could wind up with a list of twelve names, but I feel that the possibilities of that happening are remote. Also, the State Law requiring that no more than four members of a seven member Board or Commission are from the same party would still apply.
By approving this change the voters give the City a way to deal with future problems that may arise. For example, under the current system there would be a major problem if the Mayor’s party did not take at least eight seats on the Board of Aldermen. Also, who would make the decisions regarding “minority party appointments” if the Board of Aldermen was equally split with 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 5 Independents? I realize that, with Waterbury’s voting history, this is highly unlikely, but it is still possible.
Also, despite Alderman DePillo’s claims that the Charter Revision Commission was being “short-sighted” in approving this change, I believe this proposal addresses the fact that the Board of Aldermen will always be changing in membership and leadership. In fact, despite my frequent political battles with the Independent Party, I feel approval of this question actually protects them in the future.
Though they have held between four and six seats on the Board of Aldermen for the past seven years, only about 1% of Waterbury’s voters are registered with the Independent Party. Eventually a time will come when the Independent Party is not holding the position of Minority Leader. When that happens, the new Minority Leader would be justified in ignoring requests from members of the Independent Party to join the Boards or Commissions. When you consider the fact that registered Republicans outnumber registered Independents by a factor of 13 to 1, and registered Democrats outnumber registered Independents by a factor of 50 to 1, this situation is not only possible but likely.
Furthermore, under the current language, the Independents would have no legal recourse against their being shut out. If this question is approved, then as long as there is a member of the Independent Party on the Board of Aldermen, they will have a chance to be appointed to a Board or Commission.
As I mentioned before, I feel the approval of this question will actually improve the openness of government and add a layer of accountability to our Boards and Commissions. Furthermore, approval of this question will open up our Boards and Commissions to the many Unaffiliated voters.
As always, if you have any questions let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment