New London Budget Challenge Set For After Conclusion Of Budget Year

In a bizarre chapter in the ongoing dispute over New London’s 2013 municipal budget and tax rate, the City Council accepted a petition challenging the measures on Monday but set a referendum vote to occur four months after the end of the 2013 fiscal year.

The date was set automatically after a vote on having an earlier referendum or taking other action on the petition fell short. The City Charter says that if a petition goes to referendum, the vote must take place at the next municipal election not less than 30 days after the council decision. Since today’s election falls within that period, the next valid municipal election for a referendum would be in November of 2013. The 2013 fiscal year ends on June 30.

Let Patch save you time. Get great local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone every day with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.

The council voted against adopting Law Director Jeffrey Londregan’s legal opinion that the petition was invalid and also decided against repealing all or part of the budget. Votes on scheduling a referendum in December and adopting the approved budget and tax rate as an emergency measure during a referendum process fell short of the majorities needed to pass.

Validity, rights issues

The council voted 5-2 last week on Oct. 9 to approve a , a 5.1 percent increase over the 2012 tax rate. The decision followed a Sept. 18 referendum in which voters rejected a $42.3 million budget with a 7.5 percent tax increase.

Following the revision, Londregan said in a memo to Mayor Daryl Finizio that past precedents dictated that further referendums are not possible once the city has spent 25 percent of the prior year’s approved budget. Based on the opinion, Finizio instructed City Clerk Nathan Caron to not accept any further petitions on the budget.

Finizio later said Caron should accept budget petitions but not act upon or certify them. Londregan said in a Thursday e-mail to Finizio that petitions should be certified as well since it would put the city in a more defensible position if the issue goes to court.

“I feel it is in the best interests of the city to have this matter brought to a conclusion so that there is some finality; and I think, from a legal standpoint, the best way for there to be finality is to have the city clerk certify the petition to the City Council notwithstanding its ultimate invalidity,” said Londregan.

Caron verified that the petition submitted to his office on Oct. 25 contained at least 483 signatures, the minimum necessary to certify it for submission to the council.

Some residents have accused the administration of seeking to deprive them of their right to petition. Dennis Downing said several people he spoke to weren’t opposed to the budget but signed the petition in protest of Londregan’s legal opinion. Bill Cornish, spokesman for the group Looking Out for Taxpayers, accused the administration of trying to use the opinion to quash the petition process.

“[Finizio] wants to hide behind a judge’s robes,” he said to councilors. “What do you want to do?”

Finizio said he thought the city should not go against the legal precedent, which was based on 2003 opinion that budget challenges should not be possible after the 25 percent expenditure because “the city simply cannot shut down and suspend all services to allow a potential never ending process of petitions to send a budget to referendum.” He said continued challenges could also lead to insolvency or having to once again issue tax bills based on the 2012 budget.

“It’s never been my intention to use legal technicalities to short-circuit any charter process,” he said.

Councilor feedback

Council President Michael Passero said he interpreted the charter language differently and that he considered the use of the word “shall” as indicating mandatory actions that the council needs to take to act on a petition. The section says the council may reconsider the matter under petition, repeal all or part of it, or send it to referendum vote.

“I think we’re on safer ground if we simply follow what the charter says and let it play out,” said Passero.

Councilor Adam Sprecace said he thought the council should take the first option outlined in the charter. He said he did not believe there were many areas to cut in the budget, but that the city would be able to save some money by eliminating the salaries and benefits for some positions that have remained vacant.

“I think it should be repealed,” he said. “I think it should be lowered. I think that will satisfy the petitioners.”

Councilor John Maynard also agreed with this suggestion.

“I see lots of areas where we can get small amounts,” he said.

Council President Pro Tempore Wade Hyslop and Councilor Don Macrino spoke against accepting the petition. Hyslop said he had to consider the number of residents who did not sign the petition.

“There’s a will there also that has to be heard…There’s many more people out there who did not sign petitions, or this petition, and did not want to see it go to referendum,” said Hyslop.

“I believe that our city can become paralyzed if we do one referendum after another,” said Macrino.

Votes fall short

The council failed to pass several amendments to an agenda item accepting Londregan’s Nov. 1 opinion for the record. The first amendment, to adopt Londregan’s opinion that the petition was invalid, failed 3-4 with Maynard, Passero, Sprecace, and Councilor Marie Friess-McSparran opposed and Hyslop, Macrino, and Councilor Anthony Nolan in favor.

Another amendment sought to repeal all or part of the budget and tax rate adopted on Oct. 9. This also failed 3-4, with Hyslop, Macrino, Nolan, and Passero opposed and Friess-McSparran, Maynard, and Sprecace in favor.

A third amendment sought to schedule a referendum vote on Dec. 11. It required a five-sevenths vote to pass and only mustered four votes in favor: Friess-McSparran, Maynard, Passero, and Sprecace. Hyslop, Macrino, and Nolan were opposed. Londregan and Passero said that under the charter, a referendum vote must still be scheduled for the next municipal election in November of 2013.

A final amendment, requiring a six-sevenths vote, was on whether to have the Oct. 9 budget and tax rate in effect as an emergency measure during the referendum process. This vote fell short with Hyslop, Macrino, Nolan, Passero, and Sprecace in favor and Friess-McSparran and Maynard against.

Finance Director Jeff Smith said he considered that the Oct. 9 budget and tax rate remain in effect.

“Basically, they’ve accepted the petition to go to a vote, but by the charter the vote isn’t until after the fiscal year is over,” he said.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.