Narrow charter questions for NL voters

The New London City Council should narrow the myriad changes recommended by the Charter Revision Commission to three questions. First, should the administration of the city be placed in the hands of a mayor elected by the voters? Second, should the charter be amended to repair outdated language? And, last, should the city clerk be hired through the personnel department, rather than politically appointed?

This is enough for voters to chew on in the Nov. 2 election. Other changes proposed by the commission are either problematic, needlessly confrontational or simply not good ideas.

This newspaper has repeatedly made clear its preference for a mayor-led form of government. A mayor, accountable to the voters and with the power to appoint department heads, can better lead New London than an appointed city manager who has to keep seven city councilors happy.

A mayor can set an agenda and appoint the people he or she needs to accomplish it. A mayor can veto legislation that runs counter to that agenda. A leader elected by the people will get greater respect in the political halls of power in Hartford and will be answerable to the people if he or she fails to get the job done.

In the coming election, New London voters deserve the chance to make a clear and unambiguous decision on this important question.

As for other questions, we recognize the need to make adjustments to modernize the charter. And hiring a city clerk based on ability and experience makes sense. It is not the job of a city clerk to pursue political goals, but to carry out record-keeping duties in accordance with regulations.

The charter commission also wants to change the council, with four members elected at large and one from each of the city's three voting districts. All seven are now elected at large.

The city attorney has found legal flaws in the construction of this proposed change, reason enough to put it on hold.

But there are other problems. Individual voters, who now get to elect all seven councilors, would choose only five. A councilor elected by voters in one district would have equal power to a councilor selected by all voters. And it could prove difficult to find willing and qualified candidates in a particular district. Norwich experimented with a precinct system from 1987 to 2001, but abandoned it for this reason. In many precincts candidates ran unopposed.

True, residents from the 3rd District, the city's most affluent, now dominate the council, but good grassroots politics in all neighborhoods can address that imbalance.

The charter commission wants to give voters the chance to vote on the education and general government budget separately, through the petition process. As we've said, in other communities that pursued this bifurcated approach - it's a bad idea. Voting on budgets separately pits families with children in the schools against senior citizens. Rather than encouraging unity of purpose, separate education and general government votes divide a community. The council should leave this proposal on the cutting-room floor.

Another idea, an elected Board of Finance, appears half-baked. The requirement for monthly financial reports seems much to ask for board members who "serve without compensation." Some duties proposed for the five-member board mimic those given the finance director. The existing, appointed finance board, provides a sufficient check and balance.