Bolton residents debate raising first selectman pay; CCM data and referendum costs split public opinion

Supporters and opponents of a proposed increase in the Bolton first selectman’s pay clashed during an informational public-comment session, with advocates citing recruitment and time commitment and critics warning of affordability and conflicts of interest.

Jim Aldridge, a former member of the Charter Revision Commission who compiled comparative data from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, urged trustees to 'consider changing the pay of the first selectman up to something equivalent to 73,650,' and noted that 'many of those people get health care and pension,' which Aldridge estimated could add roughly $20,000 in total compensation.

The debate centered on two linked questions: how much the part‑time position should pay given its duties and whether offering a salary and benefits should be decided by the board or put before voters. Daniel Buxton, a long-time resident and former volunteer commission chair, argued against a raise on affordability grounds: 'This is a volunteer town. I really don't think we should be paying the first selectmen more money, number 1, because we can't afford it.' Buxton also warned of a conflict of interest if the board votes to raise its own pay, calling it 'an extreme conflict of interest for the board ... to vote on their own salary.'

Other speakers framed the decision around workload and recruitment. Tom Manning, who introduced himself during public comment, said the first selectman is 'an ex officio member of all the boards and commissions' and emphasized the hours and responsibilities the job can require. Long-time residents and former officeholders described work that sometimes stretches nights and weekends, arguing compensation recognizes time and family sacrifice. One commenter running a consumer-price calculation said the position’s historical starting pay would equate to about $27,000 today, and others recommended a range 'between 30 and 35,000' for a part-time role.

Speakers also raised procedural and legal questions. Several commenters said the charter gives the board authority to set compensation; one participant noted that offering salary and benefits without other guardrails should be accompanied by accountability mechanisms such as recall or a public vote. Miss Dixon (speaking from Tinkerfront Road) said the town should note the cost of a referendum, which she estimated at about $56,000, as part of weighing whether to put the issue to voters.

Board members and residents repeatedly urged better comparability in any benchmarking: Amanda (first name used in the session) asked that comparisons control for form of government and whether towns employ a separate town manager or delegate administrative duties, and Jim Aldridge said his cohort included 32 towns selected by per‑capita income to produce the CCM-based average.

The session closed as the chair reminded the public the informational portion had ended and that the Board of Selectmen would reconvene at 7:00 p.m. to continue discussion and possibly take action. No formal motion or vote on salary was recorded during the informational session.

What happens next: the board planned to continue the discussion at its 7:00 p.m. meeting; attendees were told the board may vote at that meeting and that a separate Zoom link and packet are available for the formal session.