The proposed overhaul of the city’s charter, the document that outlines how the municipal government operates, went down to defeat on Nov. 3, with more than 14,000 votes cast on the question. Final totals published by City Clerk Patricia Horvath certified 7, 621 opposed the changes, while 7,182 were in favor.
The proposal put forth by the Charter Revision Commission was a dramatic alteration of the municipal make-up. It would have changed the city from a Mayor-Council form of government to a City Manager-Council, with most of the day-to-day operation going to the manager, while the mayor would become chairman of the council.
Other changes included adding professional certification for many city officials, while consolidating the city’s 10 council districts into three, with four representatives for each district.
Though the report from the CRC was filed in the summer of 2019, the City Council decided to postpone the vote on the question until the Presidential Election date, thus saving the financially strapped city money for a special election.
The matter lay dormant until this summer, when an Education Committee attempted to reintroduce the changes to the public via on-line sessions and a presentation outlining them.
Though the alterations received mixed reviews originally, a concerted effort by a group called Concerned Citizens of West Haven mounted an anti-proposal effort. The group charged the alterations would cause voters to “lose their vote.”
Former CRC Chairman Ed Granfield and his Majority Leader John Carrano attempted to explain the proposal in several columns. The two were especially frustrated by what they believed was a misinformation campaign with many myths. Among the “myths” was the allegation the new charter would revamp the departments and eliminate positions. Both tried to counter that claim.
In the end, the negative publicity gave the anti-charter group the margin of victory.
This was destined for failure. The loss of Political Power would have turned the City upside down. As Walter Winchell once said “West Haven, the most corrupt little City in America”. No truer words were ever spoken. I also had the pleasure associated through my family with “Mr. Speaker” Tip O’Neill. Once having a couple of Hull’s Ale at Johnny Last’s Randall’s Restaurant with the “Tipper” while he visited my family in West Haven, he followed up with the same Winchell characterization of Westie land in a jokingly fashion.
There were other underlying factors here at play in this proposal for a City Manager form of government. I know many of those factors that were at play in particular a member of the City Council that had a vision for that City Manager position.
Where I come from, the statement “the negative publicity gave the anti-charter group the margin of victory” would be considered opinion rather than fact, unless there is some data to back it up. The article didn’t include any supporting data for this claim..
I believe some people –maybe even most people– voted against the proposed Charter revision not because of negative publicity, but because the proposed solution to West Haven’s problems wasn’t the right one.
I suspect (my opinion) that if the Charter Revision Committee had focused on some of the structural issues of our existing strong-Mayor system of governance –increase the Mayor’s term to four years and require professional credentials for many of the City’s top administrative jobs– and addressed the need to pursue performance management guidelines going forward, the outcome would have been positive. West Haven needs to demand that its elected and appointed officials be held accountable to objective performance standards.