Municipal leaders need to be alert about the possibility of a state Constitutional Convention that could bring profound changes to state and local government.

The purpose of a Constitutional Convention is to amend the state Constitution. Whether such a Convention will be held or not is to be decided in voting booths this November.

In Connecticut, state law requires that the question about whether to hold a Constitutional Convention must appear on ballots every 20 years. And even though the ballot question will not propose any specific change, CCM is concerned about the politicking that already has begun.

An organization calling itself the Connecticut Constitution Convention Campaign wants a convention held to give voters the option of pursuing public initiative and referenda similar to those allowed in California and 16 other states.

While such referenda may be held on any subject, the backers of the "Convention Campaign" favor initiatives to impose a cap on municipal property tax revenue and eliminate eminent domain for economic development.

Moreover, news articles have identified a main backer of the "Convention Campaign" as the Connecticut Federation of Taxpayers Organizations, an anti-property tax group.

Another backer identified is the Family Institute of Connecticut, which has favored a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.

In opposition, several progressive advocacy and labor groups have formed an organization called, "Vote No – Protect Our Constitution." They include the Connecticut Education Association, the Connecticut Citizens Action Group and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut.

Based on other states' experience, permitting citizen initiatives and referenda exposes municipalities to more risks than benefits.

Such initiatives and referenda are unpredictable. If Connecticut were to follow the pattern in states that do allow them, CCM and its member municipalities would likely be forced into perpetual (and expensive) statewide electoral campaigns, regardless of whether the particular ballot question were favorable to municipalities or not.

Experience in other states has also shown that initiatives are often drafted and promoted by narrow, well-funded national special interest groups, rather than sprouting from grassroots democracy.

The promoters often hire "signature solicitors" to reach the small percentage of voters needed to put initiative questions on the ballot, according to Judge Robert Satter, author of "Under the Gold Dome: An Insiders Look at the Connecticut Legislature."

Satter in a recent op-ed article said initiative campaigns often are waged by slogans, sound bites and TV ads, undermining representative government.

Satter's article cited Rutgers political science professor Alan Rosenthal, the leading authority on state legislatures, as saying the initiatives option "pulverizes government authority."

Other opponents of imitative and referendum point out that America's founding Fathers deliberately created representation democracy rather than direct democracy. Federalist Paper #10, written by James Madison, discusses the danger of "factions" which rise due to issues of the day but that do not give enough due deliberation to important policy issues.

The pro-convention campaign has a website, www.ctconcon.com. The "Vote No" group had none as of this writing.