Give Groton voters the chance to decide

It is not that we agree with all the changes. We don’t. But the charter commission worked within the parameters set by the council and the voters deserve a chance to act on its suggestions.

T he long-running battle over proposed charter changes in Groton has revealed deep divisions among residents. A Charter Revision Commission, after more than a year of work, recommended fairly sweeping changes for the town’s government, including elimination of the elected Representative Town Meeting. Residents are divided over the proposals, with large factions seemingly entrenched in their respective opinions.

As such, it’s unfortunate the previous Town Council, in its waning days in power no less, snatched by a 5-4 vote an opportunity to bring to the ballot a series of suggested changes in how the town will govern itself into the future.

We believe residents’ rights to decide this matter should be restored, as some townspeople are now striving to provide through a petition drive. But they have faced a difficult task in trying to collect the signatures of 1,900 registered voters by this Friday’s deadline. The holiday season and the recent frigid outbreak have made their task more difficult.

It is not that we agree with all the changes. We don’t. But the charter commission worked within the parameters set by the council and the voters deserve a chance to act on its suggestions. If you’re a Groton resident, and registered to vote, seriously consider signing if given the chance.

When the Charter Revision Commission was seated in 2016, the Town Council asked that it specifically address whether the town clerk should be appointed or continue to be elected, whether the 41-member RTM is too large and whether the town should have an annual budget referendum, something it currently does not.

The commission’s final report recommended the RTM be dissolved and that an annual referendum decide the fates — in separate votes — of the general government and school budgets. In addition, the commission recommended formation of a seven-member Board of Finance, whose members would be elected by voting districts.

In mid-October, the council agreed with many proposed changes, but also recommended the commission make the town clerk an appointive position and retain the manner in which the council is elected. The commission had recommended 4-year staggered council terms, but the council wanted the terms to remain two years in length and have all council members elected at the same time. In its final report, the commission left the council election process unchanged. However, it also called to keep the town clerk an elected office.

But in November, at its final meeting before a newly elected council with eight new members took control, the outgoing council rejected bringing the commission’s final recommendations to a referendum.

The merits of the individual charter recommendations are open for debate. Groton is a large town that decided decades ago to forgo the traditional smalltown New England form of government. We consider an annual budget referendum — especially one that pits education funding against general government needs such as police services, and public works — to be a bad idea. Budget referendums are costly and often decided by a relatively small group of voters. Voters don’t need to act directly on every budget, because at election time they can turn out officials who they believe are not representing their financial interests. Indeed, Groton voters have not been shy about forcing complete turnovers on the council via the ballot box.

Also, despite the fact that most Connecticut towns continue to elect their town clerks, we think this position requires a level of professionalism that can best be attained through appointment.

The issue of whether or not to dissolve the RTM is not as clear cut. There is no doubt that 41 is a big number and both political parties have struggled to find enough interested and engaged residents willing to run and serve. Problems have occurred when some members are perennially absent and unresponsive to their constituents. There might be ways to solve those issues short of complete dissolution and replacement with a Board of Finance, however.

So you see, we’re not crazy about these ideas. But regardless of the merits of the proposals, we hold firm that the work of the Charter Revision Commission deserves the respect of being put to the ultimate test, at the ballot box, a process that would allow these ideas to be debated and approved or rejected on their merits.