Topic:
HISTORIC CONSERVATION; LEGISLATIVE INTENT; MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS/EMPLOYEES;
Location:
MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES;

OLR Research Report


May 21, 2004

 

2004-R-0448

APPOINTMENT OF TOWN HISTORIAN

By: Judith Lohman, Chief Analyst

You asked for a legislative history of the state law allowing municipalities to appoint town historians (CGS § 7-148(5)(D)).

SUMMARY

The authorization for towns to appoint municipal historians was passed in 1987 as part of a larger bill (PA 87-278). The proposal originated as Proposed Bill 50, sponsored by Senator Thomas F. Upson of Waterbury. The only significant discussion of the municipal historian provision took place during the Planning and Development Committee’s public hearing on the bill. In that public hearing, five witnesses testified in favor of appointing municipal historians. There was no opposition.

There was no discussion of the municipal historian proposal in floor debate on the bill, which passed both houses by lopsided votes.

PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMITTEE ACTION

In its original form, Proposed Bill 50 required every town to appoint an historian. It was referred to the Planning and Development Committee, which held a public hearing on it on March 6, 1987. Four witnesses, in addition to the bill’s sponsor, Senator Upson, testified in its favor at the hearing. No witnesses opposed the bill.

John Shanahan, executive director of the Connecticut Historical Commission, stated that the bill was modeled on a New York program. He said that the historians’ duties in New York were to prepare annual reports recording the principal events occurring in their towns over the year. Some of the New York town historians were compensated, but most were volunteers. Shanahan’s research showed that the New York program cost about $ 100 per town, per year.

In testimony in favor of the bill, Senator Upson argued that “we do need people worrying about the history of each town,” and that, although his bill was simple, it would be extremely valuable

A third witness was J. Warren Upson, the sponsor’s father. He suggested that, when fully drafted, the bill allow rather than require towns to have local historians, that each town’s chief executive officer appoint the historian, and that the historian’s job be “to keep track of various activities in the town that are not recorded in one place elsewhere. ” He thought that such a record would make it easier for people to find out about the past. His conception of the program was that historians would receive no compensation. Consequently, apart from small amounts for expenses, towns would incur no cost.

Harland Griswold of Woodbury, a long-time member of the Connecticut Historical Commission, also supported the bill. To give each town maximum flexibility, Griswold recommended the bill impose no requirement that a town historian live in the town for which he is appointed. Griswold was followed by Dr. Christopher Bickford, director of the Connecticut Historical Society. Bickford believed the bill “would do a lot to stimulate interest and enthusiasm and activity at the local level. ” This is particularly important, he said, because, “the history of Connecticut is really written in the 169 towns” of the state. (Planning and Development Committee, Public Hearing Transcript, 3/6/87, p. 569).

The Planning and Development Committee voted to draft SB 50 on April 1 and gave it a favorable report to the Senate on April 8 (File 553).

FLOOR PROCEEDINGS

When the bill was called in the Senate on May 6, 1987, two amendments on unrelated subjects were added. Senate Amendment “A” allowed certain municipalities to designate their legislative bodies as zoning commissioners and clarified the ability of all municipalities to adopt home rule charters that include special act provisions that may be inconsistent with state laws and the state constitution. Senate Amendment “B” allowed the governor to reactivate any state military unit to participate in parades, celebrations, or ceremonies in Connecticut or elsewhere. The Senate passed the amended bill unanimously without discussing the municipal historian provision. (Senate Transcript, 5/6/87, pp. 2072-2102)

The House followed suit on May 15, 1987, passing the amended bill without debate by a vote of 126 to 3. (House Transcript, 5/15/87, pp. 6803-6808)

JL: ts