Term limits may not be possible

Though Bristol's Charter Revision Commission has endorsed a proposal to adopt term limits on the mayor, City Council and Board of Education, it's possible that state law won't allow it.
There's nothing in particular to prohibit term limits, but that may not matter.
According to a recent piece on the New Haven Politics blog, it appears that municipalities can't monkey with election-related issues unless state law specifically allows it.
But "state law is silent on the subject of term limits for municipal elected officials," according to a 2001 Office of Legislative Research paper by Mary M. Janicki.
She said that "it neither imposes a ban on enacting term limits; nor does it expressly authorize towns to do so." A 1985 law review article -- The Myth and Reality of Home Rule Powers in Connecticut, by Timothy Hollister - said that "despite home rule authority granted in the state's Constitution and statutes, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the General Assembly, by its specific enumeration in the statutes of the powers delegated to municipalities, has implied that town cannot exercise powers not expressly delegated to them," as Janicki summarized it.
A 1985 Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in Simons v. Canty determined that towns did not have the power to enact provisions allowing the recall of elected officials because the state never explicitly backed the idea in its home rule legislation.
At the first meeting of the current charter revision panel in New Haven, an outside counsel told commissioners that "term limits were probably unenforceable under state law" because New Haven has never been given the authority to enact them, according to a story in New Haven Politics blog.
Just because term limits may not be legal in Connecticut, though, doesn't mean the charter issue can't go on the ballot.
Bristol could move forward with the idea in the hope that it would not be challenged or that state lawmakers might endorse the concept before a court ever ruled on the matter.
In any case, it's an issue that might well come up before the measure lands on the general election ballot in November.
Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Charter Revision report is nearly done

The Charter Revision Commission's report is nearly done. The draft report will be the subject of a public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Tuesday in the City Council chambers, to be followed by a special meeting of the commission.
Click Here to see the Final Charter Revision report.

Click Here to see scanned copy of the affected Charter sections.
Copyright 2011. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Charter Revision goes online

Want to talk about how the city's nearly 100-year-old charter should be changed? Take a look at a new Facebook forum set up to discuss that very issue. It's a great idea for which we can thank former city Councilor Craig Minor, who's one of the new Charter Revision Commission's seven members.
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Charter panel ready to get down to business

In a lickety split meeting today, city councilors replaced a Democrat on the Charter Revision Commission with an unaffiliated voter. Now it's ready to do whatever it can do in three months, which isn't likely to be much.
*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Charter panel delayed; Ward blames councilors

Blaming two city councilors who failed to submit nominees in time, Mayor Art Ward said he had to delay the creation of a charter revision commission until February.

That will give the new panel only a few months to recommend potential changes to the city government’s blueprint if its suggestions are going to wind up on this November’s ballot.

Ward said he wants the commission to weigh a few ideas, including the possible extension of the mayor’s term from two to four years, and to report to the council in time to let voters decide any recommendations this year.

“There’s not a lot of time,” Ward said, so the commission probably can’t have the sort of wide-ranging discussions that past panels have had.

The mayor refused to say which councilors failed to offer the name of someone to appoint to the seven-person panel, though he did say that Acting Mayor Ken Cockayne submitted one.

Several city insiders said the former city Councilor Craig Minor, an ardent support of a city manager, was among the names that were submitted.

*******
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Charter revision back on the table

Mayor Art Ward said he plans to name a new Charter Revision Commission in January that would have the power to recommend changes in the city government's blueprint.
Possible changes include expanding the City Council and making the mayor's term four years.
But the panel has the right to pursue any ideas it chooses, which is always interesting.
Before any revisions become law, they need the backing first of the City Council and then the voters.
Ward said he would like to see recommended changes on next November's ballot so the commission's timetable will be short, which likely precludes wholesale rewrites of the nearly century-old charter.

*******
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Controversial charter issue will be on the Nov. 4 ballot

For the first time, a charter change that city councilors rejected is going to wind up on the ballot anyway.
After the city clerk certified this week that supporters of a proposal to create a chief operating officer at City Hall who would handle administrative oversight of the municipal bureaucracy had collected enough valid signatures, the only question is when the public vote will take place.
It appears, though, that city councilors next week will agree to put the controversial measure on the November 4 general election ballot.
“It’s time to put it to bed,” said Councilor Mike Rimcoski, an opponent of the idea. He said the public vote is likely to be close.
City Clerk Therese Pac certified that 3,661 of the more than 4,300 signatures submitted last month were valid, nearly 500 more than supporters of the proposal had to collect in order to force the referendum.
“I’m very happy. Ecstatic. Jumping for joy,” said former Republican mayoral contender Ken Johnson, one of the leaders of the effort to overturn the council’s rejection of the Charter Revision Commission’s unanimous recommendation to create the post.
Had the council favored the suggestion, it would have reached the ballot without the need for a petition drive.
But because councilors gunned it down in a 5-2 vote in June, supporters had to gather certified signatures from at least 10 percent of the city’s registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot.
The council has scheduled a tentative meeting for 5 p.m., Wednesday, Aug. 27 in order to pick a date to hold the referendum.
But since a majority of the council said Tuesday they prefer to put it on the November ballot, it doesn’t appear that alternatives will be seriously considered. They could wait as long as the 2009 general election to hold the vote.
Mayor Art Ward, who opposed the plan, said there is no reason to “belabor the issue” by delaying the public vote.
“The most people are out in a general election,” he said, particularly in a presidential year.
Ward said he is “not really surprised” that supporters got the signatures they needed because people sign petitions for lots of reasons. Not all of them actually back the proposed change, he said.
In any case, Ward said, he anticipates there will be an intense campaign between now and November as both sides try to sway the electorate.
The winners will be the ones who do best in getting their message out to the voters, Ward said.
Critics say the position will wind up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, intrude on the mayor’s ability to lead the city and contribute little to greater efficiency in government.
Supporters argue that a chief operating officer will find ways to streamline the bureaucracy and deliver services cheaper, easily justifying the added expense of the new position.
“I believe it will pass,” Johnson said. “It’s the right move at the right time.”
“We’re not the little town of Bristol anymore. It’s time for professional oversight,” Johnson said.
Johnson said that Pac and her staff, along with the registrars’ office, deserve credit “for tackling a really monumental task” in checking over all of the signatures gathered thi summer.
“It was an enormous undertaking,” Johnson said, and it was handled professionally.

More information:
Councilors who want the issue on the Nov. 4 ballot include Ward, Frank Nicastro, Rimcoski, Ken Cockayne andCraig Minor. For all I know, Kevin McCauley and Cliff Block also back it. I couldn't talk to everyone today.
I'll add some links below that go into more detail about the proposal, which will obviously absorb a great deal of attention in the weeks ahead as well.

Here are the draft Charter Revision Commission reports, which I believe were never changed:

Draft report - Final report of the Charter Revision Commission

Draft report - Citing major changes eyed by the commission

Draft Report - Showing entire charter with changes indicated throughout


*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Ward signs petition for chief operating officer referendum

Mayor Art Ward said today that he's already signed the petition to have the chief operating officer proposal reach the ballot box on November 4.
Ward said he wants to give people the chance to vote against the idea.
A petition drive kicks off Saturday when supporters of the plan begin their effort to round up more than 3,000 signatures to force the city to put the Charter Revision Commission's recommendation on the ballot.
Ward voted against it when the council shot down the concept on a 5-2 vote, but signed the petition anyway because he's interested to see if there's enough support to get it on the ballot.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Let the petition festivities begin

A petition drive is getting underway aimed at making it possible for the public decide whether to create a chief operating officer at City Hall.
Following a City Council vote on Monday to reject the idea, two backers of the position, veteran Democratic city Councilor Craig Minor and rookie Republican Councilor Ken Cockayne, said they plan to lead a bipartisan drive to secure the needed petitions.
Among those joining the effort is former GOP mayoral contender Ken Johnson, who accused Mayor Art Ward and the four councilors who opposed the plan of displaying “the height of hypocrisy” in refusing to give people the chance to choose their form of government. “I congratulate Mr. Minor and Mr. Cockayne for having the courage to stick to their convictions and I am proud to join them in a bi-partisan effort to right this wrong,” Johnson said.
To overturn the 5-2 council decision, backers need to round up more than 3,000 signatures from registered voters within 45 days. If they can pull it off, the charter revision proposal will automatically make the November 4 ballot.
Organizers seeking to let voters decide whether to create a chief operating officer in Bristol have scheduled a kick-off rally from 1 to 3 p.m. on Saturday in the Sovereign Bank parking lot on North Main Street.
“We’re going to generally have a festive atmosphere. There will be clipboards with lots of petitions,” Minor said Tuesday.
Backers say the post would bring more long-term planning and efficiency to municipal government, saving more money than the relatively small tab for a new office in city government.
Critics say the job isn’t needed and will cost taxpayers more at a time when Bristol is already struggling to hold down taxes and pare spending.
Two other proposals from the charter panel – to increase the terms of office for the registrars and assistant city clerk from two to four years – will be on the ballot following a unanimous thumbs-up from councilors.
Opposing the chief operating officer plan were Mayor Art Ward and Councilors Cliff Block, Mike Rimcoski, Kevin McCauley and Frank Nicastro. Rimcoski is a Republican. The rest are Democrats.

Update - Minor sent a press release out shortly before midnight Tuesday. Here it is:

One Republican and one Democrat City Councilman are conducting a petition signing event this Saturday, June 21 from 1 pm to 3 pm outside Sovereign Bank on the corner of North Main Street and North Street in downtown Bristol.

Ken Cockayne (R, Second Council District) and Craig Minor (D, Third Council District) are joining forces to give Bristol voters the chance to decide on the “Chief Operating Officer” position recommended by the Charter Revision Commission. The proposal was shot down by the City Council at a special meeting on Monday, June 16 on a 5-2 vote. State law gives the COO a second chance, but only if its supporters can collect enough signatures within 45 days.

"I feel very strongly that this is an issue that people should get to decide," Cockayne said.“Instead of the select few of us seven on the City Council, the choice should be made by city voters come November.”

Under Connecticut state law, the organizers have 45 days from June 16 to collect signatures from 10% of all registered voters in Bristol. They estimate that number to be just under 3,100. The wording of the petition was carefully developed by the committee to make sure it will pass muster with City Clerk Therese Pac and Corporation Counsel Dale Clift. “We don’t want a repeat of what happened several years ago, when a group of citizens wanted to amend the charter to require voter approval of certain “big ticket” items, but went about it wrongly” Councilmember Minor said. “We checked the state statutes to make sure the wording is right, and we’re going to make sure our signature-collectors know that the person signing the petition is a registered voter in Bristol.”

Registered voters who want to help collect signatures can contact Craig Minor (582-1061 or craigmm@aol.com) or Ken Cockayne (584-5918).

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Chief operating office idea KO'd

City councilors once again rejected a proposal Monday to create a chief operating officer at City Hall.
The 5-2 refusal to back the Charter Revision Commission’s call to establish the top administrative position effectively kills it unless supporters can round up the necessary signatures to force a referendum on the issue this fall.
The two backers of the idea, veteran Democratic city Councilor Craig Minor and rookie Republican Councilor Ken Cockayne, said they plan to lead a bipartisan drive to secure the needed petitions.
They have 45 days to pull it off.
But charter commissioners, businessman Craig Yarde and others have promised to help keep the plan on the front burner.
Backers say the post would bring more long-term planning and efficiency to municipal government, saving more money than the relatively small tab for a new office in city government.
Critics say the job isn’t needed and will cost taxpayers more at a time when Bristol is already struggling to hold down taxes and pare spending.
Two other proposal from the charter panel – to increase the terms of office for the registrars and assistant city clerk from two to four years – will be on the November 4 general election ballot following a unanimous thumbs-up from councilors.
Opposing the chief operating officer plan were Mayor Art Ward and Councilors Cliff Block, Mike Rimcoski, Kevin McCauley and Frank Nicastro.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Treasurer's job will remain an elected one

A proposal to dump the elected city treasurer’s position is dead.
The Charter Revision Commission opted this week not to challenge the City Council’s recommendation to leave the part-time elected post the way it’s always been instead of replacing it with an appointed professional.
Tim Furey, the chairman of the charter panel, said he was disappointed in the council’s lack of support for ensuring that only a qualified person could hold the treasurer’s post.
But, he said, he didn’t want “to pollute” the showdown over the proposed chief operating officer slot by including a plan to change the treasurer’s job as well. Charter commissioners unanimously agreed with him to drop the idea.
The final report of the charter commission will include three recommendations: to make the registrars of voters serve four-year terms instead of two, to have the appointed assistant clerk hold office for four years rather than two, and to create a chief operating officer at City Hall.
Councilors have already indicated they will back the changes in the terms of office so voters are virtually certain to be asked to vote on the revisions in the November 4 general election.The fate of the chief operating officer concept is less clear. It appears likely the council will vote it down this month and that supporters will launch a petition drive to try to get it on the ballot anyhow.
But the proposal to switch at an appointed treasurer cannot be revived this year.
One of the backers of the change, city Councilor Craig Minor, said that the treasurer’s post is “a technical and financial” one, not a policymaking role. He said it should be appointed so that those who hold it would have to possess the qualifications to do the job.
Minor, a Democrat, said it disturbed him that had voters picked the GOP’s treasurer candidate last year, the city could have had someone with no training for dealing with the position’s responsibilities.
But Cliff Block, a rookie Democratic councilor, said it’s impossible to set educational standards for an elected position.
“Shame on the Democrats or shame on the Republicans,” Block said, if they put up a candidate who doesn’t have the background to do the job.
Furey said he would prefer to have elected councilors choose a treasurer rather than having it done “in the back room of party politics.”
Republican city Councilor Mike Rimcoski said, though, that if councilors got to make the choice “it’s really going to throw it into the back rooms.”
He said he trusts voters to pick someone qualified for the $4,600-a-year job.
“The people will see the qualifications,” Block said.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Battle lines drawn on chief operating officer

Though city councilors told the Charter Revision Commission to nix the idea of changing the city government’s blueprint to include a chief operating officer, the seven-member panel unanimously agreed Tuesday to push for the plan anyway.
The move opens the door for a referendum drive to begin after the City Council again rejects the city manager-lite concept put forth by the charter panel.
“This is a very important issue,” said Tim Furey, the attorney who heads the charter commission. He said that residents want the opportunity to vote on the suggested change.
The charter panel’s decision followed a 75-minute joint session with councilors that sharpened divisions and set the stage for a push to create the new slot aimed at bringing more efficiency and oversight to City Hall.
Opposition to the scheme focused on its expense and possible lack of support in the community.
City Councilor Mike Rimcoski said officials would be “creating a monster” if they backed the recommendation from the charter panel.
But the other GOP councilor, rookie Ken Cockayne, said it’s important to “let it go to the public and let ‘em vote on it.”
What happens next is that the charter panel will file a final report within a week, after which the council will take a formal vote on each of the commission’s recommendations. Any that are backed will automatically appear on the November 4 general election ballot.
Anything that’s gunned down by the council – as the chief operating officer is almost certain to be – are dead unless supporters can get 10 percent of the city’s registered voters to sign petitions calling for the suggestion to reach the ballot as well. That means about 3,100 signatures will be needed within 45 days of the council’s vote.
Led by city Councilors Craig Minor, a Democrat, and Cockayne, a bipartisan push to gather the required names will begin soon after the council vote.
Seizing on comments by Mayor Art Ward and rookie city Councilor Cliff Block that they’d like to see if there’s enough support to get the required signatures, charter commissioners said they want the council to order city lawyers to help draft the necessary paperwork properly.
Furey said he didn’t want the proposal to die “because someone didn’t dot an I or cross a T.”
Dale Clift, the city attorney, told the charter panel that it could not legally discuss asking the council for legal assistance because the matter wasn’t listed on its meeting agenda. He said discussing it violated open government laws.
But Furey said the request would be part of the panel’s final report and thus was allowable.
Though Clift warned that including it “may jeopardize your final report,” Furey and the commission agreed to make it a part of the document anyway.
Four times they brushed aside warnings by Clift to stop discussing the matter.
“I’m a little flummoxed by it,” Clift said.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

COO proposal not dead

According to city Councilor Craig Minor:
Mayor Art Ward has scheduled a special City Council special meeting on Tuesday, June 3 at 5:30 to "confer" with the Charter Revision Commission over the changes to the Draft Report that the City Council requested on May 5. The Charter Revision Commission must submit its Final Report within thirty days of that meeting.

Minor also has set up a Facebook group called New 62 COO to help rally support for the proposed creation of a chief operating officer at City Hall. Check it out.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Chief operating officer idea could still survive

City councilors solidly rejected a proposal Friday to create a chief operating officer to oversee the administration of City Hall.
“We have a perfect form of checks and balances now,” said city Councilor Frank Nicastro, a former mayor who opposed the suggested charter change.
Though the vote isn’t the last word on the idea, it makes it much less likely that the fundamental shift in the city government blueprint recommended by the Charter Revision Commission will eventually win approval.
The council, on a 5-2 vote, recommended the charter panel drop the idea from its final report, which will likely be submitted in early June. But whether or not charter commissioners agree to drop the proposal, it is clear that the council won’t back it in the end.
However, there is another route to passage that even some opponents said they’re interested in.
The council also gunned down another charter panel recommendation that would shift the part-time treasurer from an elected to an appointed post. Only two councilors, Democrat Craig Minor and Republican Ken Cockayne, backed the change.
The two councilors who backed the chief operating position, Minor and Cockayne, said they would help gather signatures to force the city to put the recommended charter change on the ballot so voters could decide if they want it or not.
“Let’s let the people vote,” Cockayne said. Minor said the decision is “too big” for the council alone to make.
To pull that off, they’d have to collect signatures from 10 percent of the city’s approximately 31,000 voters within 45 days of the final council vote on the charter commission’s report, probably in late June and July.
City Councilor Cliff Block, who voted against the chief operating officer concept, said he’s interested to see if a groundswell of support for the idea really exists.
Mayor Art Ward, who also voted against the position, said he will support the petition process.
The council has the power to put the suggested change on the ballot even if its members don’t agree with the proposal. But there doesn’t appear to be support for doing so.
City Councilor Mike Rimcoski called the proposed chief operating officer “another layer of bureaucracy” that would cost taxpayers too much.
Nicastro said that the strong mayor form of government in Bristol has served the city well for nearly a century and there’s no reason to revise it. He said that arguments that department heads are out of control is “garbage.”
“People seem to be living in the past,” Cockayne said. “We have to be looking to the future.”
Ward said he doesn’t see a need for someone to manage the departments more directly than the mayor can.
“I don’t really believe the COO is going to be contribute anything positive,” Ward said.
Minor said he favors a city manager, but the new post is “a step in the right direction” toward bringing more professionalism to city government.
Minor changes that would double the registrars’ terms of office to four years and revise some wording in the charter section on the city clerk were supported by councilors. They are likely to appear on the November general election ballot.
I'll try to add some more details later about what each of the councilors said Friday so check back over the weekend if you're interested. I'll add them below this story.

Here's what Craig Minor had to say during the meeting:
I am in favor of the council-manager form of government. While the COO is not a true “town manager”, I believe it is a step in the right direction and is long overdue.
I listened carefully to the comments that were made in these chambers earlier this week. I have read my emails, listened to my phone messages, and read the blogs and newspaper articles and letters. Clearly this is an issue that people feel strongly about, and I think the people should be given the chance to vote on it in November.
A number of thoughts occurred to me as I was listening to Bristol citizens express their hopes, and their fears, about the COO, and I would like to share them with you.
1. People have asked, how much will the COO cost? That’s a fair question. I personally think that in the long run the COO will save us a lot more than he costs, but a better way to look at it is to think back to when desktop computers were just starting to become common in the workplace. Everyone wanted to know how much money would they save. Well, as it turned out, they probably didn’t save a penny. But they made it possible for us to provide much better service to our customers, and to do many things we never thought possible. They make us more productive. That’s what the COO provides.
2. Several times the other night I heard people say, “we don’t need another bureaucrat” as if the department heads are all the same and interchangeable. Were you referring to the Chief of Police and the Building Official? Or the Park Superintendent and the Public Works Director? These positions are all required by charter and the city could not function without them. Since the COO will help these departments function more efficiently, wouldn’t we want one now as we enter tough financial times?
3. A lot has been made of the council’s supposed inability to ever fire the COO. First of all, his contract would almost certainly contain a “buyout” provision in case the relationship between the COO and the Mayor and council completely breaks down. But this is an extremely pessimistic attitude. A city manager is someone who wants to do good, and if he finds he is not able to do good in Bristol, he will probably very much want to move on to a place where he is appreciated.
4. In a big corporation, the CEO at some point in his career has usually held one or more of the jobs that he now supervises. To the best of my knowledge no Bristol mayor has ever been a Finance Director, a Personnel Director, or a Public Works Director. I don't think any Bristol mayor has ever worked in any other town, so they’ve never had any first hand knowledge of best management practices used elsewhere. They have no way of knowing the right departmental goals and objectives, and they have no benchmarks to evaluate the performance of the department head. All they know is "the way we've always done it".
5. If we vote tonight to keep this proposal in the Final Report, we are sending a strong message that the Bristol City Council takes the business of governing seriously. This is the message that we want to send to companies and families who are thinking about relocating to Bristol, and especially to developers who are right now deciding whether or not to propose investing their time and money in the Depot Square parcel.
6. But more important than my opinion is the opinion of the people of Bristol. I think this issue to too big to leave up to the seven people sitting on the City Council.


*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Chief operating officer post rejected

In a 5-2 vote, the City Council Friday urged the Charter Revision Commission to kill its proposal to create a chief operating officer position.
Only two councilors, Craig Minor and Ken Cockayne, backed the new position.
It appears likely, though, that a petition drive will take place in June and early July to try to get the suggested change on the ballot anyway.
To pull it off, supporters will need to convince about 3,100 registered voters to sign petitions calling for the public vote.
The council also rejected a proposal to make the part-time city treasurer an appointed position rather than an elected one.
Details to follow.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Charter decision may come today

There's a special City Council meeting at 5 p.m. today -- Friday, for those who are blissfully unaware of the calendar -- to determine the fate of the Charter Revision Commission's recommended changes to the city's blueprint.
The most controversial measure is, of course, whether to create a chief operating officer for the city.
Though the idea is almost certainly going to be voted down, there's a good chance that won't actually happen today.
Instead, some have told me, the commission will probably be asked to ramp up the educational requirements for anyone seeking the full-time position. A vote on the proposal itself will likely come later.
But you never know with this council. It's certainly possible the council will simply dump the concept today.
I'm not sure what's going to happen to the other vaguely controversial recommendation to turn the part-time treasurer into an appointed position rather than an elected one. With all the hoopla over the chief operating officer, the treasurer suggestion has gotten little attention.
I'll be there to let you know what happens today, but if you're curious to see city government in action - or its inaction, perhaps -then feel free to come to the meeting itself. What a great way to start the weekend!

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Pro and con on chief operating officer idea

A proposal to create a chief operating officer for City Hall drew tough arguments pro and con Monday.
The president of the Greater Bristol Labor Council, Mike Petosa, said the charter revision suggestion to create the job is being driven by a small group of business people “who are willing to play economic chicken with the taxpayers’ money.”
Petosa called the idea of creating a costly new job “fiscally irresponsible” at a time when Bristol’s political leadership is searching for ways to carve spending from its budget.
But Craig Yarde, a businessman who is pushing for more professional management at City Hall, said the city has a problem with its management structure that a chief operating officer would help solve.
“We have a management team that turns over every two years,” Yarde said, including the mayor, who is de facto CEO.
“On top of that, we have two opposing political teams on the management team working at times against each other. You can see why it's difficult to get a everyone rowing the boat in the same direction,” he said.
“What we are talking about here is giving an assistant to the mayor and council to help with all the moving parts,” Yarde said.
But Petosa said that the city is better off with a strong mayor who answers to the people directly. Mayors “know Bristol” and have a strong commitment to its future, Petosa said.
“Our form of government is a democratic process,” he said, that gives the people the right to pick their own chief operating officer every two years.
“We don’t need another level of government coming in an creating havoc,” Petosa said. “It would be very, very detrimental to our city.”
Yarde said that he believes hiring “a gray-haired seasoned executive with knowledge of municipal affairs to assist the members on the management team” would be well worth the expensive.
“We need to have a management team that can be more effective in meeting short and long term goals,” Yarde said.
Yarde said that city councilors should let the public decide whether to make the change in city government by putting the Charter Revision Commission’s proposal on the ballot this November.
But it appears that the council will vote 4-3 next week to kill the suggestion unless one of its members has a change of heart. It’s possible there will be an effort to revive the suggestion through a referendum process if the council votes as expected.

Here's Yarde's full speech for Monday's 6 p.m. hearing at City Hall on the suggested change in the charter

My first question is how many emails did you receive for and how many against the new COO proposal by the Charter Revision Committee. I received this email from a union member. Here is what the AFSCME is emailing their members:

PEOPLE POWER IN BRISTOL
The Bristol City Council is considering an ill-advised plan to create a new Chief Operating position. The COO would be like a city manager- an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat running the city. Bristol has done well for all these years. Please contact the members of the city council and tell them we don't need this unnecessary expense. The powers should remain with the mayor and other elected city officials.

I don't know how many of the 1.4 million members received this email but I would dismiss those that came out of the city and all those that came out of state. I went to the AFSCME site and with a click auto mailed all of you a email against the COO position. I listed my real name, with a Southington address. This email is wrong because the union is saying the COO position will be unaccountable. The COO will be working for the mayor.
If the management(mayor/council) team doesn't agree his/her skills he can get fired with no law suit against the city.
But, I lied when I sent the email through the AFSCME web site. I would prefer a town manager but a COO would be a step in the right direction.
Six months ago when I announced to the media my preference for a council/manager form of government, never in my mind did I realize I would be going against the unions. I thought the opposition would come from the councilmen who wanted to be mayor in the future.
Four or five years ago, Yarde Metals a non union company sent a thousand dollars to the men and women on strike for a very long time at a union shop on Pine Street. The UAW official at the time told the media that they had no problem accepting a check from a non union company. They said if employers treated their people like Yarde Metals, we wouldn't need a union.
Taking care of labor equally with management is what made Yarde Metals successful.
The problem with the city is not labor, The problem is the upper management organizational structure. Look at what we have here. We have a management team that turns over every two years including the CEO (mayor). On top of that we have two opposing political teams on the management team working at times against each other. You can see why it's difficult to get a everyone rowing the boat in the same direction. Forget about it!! What we are talking about here is giving an assistant to the mayor and council to help with all the moving parts. I'm advocating hiring a gray haired seasoned executive with knowledge of municipal affairs to assist the members on the management team. This COO knowledge will give our leaders a lot of value. We need to have a management team that can be more effective in meeting short and long term goals. The city needs to create a lean environment similar to Toyota. Everyone must be on board to eliminate all waste and create more efficiency. I think the future will get tougher than better and if we don't improve our organizational structure, there will be more 6 mil increases. I know some of you have conflicts because you get union benefits. You can agree or disagree with this change. All I ask of you is to pass this on so that voters can have a chance to determine our future in a referendum next year. The last four Charter Revision Committee have tried to get this to the public for a vote. Please pass it on. Let the voters decide. After all they are on top of the organizational chart. Thanks

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Council unlikely to back chief operating officer

I still haven't heard from city Councilor Cliff Block directly, but I'm told by those who are counting votes that only two city councilors - Ken Cockayne and Craig Minor - support the chief operating officer recommendation made by the Charter Revision Commission.
One of those who oppose the idea, Mayor Art Ward, is willing to put the idea on the November ballot for the public to decide.
But the other four councilors - Frank Nicastro, Block, Kevin McCauley and Mike Rimcoski - apparently don't want to see the suggestion go any farther.
That would set up a 4-3 vote against allowing the public to vote on the chief operating officer concept, assuming the vote counters have it right.
If that's how it plays out this month, Cockayne has already vowed to try to get a referendum to create the position. He said he'll try to get Minor to join the effort, too.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

A thoroughly ineffective lobbying tactic

Opponents of the proposed chief operating officer for City Hall have been bombarding Mayor Art Ward and City Council members with a generic email. Though many senders hail from Bristol, plenty of others are scattered across the state.
What they have in common is that they're all sending the same message:

The Bristol City Council is considering an ill-advised plan to
create a new chief financial officer position. Bristol has done
well without one for all these years. Another six figure salary
that requires a two-thirds vote to remove is not going to help
move Bristol in the right direction. Taxpayer dollars could best
be spent on projects that would directly benefit city residents.

Right or wrong, anybody who hopes to have any influence ought to put their thoughts in their own words. All this sort of thing does is irritate the officials who receive the notes.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

Charter Revision report, with details about chief operating officer position

Here is the draft report, in Word format

Here is a draft report detailing the major proposed changes, also in Word format

Here's a draft detailed "redlining" of the charter to show the exact changes proposed, also in Word format


*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com