by Jack Krampitz

While the nation grapples with two mass shootings within the past two weeks and Covid numbers slowly projecting upward, the business of the city of Bristol continued last Wednesday night with a Charter Revision meeting in the basement of the Bristol Public Library. 

With the backdrop firmly established and the Charter Revision Committee feeling the pinch to complete their work, charter commissioners recommended increasing the mayor’s term from two years to four years.

Differing legal opinions exist, but Bristol could lose its recall capabilities in the charter if voters approve the term change in November. Therefore, to address those concerns and protect the city in the event of criminal behavior from an elected or an appointed official, the commission also voted that the city council develop language within the city ordinances to include the removal of elected and appointed officials who engage in criminal behavior.

It is worth noting that since the adoption of Bristol’s charter, which was created in 1911, it has never utilized the recall provision.

Both the four-year term and a town manager proposal have been considered multiple times over six decades, and have been repeatedly rejected by voters, and then risen from the dead like Lazarus of Bethany. So this is not the first time the four-year term has awakened from the tomb.

In 2010, the matter was soundly scuttled on the ballot by voters 11,405 to 5,073.

And last year, the measure was proposed and debated by the committee but did not survive their deliberations when it became ensnarled in issues beyond their scope.  

Few community members advocated for its passage during the previous go-around under Mayor Ellen Zoppo-Sassu. But both Zoppo-Sassu and her soon-to-be opponent Jeff Caggiano supported the change to a four-year term at that time.

During the committee’s deliberations last year, the commissioners sought and received input from previous occupants of the Mayor’s office.

Seven former Bristol mayors were contacted, and four responded, two democrats and two republicans. All four mayors recommended keeping the two-year term. Their responses are below and edited for punctuation where necessary. 

Michael J. Werner (R) 1977-June 1984 – “I’d also leave the Mayor with a two-year term. A two-year term keeps you on your toes. You don’t have time to be complacent. Again, it’s worked this long; I don’t think it needs fixing.” 

John J. Leone, Jr. (D) 1984- April 1991 – As for the Mayor serving two-year terms, it could handicap (especially a newly elected mayor) in getting their projects completed and programs implemented, but the two-year term does give the electorate the opportunity to review the Mayor’saccomplishments and report out their verdict.

Art Ward (D) 2007-2013 -“The present system of adequate checks and balances has proven effective, and I can’t remember a time when a situation could not be addressed sufficiently.”

William T. Stortz (R) April 1991-1993, 2005-2007 – “Stay with two-year terms!!!”

Interestingly, in this year’s deliberations, supporters suddenly and dramatically appeared out of the woodwork with the change in administrations. Why many of these people were invisible and mute on the subject just last year is unknown.

Should voters approve this measure, Bristol will join a cadre of other towns with four-year terms for mayor, including but not limited to Bridgeport, Hartford, Norwalk, and Torrington. 

Other noted changes 

The Charter Revision Commission also recommended including the following:

• Increase The board of finance from eight to 11 members.

• Increase the city council from six to nine members with multiparty representation. Each party will have no more than two candidates for the city’s three districts, and the top three vote-getters in each district shall be elected. This ensures that one seat in each district will go to the minority party.

• City council districts to be created by the registrars of voters rather than through the public process of the charter revision procedure. 

The committee has not completed its work. Their next meeting is June 7, and a draft of their report to the City Council is due June 24. 

If the city council approves the committee’s recommendations, the measures will be on the ballot in November for the approval or rejection of the voters.