CHESTER— Tuesday’s Board of Selectmen meeting ended abruptly in a shouting match between neighbors and local officials about the fast approaching vote to approve a town charter.
Selectwoman Patricia Bandzes stood up at once as the meeting came to an end.
“Look in the freaking mirror yourself,” said Bandzes, who is registered as unaffiliated, pointing with both hands at one of the neighbors, Philip Reynolds, who criticized the board’s role in the charter discussion.
The argument was sparked by questions from a group of five neighbors about a mailer circulated by a pro-charter political action committee that included quotes from 6 local notables seemingly in favor of the charter referendum — four former first selectpersons, the acting first selectwoman and Bandzes, who formerly served as a selectwoman in Middlefield and now holds the same position in Chester.
Joe Cohen, an opponent of the charter, claimed that at least three quoted in the mailer — Tom Marsh, Bettie Perreault and Charlene Janecek— actually opposed the referendum. According to Cohen, the mailer falsely implied support for the proposed charter rather than more general support for the idea of a town charter.
First Selectwoman Cynthia Lignar, a Democrat, defended the mailer and the accuracy of the quotes during the meeting.
And Cohen responded sharply.
“It misrepresents a lie,” said Cohen. “The future of Chester is just cheap politics for you.”
“We don’t need to be insulted by you,” replied Bandzes.
“I am not insulting, I am telling the truth,” Cohen said.
“I’m not listening to it. Can we move on, please?” Bandzes said. “I’m not taking this shit from you, sorry.”
“Go back to Middlefield,” said Cohen.
The increasingly heated discussion reached a point where Lignar interrupted another neighbor mid-sentence, ending the meeting without even a vote to adjourn.
About those quotes…
Subsequent calls and emails to current and former town officials quoted in the pro-charter mailer undercut those claims made by Cohen
Reached by email, Marsh confirmed that the mailer quoted him accurately and reflected his views on the charter referendum.
“I support the charter,” Marsh said in an email. “I do not believe the document is perfect, but it is a step in the right direction for Chester’s governance.”
Perreault, in an email, declined to say whether she supports or opposes the charter but confirmed that she approved the quote used in the pro-charter mailer.
Janecek confirmed via text message that she had written the quote and knew it would be used in a pro-charter mailer. But she said her statement was not a “glowing endorsement” and that she did not know if she could vote for the charter as presented given what she said were “serious problems” with the appointment of planning and zoning officials.
Meehan confirmed by phone that he also supported the charter and his quote was used accurately in the mailer.
Neighbor against neighbor
But the tense meeting on Tuesday was at odds with a narrative that advocates of the charter related to CT Examiner in early October, of a smooth process and constructive debate.
Laurence Fearon, a Democratic member of the commission appointed to write the charter, told the CT Examiner the process had taken 16 months with neighborly input and eventual consensus.
“It was exactly the kind of process you would want your town to go through,” Fearon said. “It was not partisan.”
But according to Peter Zanardi, an 83-year resident of the town who attended Tuesday’s meeting, he could not recall an issue that had divided the town so much and for so long as the charter.
A Democrat and a former three-term selectman, Zanardi is part of a group of residents opposed to the proposed charter. In early October they met with CT Examiner at Pattaconk Yacht Club to explain their point of view.
“Everything seems to be giving the Board of Selectmen more power,” Zanardi told CT Examiner. “I don’t wanna buy what they are selling me. The price is too high.”
Chester is one of 55 Connecticut towns without a charter and governed instead by a centuries-old model of local government established by state statute, with decentralized power, elected or appointed boards, legislative authority reserved for town meetings, and a three-member board of selectmen.
Of the 46 towns with fewer than 6,000 residents, like Chester, five are governed by a charter.
In 2023, Chester’s Board of Selectmen appointed a commission to draft a charter addressing the growing complexity of local governance, the need to maintain a continuity of executive authority, the lack of community engagement and the struggle to find a sufficient number of volunteers for the town’s many boards and committees.
In response, the commission drafted a charter that would reorganize local government — increasing the Board of Selectmen from three to five members, expanding their terms to four years, granting them partial legislative power and eliminating the Board of Finance which would be replaced with a financial board with somewhat curtailed authority, and converting several elected boards and commission to appointed positions.
The charter also creates the professional position of a town administrator to handle day-to-day governmental tasks, relieving the town’s First Selectman of some of that burden.
Checks and balances
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Zoning Appeals Board – often the most contentious in local government – would no longer be elected, a significant concern for Zanardi and many charter opponents.
“If I’m elected, my obligation is to the people who elected me. If I’m appointed, my obligation is to the board. That’s a big difference,” Zanardi said. That is scary when you think the Board of Selectmen is gonna rule for four years. For four years I have had no check on them.”
Selectmen’s terms would last four years and would not be staggered.
Zanardi also warned of the inherent conflict of a Board of Selectmen appointing both Planning and Zoning members and the board that would review their decisions.
For Aaron Zain, a Democrat and an alternate member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the changes are troubling because they target boards that shape local development.
“They can change the whole character of the town,” Zain said.
Paul Radicchi, a Republican selectman, warned that while the charter offers avenues to reverse decisions by the Board of Selectmen, the hurdles are high and grant the board too much power.
“If you vote for five people, you are now giving up your right to vote,” Radicchi said.
The proposed charter requires just three of five selectmen to appoint a board member but requires a supermajority of four to remove a member.
An ordinance approved by the Board of Selectmen could be overruled by a Town Meeting but would require 140 signatures to call for a meeting and at least 50 votes to nullify the decision. The same rule applies to ordinance petitions.
But Zanardi said that their opposition to the charter wasn’t personal.
“We are not accusing anybody of anything here. We are saying this is a possibility,” Zanardi said. “There is a potential that is scary if you’ve got people that literally have more power than the voters.”
Financial oversight
The charter commission initially proposed eliminating the Board of Finance and transferring its functions to the Board of Selectmen. The final proposal instead replaced the Board of Finance with a Financial Accountability Board without the power to veto spending.
Currently, if the Board of Selectmen wishes to appropriate more than $20,000, under state statute, the selectmen need the approval of the Board of Finance and a Town Meeting.
Under the new rules, even if the Financial Accountability Board votes down an appropriation, the matter could still be taken to a Town Meeting for a vote.
The charter would also raise the spending threshold from $20,000 with a Town Meeting to .4 percent of the town’s budget – about $60,000 today.
John Chillock, a Republican member of the Board of Finance who has led opposition to the charter warned of the risk of giving selectmen such a free hand with spending.
“They can spend quite a bit of money without any oversight, without any checks and balances,” Chillock said. “That’s how towns go bankrupt.”
The advocates
Richard Strauss, a Democrat and a member of the charter commission, invited CT Examiner to his home in early October to meet with several of the townspeople involved in formulating the charter.
The front yards near Strauss’ home were planted with signs paid for by political action committees in favor — “Chester charter. Right time” — and against — ”Don’t muzzle our mascot. No Chester charter.” Similar signs were planted in yards all over town.
Strauss told CT Examiner that most townspeople vote for selectmen thinking they are much more powerful than they really are.
“People think that the Board of Selectmen has some level of authority and control over what happens,” Strauss said. “The Board of Finance is much more powerful than most people realize.”
Strauss is a proponent of a stronger Board of Selectmen.
For Strauss, the changes in financial accountability would not weaken oversight but allow for more transparency and for selectmen to actually accomplish the issues they run on.
“It gives the voter more opportunity to weigh in on the priorities of the town as seen by both bodies,” Strauss said. “It also protects members of the Board of Selectmen who run on particular issues and gives them a kind of a second bite at the apple of saying here’s what we require to do that.”
Under the proposed charter, the Board of Selectmen would outline the town’s budget priorities and the Financial Accountability Board would review it — reversing the current procedure. In both cases, the budget must be approved by the town meeting.
Strauss also pointed to Chester’s recent political history as evidence that the town needs to address obstacles to government continuity and public engagement. In 2021, Chester’s first selectwoman Lauren Gister resigned within weeks of re-election. In the next town election, none of the three selectmen opted to run again.
“More and more people are not interested in running for office,” Strauss said.
According to Strauss, expanding the Board of Selectmen would reduce the issue of continuity and allow greater participation in government.
The new rules would also separate the First Selectman’s candidacy from the rest of the board races. Under the new rules, the losing candidate for First Selectman would no longer be given a seat on the board.
Uncontested races
Strauss also dismissed the idea that the charter would strip voters of their power over the membership of local boards.
He shared data from the last six municipal election races showing that 89 percent of local seats were uncontested — a rate reflected by recent races from Planning and Zoning, and surpassed even by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
“You can’t really claim disenfranchisement,” said Mark Borton, another commission member and also a Democrat.
Ian McLachlan, a Republican charter commission member with 18 years of work in the judicial branch, did not attend the meeting at Strauss’ home. The following day in a phone interview, he defended the proposed charter while conceding that by appointing seats to boards like Planning and Zoning, there would be less recourse for opponents if, at some future date, there was some controversy.
“The only thing you lose is the right to vote on these boards and commissions, but people didn’t vote for it anyway,” McLachlan said. “It is true that there could be an issue of such great importance that more people would be interested.”
Strauss said the shift to appointments would benefit the 40 percent of voters who identify as neither Democrat or Republican. Strauss pointed out that appointed seats in the town have a greater share of unaffiliated members than elected positions.
Commission member Pat Holloway, a Democrat, said the appointment process would make it easier for unaffiliated voters to participate in local government.
“Some of our best boards actually are now made up with people who are unaffiliated,” said Holloway. “We wanted to give them a way to get involved.”
The charter would also eliminate alternate positions for most boards and limit the number of members any one party can have on a board or commission.
Opposition offers olive branch
The opposing group at Pattaconk Yacht Club told CT Examiner that they would welcome a discussion of another charter proposal if it is rejected in the November 5 referendum.
Chillock said he found some of the changes proposed in the letter acceptable but considered the risk more serious.
“This puts too much power in the hands of too few,” Chillock said.
For Zenardi, the commission should have been wider, with people from different backgrounds and points of view. He thought that could be improved if this charter version did not succeed.
“I’m not against the charter idea,” Zenardi said. “I would look favorably at them coming back.”
McLachlan said that he wasn’t sure at first a charter was necessary but he got involved in the drafting commission and the process changed his mind.
“I became convinced that we did need a charter to make some of the necessary changes. All of this was by consensus,” McLachlan said. “I wasn’t interested in revolutionary change, but this really isn’t.”
—
Editor’s note: This story was corrected to reflect that Selectwoman Patricia Bandzes is registered as an unaffiliated voter