STAMFORD — An lawyer advising town’s Constitution Revision Fee had unhealthy information for supporters of time period limits for native elected officers: They cannot do it.
The Board of Representatives in February appointed 15 citizens to the commission, which can counsel adjustments to Stamford’s constitution as a part of a course of that occurs at the very least as soon as each 10 years.
The board then gave the group a listing of concepts to think about. One of many gadgets on the checklist was time period limits for elected workplaces.
However lawyer Steve Mednick instructed a panel of metropolis representatives final week that such time period limits can be unlawful.
“The problem of time period limits at all times comes up in each city, each metropolis that I’ve performed charters in,” Mednick mentioned. “And I will probably be issuing an opinion principally that states that time period limits should not authorized within the state of Connecticut for elected officers.”
Mednick mentioned he has consulted on 30 or so charters throughout the state, together with in 9 of Connecticut’s 12 largest municipalities.
After the assembly, Mednick instructed The Stamford Advocate that the one powers “native governments have are these specific grants of authority that the legislature provides you below the state Structure — Article tenth on dwelling rule. So if it’s not expressly granted to you, then you definately don’t have … the ability.
“There may be some wiggle room below the courts the place they allow you to suggest powers out of the specific grant of authority,” he added. “Nevertheless it’s acquired to be very direct and really near what the direct grant of authority is. And so there isn’t a regulation, there’s nothing that offers you authority to … term-limit elected officers.
“I at all times have to present the unhealthy information,” he mentioned.
Nonetheless, cities can impose time period limits on appointed — versus elected — officers “as a result of that’s a part of the administration of presidency,” Mednick mentioned.
In concept, he mentioned, the Basic Meeting might go laws to present municipalities the choice to determine time period limits for elected officers.
Time period limits do exist in at the very least just a few municipalities in Connecticut. Mednick mentioned he’s conscious of two which have them: Bristol and Wilton.
In Bristol, time period limits apply to the mayor in addition to members of town council and the Board of Training. In Wilton, members of elected boards, aside from the primary selectman, face time period limits.
“I believe that these provisions should not legally tenable,” Mednick mentioned.
Jackie Rochester, Wilton First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice’s govt assistant, declined to touch upon Mednick’s opinion.
Bristol Company Counsel Edward Krawiecki Jr. didn’t instantly return a request for remark. Voters added time period limits to Bristol’s constitution in 2013, however Mednick told the city in 2021 that the provisions were illegal. Sustaining time period limits was a campaign priority for current Bristol Mayor Jeff Caggiano, a Republican who defeated Democratic incumbent Ellen Zoppo-Sassu final yr.
In Stamford, the Constitution Revision Fee has a number of different points to think about beside time period limits. The “cost” it obtained from the Board of Representatives contains greater than 100 gadgets to handle, Mednick mentioned throughout final week’s assembly.
He mentioned it “might be one of the crucial intensive prices” he has ever seen.
The fee also can take into account points past the Board of Representatives’ cost. It held a pair of public hearings — one in-person and one digital — in Might. The fee and the Board of Representatives is predicted to carry extra hearings within the coming months.
Rep. Nina Sherwood, D-8, mentioned there are a handful of proposed adjustments particularly that “have plenty of help on the board and plenty of help within the public sphere.” These embody clarifying sections within the constitution that should do with petitions for or against amendments to the city’s master plan, zoning map or zoning regulations.
Sherwood mentioned one other high situation is whether or not the boards of representatives, finance and training ought to have impartial authorized counsel. At the moment, the constitution states that town’s company counsel should act because the boards’ authorized adviser. The Board of Representatives can retain independent counsel for “a particular case or controversy” if at the very least 31 members vote in favor of it.
As well as, Sherwood mentioned she believes the board and members of the general public would really like the fee to handle what occurs after the term of an appointee to a city board or commission expires.
The Constitution Revision Fee has arrange subcommittees to zero in on appointed boards, metropolis departments, elected officers, finance and land use.
The fee has till June to finish a draft report for the Board of Representatives’ assessment. The board will later resolve which constitution adjustments are put to voters.
Whereas a closing choice hasn’t been made but, Rep. Bradley Bewkes, R-1, mentioned the board is leaning towards posing poll inquiries to voters in 2024. Bewkes mentioned he felt that putting the questions on the poll subsequent yr can be “too rushed.” Plus, he famous, turnout for an off-year election will probably be low.
brianna.gurciullo@hearstmediact.com
