Charter revision worth looking at, but not to extend mayor, Council terms

To the Editor:

City charter revisions have been infrequent. A 1999 revision changed the way Board of Education members were elected, and, in 1995, the Council was given a role in the budget process. A proposed change making the Town Clerk an appointed position was defeated in 2003.

What to make of the Chamber of Commerce’s call for extending the Council and mayor’s terms to 4 years?

As a practical matter, Council members “pulling their weight” have had no difficulty securing re-election over successive terms. Some members are institutional heavyweights, e.g. Doug Hempstead and Bruce Kimmel. In recent years we’ve elected some Council members who (to be polite) are manifestly unsuited to their roles. Party chairs seem reluctant to encourage “better behaviors” from such officials. Longer terms would prevent early remediation of improper public behaviors.

Similarly, incoming mayors since the 1970s (Jenny Cave) have routinely been re-elected for at least 2 successive terms. In our strong Council-weak mayor system, it’s the Council that does the “heavy lifting.” Incoming mayors routinely leave the inherited administrative staff in place and focus on city politics and occasional appointments to boards and commissions.

Moreover, Norwalk has long had a tradition that anyone can aspire to become mayor. Even without prior elected experience. On balance, the arguments for extending terms to improve governance are not persuasive.

But there are two well-recognized “problem areas” where we might consider charter revision. First is a proposal to directly elect BOE members city-wide without political affiliations and without districts. Some city districts seem challenged to elect BOE members able to effectively and collegially interact with the BOE. Similarly, party officials have had difficulty with securing appropriate public official behaviors. Recall the embarrassing claim by some BOE members six months ago publicly accusing the entire BOE with discrimination. To our dismay, neither the mayor nor the DTC chair publicly criticized these embarrassing and damaging behaviors.

A second proposal calls for the direct election of a Board of Finance to oversee the city budget as is common with many communities. Our city has had difficulty controlling outlays and property taxes under its current arrangements. Reportedly properties are worth what they were back in 2003. And in 2012 an Arbitration Panel’s report found city school teacher salaries ranked 5th in the state. But city incomes rank only 20th. Hundreds of city employees earn six-figure incomes even though our median household income is only about $70k.

Clearly these are real danger signals of our city’s inability to control finances. Long-term residents are leaving the city faced with ever-higher taxes on stagnant properties. For example, had city residential properties increased by just 10 percent since 2003, city residents would be wealthier by about $1 billion. Directly electing a Finance Board (without party affiliations) to control city spending and taxes is worth careful examination.

Our guiding principal for charter revisions ought be countering well-recognized problems. Direct city-wide BOE elections without party designation merits consideration. As does direct city-wide elections to a Finance Board without party designation. In contrast, the Chamber’s proposals for extending terms of the mayor and Council may or may not marginally improve governance. But they do not address well-recognized problems and therefore merit rejection.

Peter I. Berman

Norwalk