Print

Is Charter Revision Still Dead?

By Jeffrey B. Cohen

July 27, 2009

Looks that way.

Last week, Corporation Counsel John Rose asked the Office of the Secretary of State for guidance in an email. Specifically, he asked for an opinion on whether the entire process was a "nullity" because the council failed to follow the law and hold the proper public hearing.

An attorney from the state responded that he could not give a legal opinion. He did say, though, that "a safe course would be to start the Charter Revision process again although it is not required."

Read the email exchange below. Start at the bottom.

------------

From: Bromley, Ted

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 3:54 PM

To: 'Rose, John '

Subject: RE: Status of the City's C harter Revision Commission effort

Dear Mr. Rose-

As we discussed on the telephone, taking into account the timeframes involved and the missed process, a safe course would be to start the Charter Revision process again although it is not required.

Sincerely,

Ted Bromley

Staff Attorney

----------------------

From: Rose, John [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 3:36 PM

To: Bromley, Ted

Cc: Carey, Daniel M.

Subject: FW: Status of the City's Charter Revision Commission effort

Mr. Bromley, thank you for your response [Ms. Stupnitzki works in my office]. Dealing with the issue as a matter of elections law/practice, would you advise the Town and City Clerk not to put the matter on the November ballot given the lack of compliance with State law? Please advise. JohnRose, Corporaton Counsel

-----------------------

From: Stupnitzki, Chantal M.

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:17 PM

To: Rose, John

Subject: FW: Status of the City's Charter Revision Commission effort

FYI

------------------

From: Bromley, Ted [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:04 PM

To: Stupnitzki, Chantal M.

Subject: RE: Status of the City's Charter Revision Commission effort

Dear Ms. Stupnitzki-

Although we would like to be of assistance with your inquiry, we cannot provide you with a written opinion to your question as the authority of this office extends only to Title 9 of the Election Laws. However, during our recent telephone conversation we did indicate that issues could be made with the Charter Revision process because of the City Council's inaction. As such, a safe course would be to start the Charter Revision process again although it is not required.

Sincerely,

Ted Bromley

Staff Attorney

----------------------

From: Stupnitzki, Chantal M. [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:54 PM

To: Bromley, Ted

Cc: Carey, Daniel M.

Subject: Status of the City's Charter Revision Commission effort

Dear Mr. Bromley:

Your spoke with Dan Carey (the City Clerk) and me today concerning the status of the City's Charter Revision Commission report, which was timely produced in draft and delivered to the City Council timely. After that, little was done according to the dictates of the applicable state statutes, Chapter 99, Sec. 7-191.

No public hearing was noticed or had by the Council and the time frames ran, all as set forth in Sec. 7-191(b). The Council failed to comply with Sec. 7-191(b). The time to correct that oversight has passed. I have the Commission Counsel and the Chair of the Commission on record as believing that the public hearing requirement is not waivable and that the failure to have a public hearing taints the process.

I would ask that you respond to the following question, in writing:

Whether, after the Hartford Charter Revision Commission draft report was transmitted to the Court of Common Council, the failure of the Council to notice or schedule any public hearing on the report, as required by C.G.S. Sec. 7-191(b), renders the process a nullity?

Thank you for your assistance.