The Weston charter is at the center of a controversy surrounding a tie vote on the town’s Capital Improvement Budget. While the Board of Finance voted to approve a revised budget that will go before voters on May 18, residents have argued the town is ignoring a section of the charter that governs what should happen in the case of a tie vote.

Weston’s all town budget meeting (ATBM) occurred on April 24. Eligible voters were presented with a roughly $75.7 million t0wn budget, including an approximately $16 million budget for the Board of Selectmen (BOS), a roughly $59.3 million Board of Education budget and a roughly $3.8 million Capital Improvement Budget.

At the ATBM, residents approved a roughly $300,000 reduction to the town’s operating budget and a reduction of more than $1 million to the Capital Improvement Budget. The budgets were then presented to the town via an adjourned election, which began at the close of the ATBM and lasted through May 4. While the school and BOS budgets were approved, the vote on the Capital Improvement Budget ended in a 716-716 tie.

The tie was confirmed by a recount on May 8.

The controversy stems from the town’s protocol for dealing with a tie vote.

Section 9.6 of the town charter stipulates that the town budget must be approved by a majority of voters. Section 9.7 of the charter stipulates that if one or more components of the budget are not approved, they should return to the Weston Board of Finance (BOF) to be reconsidered and resubmitted to a subsequent vote between ten and 21 days following the first vote.

This is the process Weston has followed, with the BOF voting during a May 9 meeting to approve changes to the Capital Improvement Budget and resubmit it to voters.

But another section of the town charter lays out a process for breaking ties. Under Section 7.5 of the town charter, if there is a tie at a regular or special town election, primary election, or referendum “conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Charter” that results in the tie, an adjourned election is to be held to determine the results.

It’s this provisions that have town residents crying foul and arguing that the vote ended up in a tie, which is different than it being rejected, and so should be put to another election rather than going back to the Board of Finance (BOF).

On May 6, the town’s legal counsel issued a memo outlining why Section 9.7, rather than Section 7.5 applied. “Although Charter Section 7.5 applies more generally to the resolution of a tie vote at a Town Meeting referendum and calls for a simple “re-vote” at a later date, that section does not apply to the more specific process for approval of the Annual Town Budget.” attorney Nicholas Bamonte wrote in the memo.

Bamonte appeared at the BOF’s May 9 meeting to explain in more detail. Bamonte prefaced his explanation by saying that while he understood what he was going to say was “not something many residents will want to hear” he felt quite strongly that it was the correct process.

Bamonte stated that the town’s charter does not recognize tie votes on the three components of the budget that go to a ballot. He added that this is not an unusual process and appears in many towns across the state. Bamonte then noted that while Section 7.5 of the charter says a tie vote should return a referendum to town residents, looking at the charter holistically revealed it was never meant to apply during the budget process. Bamonte added that this approach Connecticut courts take to these issues.

As evidence Section 7.5 does not apply to Weston’s current predicament, Bamonte noted that it appears in a chapter of the charter related to elections and which lays out the process for electing town officers. Bamonte added that the charter only allows town meetings to take specific types of actions: holding elections, holding a referendum on questions submitted to a meeting, and approving or rejecting the annual town budget. According to Bamonte, if any of those questions are sent to the town meeting for a vote and the result of a tie, an adjourned election would be required. But that does not apply to the town’s annual budget process.

Bamonte noted that the process for voting on the budget laid out in Section 9.6 of the charter specifically states the budget must be approved by a majority of voters. The following section requires any portion of the budget not approved by a majority of voters to return to the BOF. According to Bamonte, the key to understanding this section of the charter is the requirement that the budget be approved by a majority. He stated that a tie is the same thing as a rejection.

“My largest concern as an attorney is that approval is done correctly and effectively under the charter so it is protected against reversal in the event of a challenge.” Bamonte added.

But Bamonte faced pushback even during the BOF meeting. BOF member Theresa Brasco questioned, against the objections of board chair Michael Imber, whether Bamonte’s opinion was valid under the town charter. Bamonte works for law firm Berchem Moses, the same firm town attorney Ira Bloom works for, and was operating as a member of the town attorney’s office. Imber dismissed the concern as “dancing on the head of a pin that lacks good faith recognition of Bercham Moses as our appointed town attorney.”

During the BOF meeting and prior to the board’s vote on changes to the Capital Improvement Budget, Imber stated that no one was being disenfranchised by the board’s actions.

“The populace will still be able to vote up or down on the budget that this board may put forward and I recognize that a majority of the 300 plus citizens that came to the ATBM sought to cut the capital budget by more than $1 million.” Imber stated. He added that he was aware half of the residents who voted supported the cuts while the other half did not and suggested moving forward in the “spirit of compromise.”

Imber proposed keeping roughly $795,000 of the proposed cuts, including a $600,000 cut to proposed spending related to a fire suppression system. He also proposed restoring $450,000 in proposed cuts, including roughly $225,000 for sidewalks, and $150,000 for engineering and planning expenses.

Imber’s proposal was approved by a vote of 4-3 after subsequent discussion. Another member of the board suggested exercising a provision in the charter that allows residents to explain whether they voted for or against cuts because they were too high or too low.

With the approved changes, the $3,280,475 budget will now go back to voters on May 18.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.