CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION CITY OF NEW HAVEN

May 13, 2013 Hon. Jorge Perez President, Board of Aldermen City Hall 550 Church Street, 2nd Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Hon. Ron Smith City Clerk Hon. Sally Brown, Deputy City Clerk New Haven Hall of Records 200 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06510 Re: Report and Submission of the Charter Revision Commission

Dear President Perez, Members of the Board of Aldermen and Clerk Smith: Pursuant to 7-191(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes we are pleased to submit to the Office of the Town and City Clerk the Report of the Charter Revision Commission in the form of a Proposed Revised Charter for City of New Haven, dated May 13, 2013 (Proposed Revised Charter). This report is the culmination of a Charter Revision Commission process that began with organizational meetings in late 2012, a series of four public hearings at Davis Street, Hillhouse High, Jepson and Conte West Hills Schools, over twenty meetings of the full commission or Sub-Groups. The second statutory public hearing was held on May 7th at the Conte School. The final meeting adjourned on March 13, 2013. It is our duty to submit this draft report to the City Clerk who, in turn, will transmit the document to the Board of Aldermen for consideration. The General Statutes now require a review by the Board of Aldermen with at least one (1) public hearing to be held not later than forty-five (45) days following submission to the Clerk. For the record, the submission date is May 13, 2013. Final action by the Aldermen must take place not later than fifteen (15) days after the last public hearing. In effect, if the Board of Aldermen utilizes the entirety of the time afforded to it, the date for final action or return to the Commission for further action would be July 11, 2013.
Members Hon. Michael Smart, Chair Nilda Aponte Kevin Arnold Hon. Delphine Clyburn Arlene DePino Edward Fertik Joelle Fishman William Ginsberg Caleb Kleppner Melissa Mason Brian Perkins Carmen J. Reyes Hon. Mark Stopa Elizabeth Torres

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION CITY OF NEW HAVEN In the meantime I and the members of the Commission would be happy to participate in any workshops, meetings of hearings to discuss the Proposed Revised Charter. At the time of the transmittal there were a number of issues that the Board asked the Commission to review.
Item #1 Review and make recommendation regarding increasing the term of office from two to four years for the positions of Mayor, City Clerk and Alderman Registrar of Voters and if changed, at what date should the change be effective Recommendation: Term of Office. Item #2 6.B of Article II retains Current

Review and make recommendation regarding decreasing the term of office from four to two years of the Registrars of Voters and if changed, at what date should the change be effective. Recommendation: Term of Office. 6.B of Article II Retains current

Item #3

Review and make recommendations regarding term limits for the Offices of Mayor, City Clerk and Alderman, and Registrar of Voters and if changed, at what date should the change be effective. Recommendation: No action on term limits, due to the lack of an express grant of statutory authority (see, 6.B of Article II).

Item #4

Review and make recommendations regarding the salaries or stipends for each Offices of Mayor, City Clerk and Alderman, and Registrar of Voters and if changed, at what date should the change be effective. Recommendation: Aldermanic addressed in 11.B of Article II. compensation is

Item #5

Review and make recommendations on whether the Mayor should sit on any board or commissions and if changed, at what date should the change be effective? Recommendation: The Mayoral Role on Boards and Commissions is addressed in 3 of Article III. Review and make recommendations on the total number
Transmittal Letter - 2

Item #6

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION CITY OF NEW HAVEN

of Aldermen; whether the number should increase, stay the same or decrease, and if changed, at what date should the change be effective. Recommendation: Retention of 30 wards is set forth in 3.A of Article II. Item #7 Review and make recommendation on whether all boards and commissions should be confirmed by the Board of Aldermen including, but not limited to, the Board of Fire Commissioners, Board of Police Commissioners, the City Plan Commission, the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Board of Education. Recommendation: Aldermanic confirmation of boards and commissions is generally set forth in 2.A(1) of Article III, 1.A of Article VII. Item #8 Review and make recommendations on whether the Board of Education should be elected, appointed, a combination of both or appointed and confirmed by Board of Aldermen. Recommendation: The proposed hybrid Board of Education, comprised of 5 appointed and 2 elected members is set forth in multiple provisions including the following: 3.B, 4, 6.A and B of Article I; 3 of Article V; 3.A of Article VII. Item #9 Review and make recommendations on the Civilian Review Board powers including but not limited to its powers, its member terms, its composition, and the process of appointing its members. Recommendation: The Civilian Review Board is codified in 4.B of Article VII. Item #10 Review and make recommendations on the Democracy Fund Board powers including but not limited to its powers, its member terms, its composition and the process of appointing its members and place in Charter. Recommendation: A program already exists under the limited state legislation regarding a PILOT program. There is no general authority for public finance.

Transmittal Letter - 3

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION CITY OF NEW HAVEN

Item #11 Review and make recommendations on the qualifications for the Department of Parks, Recreation and Trees, deputy director including but not limited to requiring that the deputy director be a licensed and certified arborist. Recommendation: Charter includes language that requires appointees qualified in accordance with nationally accepted professional standards and best practice (See, 2.C of Article VI). Item #12 Review and make recommendations for the definition of residency as it relates to residency requirements in the charter. Recommendation: (1) Local Preference Provision (See, 1.K (2) of Article XIII) and (2) Consistent use of domicile and elector (See, 4.L of Article I). Item #13 Review and make recommendations concerning the process to have a member of the Board of Aldermen serve in the place of the Minority Leader when the Board is fully composed of members from one party. Recommendation: Discretion to create third leadership position in the event there is no minority party on the Board of Alders (See, 2.A of Article IV). Review and make recommendations concerning to clarify the process of amending the wards of the City of New Haven, including situations where technical corrections are required. Recommendation: Eliminate ability of reduction of wards in the redistricting process (See, 4 of Article II). Item #15 Review and make recommendations concerning to clarify the ability of the Board of Aldermen to abate motor vehicle taxes and other taxes in situations that can not be defined as poor and unable to pay. Recommendation: Modify poor and unable to pay standard by referring to the statutory standard providing for flexibility if the law changes (See, 5 of Article IV). In addition to the specific requests of the Board the Commission addressed a number of issues raised by the public as well as a result of the general review of the current charter: (1) In 2.A (1) of Article III; 3.A of Article VI language is added to address Aldermanic Confirmation of Department Heads;
Transmittal Letter - 4

Item #14

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION CITY OF NEW HAVEN

(2) In 3.A(2)(a) of Article VII the charter includes a provision for Student Representation on BOE; (3) 1.B (1) and (3) of Article XIII provides a method for modification of the standard of appointment for entry level employees of the City (Rule of 3); (4) 5.D and F of Article VI and Article XIV transfer and sunset the current purchasing provisions and modification of bond requirements so that they may be adopted by ordinance; and, (5) General clean-up of language, restructuring of the document, consolidation of language, elimination of duplication and gender neutrality are addressed throughout the proposed charter.

It has been our honor to serve you. Respectfully submitted, NEW HAVEN CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION

By: _______________________________ Michael Smart Chair

ms:sgm:oto

Transmittal Letter - 5

CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION CITY OF NEW HAVEN Not Change for the Sake of Change. The review of the current Charter was thorough within the context of the time allowed under the Aldermanic resolution. This Commission attempted to tackle some of the more significant structural and governance issues facing the City of New Haven as we face the challenges of governing in the 21st Century. The Commission was guided by the proposition that the people of our City deserve a government that is accountable and best able to meet the demands faced by municipal governments in our time. From the beginning, the Commission strived to create a document that is organized, comprehensible and flexible. The Proposed Revised Charter is designed as a constitutional document, a directory of the relative powers (and constraints) of the government of our City. Accordingly, the Proposed Revised Charter is driven by the desire to achieve both a greater level of accountability and maintain the flexibility to address public needs as they arise. We believe that government officials should be answerable to the people and that the government should be flexible enough to react by budget or ordinance to meet the present-day needs of the people. The Proposed Revised Charter is substantially different from our current governing document in many respects. The Bridgeport Charter, like many in Connecticut, is a by-product of Special Acts and referenda changes dating back to the 19th century. These provisions have been enacted without regard for internal consistency and have, over the years, remained intact side-by-side with piecemeal revisions adopted by subsequent special acts or referenda. These provisions have remained in the Charter in spite of legal conflicts with intervening preemptive legislation, collective bargaining provisions and other laws resulting in enormous interpretative challenges for Mayors, members of the City Council, the City Attorney and the average citizen. At the outset it became clear the Charter posed some daunting organizational challenges. The greatest of these challenges stemmed from the fact that the Charter had been organized not by function; but rather by department. One of the first conclusions reached by the Commission was if we accomplished nothing else we would strive to re-organize the Charter on a functional basis. In other words, if the functions of the government are clearly delineated, public officials and private citizens alike will have a greater understanding of the processes that are of central importance to the quality of life in Bridgeport. If, after all, the document cannot clearly convey the form and structure of the government, how can the citizens or, even, government officials, effect positive change?

Transmittal Letter - 6