CHESTER

On Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, Chester voters will go to the polls and decide whether or not the town should adopt a proposed charter which would result in numerous changes to its governmental structure.

Residents are split on whether the charter marks a step in the right direction for Chester. Lawn signs sprawled throughout neighborhoods are reading, “Keep Your Right to Vote! No Charter for Chester,” and, “Vote Yes - Chester Charter - Right Time,” as members of town boards and commissions are divided on whether a charter government is the right direction for the town and its residents.

Two of the charter’s most prominent supporters are First Selectman Cindy Lignar and Selectman Pat Bandzes. Lignar said that the adoption of the new town document would amount to a “huge” and “historic” decision for Chester residents.

Lignar and Bandzes informed the Valley Courier that the adoption of the charter would not amount to a radical shift in the structure of Chester government. Rather, the structure would change in order to make the town’s operations, boards, and commissions more efficient, participatory, and representative of its ideologically diverse residents.

Lignar and Bandzes said the proposed charter has the backing of former members of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) who recognize the increased complexity and restrictions in town operations which Chester has frequently faced over the years.

“These are people that have been in the job. They've served the job. They know what it involves, and they support it,” said Bandzes.

According to Lignar, “Running town government has become increasingly complicated, and the charter provides a much-needed reliable and complete government structure.”

Lignar and Bandzes said that a charter government would not undercut voting rights. This is a common misconception which they have seen in oppositional arguments.

According to Bandzes, “The charter provides more opportunities and better representation for voters compared to what currently exists under state statutes.”

Examples cited by Lignar and Bandzes include an expanded BOS with five members representing more viewpoints, along with the ability for residents to call a special town meeting in the event that the finance board rejects funding for specific recommendations—something which would not be possible under the current structure. Voters would maintain their power as the ultimate legislative authority over the annual budget and other important town financial decisions.

Some town officials do not share the views of Lignar and Bandzes. Selectman Paul Radicchi and Board of Finance (BOF) member John Chillock believe that a charter government is not the right fit for a town like Chester with its population of less than 4,000. They also see issues with appointing members to “critical regulatory boards,” especially the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), instead of electing them, as well as a perceived consolidation of power by a new BOS regarding town finances.

Much of their concerns echo the same sense of weariness which several residents had at a public hearing on the charter in January.

Opponents said there is the dangerous risk of having a “patronage system” stemming from an expanded BOS and feel that this something which could easily determine the decision making of influential regulatory boards. Radicchi said the PZC is “the most critical board” in this situation.

“That can change the character of the town,” said Radicchi. “They want to have five selectmen. There’s going to be three from a majority party. If they happen to have some specific agenda there, they can handpick pretty much who they want on that board that follows their agenda.”

An argument for PZC members being appointed instead of elected is ensuring that the most qualified individuals make decisions based on the duties and responsibilities of the board.

This is a problematic shift in view of residents such as Pete Zanardi. As a former member of various town boards, Zanardi said there is a “major difference” in the decision making of elected commissioners versus appointed, and he believes that having the latter would be a way to “restrict” the vote of residents who will feel ignored. This is something which could reach its pinnacle with an appointed PZC.

“The Board of Selectmen is pretty much telling the body politic, ‘We're smarter than you are.’ I’m not ready for that,” said Zanardi. “The way I look at this is you're taking something away from me as a member of the town.”

The adoption of a charter would see the replacement of the BOF with a Financial Accountability Board (FAB). Chillock believes that the way the charter’s language reads would create an imbalance of power between the new BOS and the FAB which would not be friendly to town electors.

Chillock takes issue with the ability for the BOS to hold a town meeting regarding financial matters which did not get approval from the FAB, as well as the fact that there would be no required number of electors in attendance in order for an agenda item to be voted on under the charter structure.

“Five people could come to that meeting and make that decision because they didn't put that same statute in there,” said Chillock. “That’s scary.”

Opposing town officials also feel that a charter is not necessary for administrative changes, citing the recent ordinance of the tax collector being appointed, and adding that the hiring of a town administrator could be achieved through a town meeting vote.

Bandzes “fully acknowledges” that argument, but said that ordinances may not go the distance to support necessary solutions in the long term. Instead, “a charter puts everything in one place,” said Bandzes.

Lignar added that that “periodic charter reviews offer the flexibility to adapt to the structure to reflect our community's ever-changing needs.”

For more information on the charter, residents can visit chesterct.org/charter-commission to the view the final report by the former Chester Charter Commission and recordings of public hearings on the report.