The Enfield Charter Revision Commission will meet this week to discuss potential changes to the town charter. If the process becomes politicized—and there's a real risk of that happening—it could result in a deeply divisive and bitter outcome that harms our local governance.
We won't know whether any ideas listed below have real potential, but they have a pulse. What follows isn't a comprehensive list of what might come up, but it's a good reason to pay attention and attend these meetings.
The Charter Revision Commission will meet on Jan. 9 at 6:30 p.m. in the Scitico Room. Town officials should reconsider the decision not to televise these meetings. While open to the public, unlike council meetings, there is no agenda item for public comment. The commission's first public hearing was in December.
The Charter Revision process must prioritize fairness, transparency, and inclusivity to avoid divisiveness and serve the town effectively.
A budget referendum
Budget referendum proposals surfaced in previous charter revisions in 1996 and 2014 and discussions and will likely emerge again this year. Concerns have been that such referendums interfere with long-term town planning, foster community division as special interest groups clash, and undermine representative government.
Budget referendums also have demographic drawbacks. Working parents may struggle to participate in multiple referendums, while older residents with more flexible schedules may have a distinct advantage.
Moreover, voter turnout for budget referendums is often dismally low, with some at single-digit percentages.
Salaries for Town Council members
We do not currently compensate our local officials, but some communities pay their elected representatives.
For example, Manchester, a town slightly smaller than Enfield, compensates its Board of Directors (equivalent to our Town Council) according to its charter. The director receives $3,000 annually, the vice chair $2,400, and the other board members $2,000.
Compensation might not be a bad idea, especially if there's some evidence that it increases the willingness of people to seek elected office.
Making a non-governmental flag ban part of the Charter
One of the most contentious proposals that may emerge during Enfield’s Charter Revision process is embedding a ban on non-governmental flags into the town charter. Last year, the Town Council adopted a policy limiting flags on town buildings to government and military flags, as well as POW flags. This decision followed a previous council’s choice, under Democratic leadership, to allow the Pride flag to be flown during Pride Month.
Should this proposal move forward, the charter provision would not explicitly single out the Pride flag, but its origins make the intent clear enough. Framed as a legal precaution to avoid potential lawsuits, the move risks being interpreted as a rejection of inclusivity, particularly by the LGBTQ+ community. If adopted, the ban could send a hurtful message: that certain members of the community are not fully accepted or represented. The council's flag restriction triggered a protest last year at Town Hall. If this makes it to a referendum ballot, voters will likely understand the implications.
This issue raises important questions about what kind of town Enfield aspires to be—one that embraces diversity and equity, or one that takes actions likely to divide its residents.
This is not the first time Enfield has faced criticism for failing to prioritize inclusivity. The case of Sarah Hernandez, a former member of the Board of Education, offers another stark example of how decisions made by local officials can alienate marginalized groups and impose significant costs—both human and financial—on the town.
In 2017, Sarah Hernandez, who is autistic and hearing impaired, was elected to a two-year term on the Board of Education. Her election was a groundbreaking achievement. To participate fully in her role, Ms. Hernandez requested accommodations such as permission to pass notes during board meetings and for speakers to face her while speaking so she could read their lips.
Rather than working with Ms. Hernandez to ensure she could carry out her duties, the town denied her requests. In 2019, Ms. Hernandez filed a federal lawsuit against the town under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case went to trial, and last year, a federal jury ruled decisively in her favor. While she was awarded only nominal damages, the financial cost of the case is falling on Enfield taxpayers. Because the town lost, it is now responsible for covering Ms. Hernandez’s attorneys’ fees and other legal expenses, which are expected to total tens of thousands of dollars—or more. These costs could have been avoided entirely if the Board had simply fulfilled its legal obligations and treated Ms. Hernandez with the dignity she deserved. In its decision, the federal court also permanently restrained and enjoined the town from further violations of the ADA.
The case of Ms. Hernandez is a lesson. Not only did the town damage its reputation and fail one of its elected officials, but it also placed an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers. What could have been a moment of leadership and inclusivity instead became a costly legal battle that the town lost—both in court and in the eyes of its residents.
The issues surrounding the Pride flag and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as highlighted by Ms. Hernandez, are distinct yet share a common thread: both reflect the town’s willingness—or lack of willingness—to embrace greater inclusivity, whether for LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, or both. A referendum battle over the Pride flag—inevitably how this proposal will be interpreted—risks only harming our community.
The Charter Commission has no mandate
We will know very soon—perhaps as early as this week—what other proposals might gain traction.
As it stands, there is no widespread public demand for significant changes to the town charter. Only one person spoke at the Charter Commission’s public hearing. While there may be some written testimony submitted, I have not seen it. In fairness, it’s difficult for residents to weigh in on potential charter changes without specific proposals to respond to.
Still, the last thing Enfield needs are recommendations for charter changes that are seen as political.
The charter is the town’s operating system. Its purpose is to establish a governmental system that is fair, neutral, and designed to prevent any political party from gaining an advantage. It has served Enfield well, and while some technical upgrades may be warranted, the commission must proceed with caution. The current charter works, and there is no compelling reason for sweeping changes unless there is clear bipartisan support.
If the commission’s proposals achieve bipartisan support, it will send a strong and reassuring message to Enfield residents: that the town is acting responsibly and in the best interests of everyone. That should be the commission’s goal.
Comments
Post a Comment