STAMFORD — An legal professional advising the town’s Constitution Revision Fee had unhealthy information for supporters of time period limits for native elected officers: They can not do it.
The Board of Representatives in February appointed 15 residents to the fee, which is able to recommend 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 an inventory of concepts to think about. One of many gadgets on the listing was time period limits for elected places of work.
However legal professional Steve Mednick advised a panel of metropolis representatives final week that such time period limits could be unlawful.
“The difficulty of time period limits all the time comes up in each city, each metropolis that I’ve executed charters in,” Mednick mentioned. “And I might be issuing an opinion principally that states that time period limits usually are 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 advised The Stamford Advocate that the one powers “native governments have are these categorical grants of authority that the legislature offers you below the state Structure — Article tenth on dwelling rule. So if it is not expressly granted to you, then you do not have … the facility.
“There may be some wiggle room below the courts the place they enable you to suggest powers out of the categorical grant of authority,” he added. “But it surely’s received to be very direct and really near what the direct grant of authority is. And so there is no such thing as a regulation, there’s nothing that offers you authority to … term-limit elected officers.
“I all the time have to present the unhealthy information,” he mentioned.
Nevertheless, cities can impose time period limits on appointed — versus elected — officers “as a result of that is a part of the administration of presidency,” Mednick mentioned.
In concept, he mentioned, the Basic Meeting might move laws to present municipalities the choice to ascertain time period limits for elected officers.
Time period limits do exist in at the very least a number of municipalities in Connecticut. Mednick mentioned he was conscious of the 2 that had them: Bristol and Wilton.
In Bristol, time period limits apply to the mayor in addition to members of the town council and the Board of Training. In Wilton, members of the elected boards, apart from the primary selectman, face time period limits.
“I feel that these provisions usually are 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 advised the town in 2021 that the provisions had been unlawful. Sustaining time period limits was a marketing campaign precedence for present Bristol Main Jeff Caggiano, a Republican who defeated Democratic incumbent Ellen Zoppo-Sassu final 12 months.
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 vital intensive fees” he has ever seen.
The fee may also 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 are anticipated to carry extra hearings within the coming months.
Rep. Nina Sherwood, D-8, mentioned there are a handful of proposed adjustments specifically that “have a variety of help on the board and a variety of help within the public sphere.” These embrace clarifying sections within the constitution that must do with petitions for or towards amendments to the town’s grasp plan, zoning map or zoning rules.
Sherwood mentioned one other high challenge is whether or not the boards of representatives, finance and training ought to have impartial authorized counsel. Presently, the constitution states that the town’s company counsel should act because the boards’ authorized adviser. The Board of Representatives can retain impartial counsel for “a selected case or controversy” if at the very least 31 members vote in favor of it.
As well as, Sherwood mentioned he believes the board and members of the general public would love the fee to handle what occurs after the time period of an appointee to a metropolis board or fee 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’ evaluation. The board will later resolve which constitution adjustments are put to voters.
Whereas a closing resolution 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 putting the questions on the poll subsequent 12 months could be “too rushed.” Plus, he famous, turnout for an off-year election will possible be low.