Why the rush for charter change in Stonington?

One year ago Stonington was in the midst of an historic election cycle. A total of eight well-qualified candidates vied for three seats on our Board of Selectmen. Debates were held, lawn signs dotted our yards and doors were knocked upon. During this entire campaign season, not a word was publicly spoken about charter revision. However, as soon as the election was past, the rush was on by the re-elected First Selectwoman to get changes to the town charter drafted in time to be on this year's ballot.When you go to vote you will find six questions on the ballot. Question Number 1 deals with a change to the state Constitution to expand absentee voting. Questions 2 through 6 deal with changes to Stonington's charter. Those changes are as follows:Question No. 2: Changing the Town Clerk from an elected town officer to a hired employee.Question No. 3: Changing the Tax Collector from an elected town officer to a hired employee.Question No. 4: Defines the process for hiring the Town Clerk, Tax Collector and other officials.Question No. 5: Changing the term of the office of First Selectman from two to four years.Question No. 6: Basic housekeeping to add alternates to the Water Pollution Control Authority and making similar minor changes to the membership of several other boards.These changes were not raised and debated during last year's election. So, it is fair to ask why the First Selectwoman was so eager to bring these changes forward so quickly in her new term. By rushing them onto this year's ballot, only a majority vote is necessary for passage. Taking more time to debate these changes and holding a special election early next year would require a majority vote with a minimum turnout of 15% of registered voters. This second option presents a much higher bar to passage, but one that would require far greater community engagement and would better inform the public.When the Charter Revision Commission was empaneled to consider the changes put forward it was not expected to have their recommendations ready for the November deadline. Pressure to push this through continued, however, and we are now faced with voting on these changes without adequate debate.Proponents of hiring the Town Clerk and Tax Collector insist that the positions require special knowledge making them unsuitable to fill by election, while ignoring the fact that the current office holders got there through the existing process. They also ignore the fact that, as elected town officers, the Town Clerk and Tax Collector are independent of influence by the Board of Selectmen. It has also been argued that there is no one in Stonington, a town of 19,000 people, who are qualified to fill these seats. We find that hard to believe.As for Question No. 5, we don't buy the argument that a two-year term makes it hard to find qualified candidates to run for First Selectman. After all, last year there were four strong candidates vying for the job. Some argue a first selectman needs four years to accomplish something. We think accountability to the voters every two years outweighs such arguments.We understand that running for office is hard. We've done it. Knocking on strangers' doors and asking for their vote can be intimidating. But getting out into the community and talking to voters is what informs public officials' decision making. Making those officials stand for election keeps them accountable.When elected officials rush to change the rules to make it easier for them to keep their jobs, to make it so that they don't have to engage with voters as often, voters should be wary. We certainly are, which is why we are voting "NO."Ben Tamsky is a Stonington Selectman and Bill Sternberg is a member of the Stonington Board of Finance.