CITY OF HARTFORD CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION
A. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM by Chairman Allan Taylor. Present were Commissioners Ackerman, Al-Ghani, Bailey, Castillo, Del Castillo, Colon, Holmes, Kennedy, Mendez, Noli, Secord, Stewart, Taylor, Wareing, Warren. Also present were Attorneys Mednick and Kaufman, staff Bayer and members of the public and press. The meeting was broadcast by Channel 21, government access television.
B. Public Comment:
Councilman Kennelly discussed the creation of council districts and indicated that he had come to believe that districts would exacerbate divisions among people in the city. In order to serve the city, council people must understand the whole city. Districts will expose the councilperson to a limited set of issues and all of his/her energy will be devoted to those issues. A basic tenet of education is exposure to diversity and this also applies to the Council.
Councilman Kennedy discussed the number of council people. He noted that increasing the number beyond nine would increase the budget, not just for the additional elected officials, but for their staff. He suggested that a larger council would also increase the difficulty of reaching decisions. With regard to a mixture of districts and at large council people, Councilman Kennedy raised the issue of minority party representation. He noted that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the city 9 to 1. We run the risk of legislating council people for life and there is a need for turnover and fresh blood among elected officials. He also noted that Hartford is looking for its next leaders and they need a community-wide focus to lead the city. Lastly, he suggested that, with a strong mayor form of government, the mayor should no longer be part of the council.
Clark King, lifelong Hartford resident, discussed the recommendation of the Commission to appoint the members of the Board of Education. He reminded the Commission of the long and sometimes dangerous efforts to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and emphasized how important the right to vote is. He asked the Commission to “let us as Hartford residents have our right to vote”.
Dr. Ramon Rojano, Director, Human Services, City of Hartford and resident of Hartford, commended the Commissioners for their willingness to volunteer and asked the Commission to include reference in the charter to the human needs of the people of Hartford. He noted that 47% of residents live below the poverty level, health is deteriorating in the neighborhoods, a high number of residents are in jail, and 40 – 50% of adult residents have some level of illiteracy. Hartford is a city in transition and it is risky to not address these issues in some way in the charter. He urged the Commission to include language in the charter that requires the city to have in place administrative structures and action plans that address health, human services, recreation and other community services. He provided the Commission with suggested language.
C. Approval of Minutes: It was moved and seconded (Wareing, Del Castillo) that the minutes for March 21, 2002 be accepted as presented. The motion passed with 13 in favor (Ackerman, Al-Ghani, Castillo, Del Castillo, Colon, Holmes, Mendez, Noli, Secord, Stewart, Taylor, Wareing, Warren), one abstention (Bailey), and one absent (Kennedy).
D. Discussion of the Court of Common Council: The Commissioners discussed the following issues: number of council seats, district elections, minority party representation, and terms.
Minority Party Representation: Commissioners expressed their desire to guarantee a minimum number of council seats for non-majority party members. Attorney Mednick, asked to comment, referred to his memo of March 14th. In brief, the State Statute governing minority party representation applies only if all council members are elected at-large. Therefore, if any members of the Council are elected from districts, the statute does not apply. Towns are free, however, to apply the concept of minority party representation if they have district elections. Therefore, it is a policy decision for the Commission to make.
Attorney Mednick noted that Danbury uses a “sliding scale” to assure minority representation. Danbury has a 21 member council, two members elected from each of seven wards and seven elected at-large. If all fourteen district council people are elected from one party, then at least four of the at-large seats must be filled by a non-majority party. As the percentage of district majority party representation decreases, so too does the number of at-large seats which must be guaranteed for a non-majority party. Attorney Mednick also noted that a sliding scale is not required; there could be a certain number of seats always set aside for a non-majority party.
The merits of minority representation guarantees was discussed. Such a rule prevents non-majority party members from being disenfranchised in the event that all elections are won by one party. It also may result in minority parties focusing only on “their” seats and may de-energize the party. It was suggested that the key for minority parties is to focus on the unaffiliated and the unregistered.
With regard to the sliding scale approach, concern was expressed about whether close district elections, requiring a recount, might hold up the seating of the full council, since the number of at-large seats to be filled by non-majority parties wouldn’t be known until the outcome of the district elections was known. It was suggested that electing district council people in a different year than the at-large council people would address this issue.
Districts: It was suggested that district elections are one way to encourage the development of new leaders. It is easier to run in a district since the candidate can go door to door to all voters, does not need as much money to run, and can become known at the “neighborhood” level through involvement. They allow neighborhood leaders to move into elected office. Districts provide the start of a leadership path which then leads to an at-large council position and then to Mayor. Districts also make residents feel more represented. They know who to call with problems and concerns. Concerns were expressed about parochialism and an increased inclination to “deal-making” or “log-rolling”. Districts might result in less cohesion in the council. Hartford is a small city and should strive for more unity, not less. Districts can increase citizen participation by improving response to citizens and helping them understand government. It was noted that, of the 35 towns included in the survey distributed at a previous meeting, only one did not have district representation. The sizes of the districts were discussed. Larger, fewer districts would allow for more than one councilperson per district; more and smaller districts would help residents feel more represented.
Number of Council people: Concerns were expressed that increasing the number of council people beyond nine would put pressure on the budget due to increased costs. It was noted that each council person may not need a full-time staff. In the past, there was one staff person for every three council people. It was also noted that funds can be found for what is needed as long as we prioritize. It was suggested that a larger council could result in more people to do the work. This would allow people who have to make a living to undertake the council duties. A larger council might be unwieldy. On the other hand, the Commission has 15 members and has worked well. The two new options considered by the Commissioners were an eleven member council and a fifteen member council.
Terms: The merits of two-year and four-year terms were discussed. Two-year terms allow the voters to make their opinions known in a short period of time. Four-year terms allow elected officials to learn the job and accomplish something before they have to run for office again. It was suggested that district council people and at-large council people could be elected in different years. This would avoid a total turn-over and would allow keep the public more involved by retaining elections every two years.
Recommendations: The Commissioners agreed that they would recommend more than nine council seats, that the council would be elected in a combination of district and at-large elections, that the term of a council person would be four years, and that there would be a guarantee of minority party seats. They debated a variety of combinations to achieve those objectives. A role call vote was taken on the number of council seats. The results were as follows:
Eleven seats: Ackerman, Al-Ghani, Castillo, Kennedy, Noli, Secord, and Warren
Fifteen seats: Bailey, Del Castillo, Colon, Holmes, Mendez, Stewart, Taylor, and Wareing.
Following the vote, the Commission asked Attorney Mednick to draft language to create a fifteen member council, with nine council people elected from districts, and six elected at-large. Council people would serve four year terms; at large and district elections would be staggered. The district elections would take place at the same time as the mayoral election. The at-large elections would take place in the alternate two-years. Three seats for minority representation would be guaranteed using a sliding scale as follows. If all district seats are held by the majority party, at least three of the at large seats must be filled by a non-majority party. If eight district seats are held by the majority party, at least two of the at-large seats must be filled by non-majority parties. If seven district seats are held by the majority party, at least one of the at-large seats must be filled by a non-majority party. If six or fewer of the district seats are filled by the majority party, there is no restriction on the at-large seats.
E. Review/Revision of Draft: It was agreed that this topic would be addressed at the April 2, 2002 meeting.
F.
Agenda for Next Meeting: The
Commission will review the entire draft charter.
(Commissioners were asked to contact Attorney Mednick with any changes or
suggestions.) Chairman Taylor will
prepare a draft letter to Council for review at the next Commission meeting.
Commissioners Castillo and Colon advised the Commissioners that they
would not be at the next two meetings.
G.
Other Business:
Ms. Bayer was asked to notify the Hartford 2000 mailing list of the
public hearing scheduled for April 4, 2002.
H. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Serafin Mendez-Mendez
Secretary
End.