David
10-17-2008, 05:58 PM
Stacked deck?
Editor:
Hats off to letter writer (R-J, 10/16) William Butka Jr. He cared enough to write expressing his concerns about Wallingford. Would only more of our residents do the same.
Some points he made need clarification. Did he have Ordinance 345, the Insurance Commission, in mind when writing of a "specific ordinance"? What were the "misstatements, contradictions and false perceptions" of which he wrote? It would be helpful to know exactly to what he was referring, rather than generalities.
Butka wrote, "Charter issues can be amended by ordinance." He cited Chapter III, Section 5. He was correct, of course. But, the enabling legislation has an important limitation. All ordinances have to be "consistent with this charter." That means the charter is "superior." Ordinances can add to, but not contradict or change, the charter.
For example: the charter says the Board of Ethics is "appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council." Who are most apt to be accused of a conflict of interest or violation of the Charter? (The mayor or a member of the council, of course.) No other personnel have been so accused in 47 years.
So, the potential accused select the jury to hear the complaint against the very same people who have selected the jury. Beginning to seem like maybe the deck is stacked? The charter adds even more flavoring. It assigns the Town Attorney to be "advisor to the Board on all legal issues." Who has the power to appoint or fire the Town Attorney? The mayor, of course.
By custom, this mayor refrains from appointing a Board of Ethics until after the mayor receives a complaint. Then, he makes his appointments, accordingly.
Did prior Charter committees envision this? Is our town the better for it? Power has to be balanced. Charter revision is needed.
WES LUBEE, WALLINGFORD
Editor:
Hats off to letter writer (R-J, 10/16) William Butka Jr. He cared enough to write expressing his concerns about Wallingford. Would only more of our residents do the same.
Some points he made need clarification. Did he have Ordinance 345, the Insurance Commission, in mind when writing of a "specific ordinance"? What were the "misstatements, contradictions and false perceptions" of which he wrote? It would be helpful to know exactly to what he was referring, rather than generalities.
Butka wrote, "Charter issues can be amended by ordinance." He cited Chapter III, Section 5. He was correct, of course. But, the enabling legislation has an important limitation. All ordinances have to be "consistent with this charter." That means the charter is "superior." Ordinances can add to, but not contradict or change, the charter.
For example: the charter says the Board of Ethics is "appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council." Who are most apt to be accused of a conflict of interest or violation of the Charter? (The mayor or a member of the council, of course.) No other personnel have been so accused in 47 years.
So, the potential accused select the jury to hear the complaint against the very same people who have selected the jury. Beginning to seem like maybe the deck is stacked? The charter adds even more flavoring. It assigns the Town Attorney to be "advisor to the Board on all legal issues." Who has the power to appoint or fire the Town Attorney? The mayor, of course.
By custom, this mayor refrains from appointing a Board of Ethics until after the mayor receives a complaint. Then, he makes his appointments, accordingly.
Did prior Charter committees envision this? Is our town the better for it? Power has to be balanced. Charter revision is needed.
WES LUBEE, WALLINGFORD