Editorial

For the first time in a decade, the city is forming a Charter Revision Commission to review and revise the operating document under which West Haven’s government operates. Announcement of the resolution calling for empaneling of a commission was made earlier this month by City Council Chairman Ronald Quagliani (D-at Large).

Under the terms of the resolution, a seven- or nine-member commission will be seated, and include a cross-section of residents, and political and civic leaders. The council asked for applications of those interested in sitting on the commission, once established, and that deadline passed this week.

In explaining his hopes for the commission, Quagliani is hoping some streamlining of city government as well as term limits and new term intervals are established. Particularly, he would like to see term limits in the mayoral and conciliar positions. This is an idea that has been bandied about in past revision attempts, with little success. We think it is a good idea, and Quagliani’s suggestions are good ones.

Specifically, he would like the mayoral limit to be two four-year terms. The current charter has no limit as to years of service, but does have mayoral elections every two years in the odd-year. This is a good idea based on history and political reality.

Historically, there have been only two mayors since West Haven went to a mayor-council form of government that served one term. Mayor William Heffernan, not a bad mayor in the early 1970s, was a victim of the tripartite factionalism that has dominated Democratic Party politics in this city for three generations. In those days the Bill Roper, Fred Johnson and Harold Allen jockeyed for dominance in the party much like the Picard, Borer, Morrissey factions do now. Heffernan ran afoul of two of the factions and was shown the door after two years.

The only other mayor to be voted out after one term was Republican Clemente Evangeliste. Evangeliste, a businessman, took advantage of the nascent financial difficulties that arose under Democrat Azelio “Sal” Guerra, promising to run the city “like a business.” In fact, he and his administration showed an incompetence that saw the city run a $17 million deficit, which eventually brought the state in to bail us out. The effects of that budgetary imbroglio are still being felt today with it contributing mightily to the demise of the city’s once competitive Republican Party.

A four-year term is a good one, then, based on the city giving most mayors more than one term. A four-year term would allow an administration to advance an agenda without having to worry about re-election before the drapes in the mayor’s office got dusty.

His idea about the council is both intriguing and, we hope, the point of discussion. He would like to see term limits on the council, but he has his own twist on the subject: staggering the terms of the council members similar to that of the Board of Education. The board, a nine-member panel, elects three members every two years, allowing for continuity. That might be a very good alteration on the council, allowing for continuity, rather than displacement and reorganization every two years.

We would like, however, one more change on the council. Under the current charter, the minority party gets a minimum of one member – the highest polling minority vote-getter – to sit on the council. In the history of the City Council, voting patterns give the majority – most times, a 12-1 majority on the 13-member legislative body.

We support – and have supported in the past – the addition of two more seats on the council to 15 with those seats being at-large positions. We propose that three of those seats be majority and two minority. Many times, minority members have issues and or proposals they’d like to see discussed on the council, but fail for lack of a second. Under this change, minority representation – those that represent voters throughout the city – would have the ability to bring issues and motions to the table and have them discussed in open session. This would open up discussion and varying views of opinion, allowing voters to make informed decisions.

Finally, we would like to see the council adopt a less-stringent voting requirement for alteration of the city budget. This conforms to a similar proposal by Quagliani. Under the current charter provision, altering a line item on the mayor’s proposed budget takes a super-majority of nine votes on the 13-member council. This has made altering the document nearly impossible over the years.

A simple majority plus one, or a simple majority would be a change in the charter we would favor. The council reviews the entire budget, and should be able as the legislative body to make its own changes as a separate and equal branch of government. Too often, alterations supported by the majority have failed because of this all-too-often impossible standard to meet of nine votes. Meant as a check, it is, in fact, an inhibition to good and thoughtful discussion on the part of the council.

We urge the commission well, once it is empaneled. It has an 18-month mandate that is important for all residents .