OPINION: Vote against Stonington's attack on democracy

Oct. 16—I'm hoping that the proposed charter changes that Stonington residents are being made to vote on this election ― a measure designed to forever take power away from voters ― will be decisively rejected.

Indeed, next to the national defeat of Donald Trump as presidential candidate, I can't think of many pro-democracy outcomes this election that would make me happier than Stonington voters killing these hurried, self-serving charter changes that seemed to be hatched in backrooms.

Residents can be forgiven if they know next to nothing about this power grab by incumbent politicians, even though these significant proposed changes will appear as a complicated series of five different questions on town ballots.

Though The Day has written several stories about the charter review process, the five questions were generated by a jiffy commission, appointed just eight months ago by the Board of Selectmen, and I haven't seen a single news story or press release about the final ballot questions. Voting starts next week.

You have to dig very deep into the town's web site to find them. I've seen no public outreach or detailed education by town officials about what they are proposing.

And if you do finally locate the questions and "explanatory" text of the confusing ballot questions by searching deep into the web site you'll see that the explainer is anything but.

Required public hearings this summer before the charter commission drew fewer people than you might find in the drive-through line any lunchtime at the Mystic McDonald's.

The final questions on the ballot bear little relationship with any of the testimony at the public hearing. No one who crafted them apparently cared much about what the public thinks.

The only people who seem to have a real interest in these changes being made to the charter ― a significant event that should never be done lightly ― are power brokers in town who seek to make local government less responsive to voters.

That's right, the same year Republicans put a fascist at the head of their ticket, someone who has promised you'll never have to vote again, some elected leaders in Stonington are also proposing that residents get less say in who runs their government and vote less often.

Of course any politician would naturally try very hard to face voters less often, if they could get away with it. Please don't let them in Stonington.

The principal objective of the changes, in my opinion, is contained in one question, the fourth, sandwiched in between the others, that would ask voters to double the term of office for the first selectman, from two to four years.

I know. I know. Why would any voter give up his or her right to review the work of the town's chief elected officer, a paid position, on a regular basis, every two years?

After all, we get to review our representatives in Congress every two years, and they are not whining about how hard it is to do the job and face the voters on a regular basis.

It's part of the job, and a crucial part of democracy.

The longer term being proposed is allowed by Connecticut law, if approved by voters. But it is very rare. First selectmen serve two-year terms in 85 Connecticut towns with selectmen-town meeting governments, compared to just 13 that have four-year terms.

Good arguments against four-year terms include a tendency toward complacency, less accountability, less motivation to keep taxes in check and Connecticut's lack of recall provisions.

Not only are Stonington's power brokers suggesting a less accountable chief executive, but they want, with these sweeping charter changes, to take away from voters the ability to elect the tax collector and town clerk, which a vast majority of Connecticut towns now do. Those two important positions would be appointed instead by the power brokers.

That's right, they want residents to vote less and then turn more of the government over to a much-less-accountable chief executive and just two other selectmen.

Stonington has done just fine all these years without a municipal monarchy, with some very popular and competent first selectmen being elected over and over again to two-year terms, without complaint.

Let's hope Stonington residents use the full power of their votes, while they still have them, to reject this unseemly, fast-tracked power grab.

This is the opinion of David Collins.