Charter Revision Killed Without Warning

A once-a-decade effort to update Hamden’s charter — aimed at increasing financial transparency and accountability; and moving to four-year mayoral terms — died suddenly, without public explanation, due to a vote taken Wednesday night.

The vote was taken, with little debate, by the Hamden Legislative Council.

Rather than examine individual proposed changes, the council voted to veto the entirety of a 145-page new charter, which was the result of nearly a year of volunteer meetings, tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs, and numerous legislative workshops and debates.

Six council members, including the three Republicans, Marjorie Bonadies, Austin Cesare, Betty Wetmore, and Democrats Kathleen Schomaker, Valerie Horsley, and Berita Rowe-Lewis, voted against the charter in its totality.

Five representatives, including Democrats Dominique Baez, Brad Macdowall, Jody Clouse, Jeron Alston, and Adrian Webber voted to approve the charter with the given edits voted on by the council earlier that evening.

Eight votes — the majority of the 15-member council — would have been necessary to get the charter on to the Nov. 2 general election ballot. Three council members— Kristin Dolan, Athena Gary, and Justin Farmer— were absent from the Aug. 11 meeting. Neither Dolan nor Gary are running for reelection in the upcoming municipal election. In addition, District One Representative Mick McGarry resigned mid-term back in July, leaving one seat unfilled and yet another vote unaccounted for.

The council’s tight decision followed a vote taken by the Charter Revision Commission — the group of 15 volunteers who worked together to draft the charter beginning in September — in which the final document barely passed in an eight to seven vote.

However, on May 25, that same commission had voted unanimously in favor of their first draft of the charter. It was only after the Legislative Council reviewed the document that tensions rose within the commission itself, despite the fact that few substantial changes were actually made to the original draft after May.

The Council vote reinforced and displayed a pre-existing split between Republicans and conservative Democrats on one hand, and those who identify as more progressive Democrats. The former group voted to kill the proposed charter; the latter group voted to approve it.

Bonadies and Cesare have been outspoken critics of the proposed revised charter since it was first presented to them back in May. Bonadies called it a ​“left wing manifesto” multiple times. The moderate Democrats who voted against the document Wednesday night did not appear to vocalize clear concerns about the the charter during the final public meetings on the subject.

Schomaker and Rowe-Lewis are also running as on slate with Incumbent Mayor Curt Leng in the Sept. 14 upcoming Democratic municipal primary elections, on a ​“pro-police” platform.

The proposed charter would have included four-year mayoral terms (rather than the current two-year terms), a new finance commission, a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commission, and a pathway to a Civilian Review Board with subpoena power. It contained measures aimed at professionalization of administrators, budget checks, and heightened police accountability. Click here to read one take on why Hamden’s charter revision process matters — or mattered.

“It’s outrageous that a mayor and the Legislative Council would appoint an independent, diverse group of citizens to revise the town charter and then dismiss all of their recommendations,” stated commission Vice Chair Downing.

She said that after the unanimous May 25 vote by the commission to move forward with the charter, which preceded the council’s initial reviews, the process ​“deteriorated into a partisan game that had not been present the preceding nine months.”

“They had things they didn’t like but wouldn’t say out loud,” she said. She said that none of the council members who voted against the charter ​“articulated any specific objections to items that could’ve been addressed in meeting,” noting how the council only returned 28 items back to the commission after they submitted their first draft, the majority of which were minor language changes.

The commission agreed on 24 of those items, she said, and only two — including an item created by Bonadies asking for curriculum transparency— were heavily debated.

Wednesday night’s vote came as a shock to many. Councilwoman Dominique Baez was the only member who voted in favor of the charter who actually had her camera on during the meeting. As everyone around her rejected the document, her jaw dropped.

There was a long silence after the final vote — then a quick motion to adjourn. Brad Macdowall vocalized a vote against adjourning, but the Zoom was immediately shut down.

The public technically could still pass the charter, though such an action would require significant coordination and engagement: 10 percent of Hamden’s registered voters — 3,657, based on numbers filed by the Town Clerk on Aug. 1 — would have to sign a petition within 45 days of Aug. 11 to get the charter onto the ballot in either the Nov. 2 general election or a separate special election.

Mayor Curt Leng did not respond Thursday to a request for comment on the vote.

Lauren Garrett, the endorsed candidate in an upcoming Democratic mayoral primary, blasted Wednesday’s vote, saying it constituted a waste of town money and citizens’ time in crafting proposals that would have helped Hamden move forward. ​“The Leng Democrats and the Republicans voted to kill charter reform,” she said during an appearance Thursday on WNHH FM’s ​“Dateline Hamden” program.

Procedural Qualms

Councilwoman Bonadies told the Independent Thursday she is ​“very pleased with the results of last evening.”

While Bonadies had expressed disapproval over various components of the charter — like a four-year mayoral term and district representation on commissions — she did not cite the substance of the charter as her reason for voting ​“no.”

She stated the makeup of the charter commission — whom the Legislative Council appointed last year — as the problem. She said that because certain members of the commission changed parties during the process, and because the entire procedure was ​“rushed” and ​“denied minority party members the ability to voice concerns,” she believed the proposed charter ​“had no mandate to govern 61,000 people.”

Bonadies stated that the party affiliations of commission members ​“stacked the deck” against those representing the Republican Party.

She said she would pursue elements of the charter that she liked –- such as the creation and finance commission and DEI commission -– through separate ordinances.

Controversy over political party representation in the charter revision was a debate at virtually every meeting of the Legislative Council concerning the charter.

Steve Mednick, the attorney hired by the town to advise the charter process, called such complaints unfounded. At the time at which the commission was originally appointed, it was made up of seven Democrats, six Republicans — including the chair of the Republican Town Committee and 2019 Republican mayoral candidate Jay Kaye — and two unaffiliated individuals.

In the spring, Jay Kaye changed from the Republican party to the Independent Party, changing that ratio to 7:5:1:1.

Then, in late July, commission Chair Frank Dixon registered as a Democrat, switching from an unaffiliated status. That altered the ratio to 8:5:1:1.

According to state statute, eight Democrats was the cap to ensure ​“bare majority” of the primary party.

However, Marnie Hebron also changed from unaffiliated to Democrat after the commission had voted on the charter and was no longer active. The commission was technically not yet disbanded. Mednick said that such a transition would have only been an issue if there had been more than nine Democrats voting on the charter itself. He saw no legal concern, as the makeup of the charter only became imbalanced only after the commission’s work had concluded.

“It’s legal, maybe, but not ethical,” Bonadies maintained.

Mednick pointed out that according to party history analyses provided by the town registrar, only two individuals who had previously changed their party affiliation before joining the commission: Jackie Downing, who was registered as a Republican in 2001, switched to the Democratic Party. And Todd Moler, who has expressed conservative views on the commission, registered as a Democrat in 2020 — right before the commission was assembled— after previously identifying as a Republican.

Such controversy reached a climax on Wednesday night, when Bonadies and Cesare placed blame on Mednick for an allegedly imbalanced council.

“You voted them in, not me!” he exclaimed, noting that Bonadies and Cesare and the Legislative Council had chosen the commission members.

“The entire process has been legal,” Mednick told the Independent.

Disrespectful Politics

“Make no mistake about it,” Brad Macdowall (who is running for the mayoral nomination in the Democratic primary Sept. 14) stated right after the meeting concluded on a phone interview. ​“This result is entirely because of political reasons.”

“This is personal — and the sheer level of disrespect that was shown to our volunteers and the people we asked to labor for endless numbers of hours … we asked volunteers to do ten months of work and then we just voted no for petty reasons.”

“This is exactly why we need four-year terms,” he added. ​“This is a perfect, perfect, perfect example of why two-year terms are catastrophic. People are always running for reelection and not able to get anything done.”

He suggested that council members voted no to preserve partisan divides and fulfill personal agendas rather than make compromises that would serve ​“public interest.” 

Councilman Farmer, who was absent on Wednesday, said he was not able to make the meeting because he was ​“caught up with a ton of different stuff,” both professional and personal. He noted that it was the first meeting he had missed in the past two years of his current term.

“The reason that this truly failed is because Republicans rule the town,” he asserted. Even if he had been able to make the meeting, he argued, the charter still wouldn’t have passed.

“The moderate Democrats— just call them Republicans,” he said, adding that independents like Jay Kaye who made up minority party representation should count as conservatives, given ideological and political history.

“Why kill the charter?” he asked. ​“Because it had actual accountability. They killed a charter that said we want a capital budget and we want you to have five year plans. They killed a charter that said we want police accountability and to restore trust in policing. They killed a charter that said we want diversity and equity on boards and commissions.”

“Why would Democrats do that? Because they’re not Democrats,” he repeated.

“People voted to reelect these people,” he said. ​“Schomaker works for the town, she works for the mayor, and now she’s petitioning with the mayor to get back on council. That’s not a conflict of interest?” Schomaker is Hamden’s energy efficiency coordinator.

He recalled how council members repeatedly got in fights during charter workshops, saying how ​“if we had these measures 10 or 15 years ago, maybe we wouldn’t be in ruin” — but then voted against those same measures.

Farmer said he would start knocking doors Thursday morning to get petition signatures in hopes of getting the charter onto the ballot. ​“It’s up now to the taxpayers, if they want lower taxes, that’s up to them. It’s up to the Democrats to make sure you’re voting for these ballot initiatives, and if they don’t do that, then shame on us as a community.”

“Shame on us for collecting leaders who clearly don’t care about the financial and emotional well-being of community members, and shame on us for not being able to come together and do what’s right.”

Kathleen Schomaker, one of the Democrats who voted against the charter, declined to speak to claims of conflicts of interest or political motivations.

In response to why she voted ​“no,” she said, ​“First, I would not want the taint of possible political misconduct hanging over our guide for the next decade.”

“Optics are what matter,” she asserted. She declined to state whether or not she believed misconduct, like the complaints put forward by Bonadies, were valid, or exactly why she understands ​“optics” to be a priority over the substance of the charter.

She said that she agrees with the policies put forward in the charter like finance and DEI commissions and greater police accountability. She noted that she has already spoken with the mayor and town attorney about how to begin drafting ordinances to achieve those goals.

However, she said, the proposed new charter is not ​“transparent or readable.” She called the current charter, which she worked on ten years ago, more accessible. The same attorney, Steve Mednick, who wrote this year’s proposed charter also wrote that decade-old document.

She asked whether a ​“Hamden High School student, second language student, or college journalism student” would be able to understand the charter were they wanting to do a ​“deep dive” into the town’s primary document.

She said she wanted it ​“edited and translated into plain spoken English that would be understandable to a wider audience.” She asserted that the commission and council ran out of time, and were unable to successfully negotiate due to the limits imposed by Zoom and a commission that she said was too large.

Messages were left with Berita Rowe-Lewis and Valerie Horsley. They did not respond before the posting of this article.

Commissioners Respond

Republican Town Chair Frank LaDore, who served on the charter commission, said that he agrees with Schomaker’s sentiment that the process was cramped into too short of a timeline.

“I voted in May to put it through to the council because I knew we would have public input and that items would come back to us,” he said.

Later on, ​“during our deliberations,” he said, ​“it felt like they were rushing us through and things got contentious. There were things that I voted for and lost and I didn’t feel, personally, along with others, that our voices were heard.” He did not specify which elements of the charter he had wanted included.

In response to LaDore’s comments, Downing said, ​“We could’ve kept talking about those smaller items forever; the answer was going to be the same thing.” While they had a finite timeline, she said, they held seven meetings in two weeks in advance of the Legislative Council’s second review, using essentially every night they had available to discuss and respond positively to the council’s concerns.

Charter Revision Commission Chair Frank Dixon noted that ​“the commission spent over 350 volunteer hours and 10 months” on a long process of ​“approving revisions for the charter” based on ​“data taken from public input, from research, from comments from relevant directors and experts. We democratically passed the charter onto the city council.”

“It wasn’t the charter that failed,” he concluded. ​“It’s the Legislative Council that failed the voice of the citizens.”