Public Meetings - Danbury, Connecticut

The Charter Revision Commission held its 11th meeting on July 29, 2026, from 6:37 PM to 7:23 PM to finalize and approve its final report incorporating recommendations from the City Council. The commission reviewed each accepted recommendation, made minor technical and grammatical corrections, and voted to transmit the report to the city council, which must act within 15 days. Public Comments & Testimony - Councilman Michael Henry (Corn Castle Road) thanked the commission and sought clarification: he thought 13 of 14 council recommendations were accepted, but confirmed it was 12, and noted that Section 6-2 (town clerk) was removed, changing the numbering. - Jeff Harold (Foster Street) praised the commission’s bipartisan work and suggested including a provision for a more formal, e.g., every-five-year, review of the charter to avoid long gaps. - John Miller (Coach Road) thanked the commission and expressed concern about the four-year mayoral term, arguing it reduces voters’ ability to voice approval or disapproval every two years. - A fourth speaker (name not stated, identified as a Danbury resident, declined to give address) criticized the process, alleging the July 27 meeting violated state statutes for notice (calculation of 24-hour window), claimed the commission had improper legal counsel, and accused Commissioner Britton of listing a Democratic Town Hall mailing address. The chair repeatedly asked the speaker to focus on the final report; after several interruptions, the chair closed public speaking. No further public comments. Discussion Items - Procedural Overview – Chair confirmed the final report would be approved this meeting. Attorney Mordoletti outlined that the commission would review each accepted council recommendation and ensure alignment with the redlined charter. - Review of Accepted Recommendations (12 of 14) – The commission went through each: 1. Preamble language – Approved without objection. 2. “Appointed” to “nominated” changes – Applied only where council confirmation exists (e.g., board appointments), not for positions directly appointed without confirmation (e.g., reapportionment commission). Commissioner Almeida questioned consistency; clarified that universal replacement was not intended. 3. Oath of office (Section 2-9) – Allows choice of “so help you God” or “under penalties of perjury.” Approved. 4. Quorum language (Section 3-6) – Removed “elected” to include all sitting council members. Approved. 5. Reference to state statutes – Changed to “general statutes” throughout. Note: hyperlinks retained in electronic version. 6. Committee cleanup (Section 3-13) – Grammatical edits to include committees of the whole. Approved. 7. Gift acceptance (Section 4-1) – Kept requirement that mayor reports gifts to council. Approved. 8. Town clerk elected (Section 2-2) – Kept elected status with a four-year term (reverting to original charter plus four-year term). Approved. 9. Board of Education section (6-17) – New section with residency requirements, financial reporting access limited to budgeting/auditing, and added student privacy protections (FERPA). Removed “receipts” and “purchasing” language per Board of Education attorney. Commissioner Sepran noted inconsistency in “Connecticut general statutes” vs “general statutes”; agreed to remove “Connecticut” for uniformity. 10. Section 8-2 (employee positions) – Restored as originally written (no changes). Approved. 11. Section 8-3 (conflicts of interest) – Initially had “nominated” added, but discussion determined it should only be “elected or appointed” (no council confirmation here). Agreed to remove “nominated” from subsections B-D. - Technical corrections – Secretary noted typographical fixes: restoring town clerk as subsection F, and showing the change in meeting start time from 8:00 to 7:00 in Section 3-2. Key Outcomes - Motion to approve the final report as amended – Moved and seconded. Discussion held (no further objections). Vote: All in favor (ayes), none opposed, with one abstention (Commissioner Jowdy). Motion carried. - Next steps – The approved redlined final report will be filed with the Town Clerk and transmitted to the City Council. Under General Statute §7-191, the council must hold a meeting on the report not later than 15 days after receiving it, likely at the August meeting or a special meeting. - Adjournment – Motion carried at 7:23 PM.

The Charter Revision Commission met on Monday, July 27, 2026, at 7:00 PM to deliberate on 14 recommendations from the City Council regarding proposed charter amendments. After public comment and extensive discussion, the commission accepted 13 of the 14 recommendations, with one rejection and one modified acceptance. Consent Calendar - Unanimously approved minutes from the public hearing and regular meeting. Public Comments & Testimony - Benjamin Chen (Briar Ridge Road, City Council member): Supported an appointed town clerk as a civil service position with certification requirements; opposed the Board of Education financial access section, stating the council never formally requested such access and noting the finance department already has access. - Kate Canetta (Top Tilt Road, Board of Education member): Stated the Board of Education as a whole was not involved in conversations about the charter changes; the board’s public hearing statement represented their collective opinion. - Jennifer Noran (Long Ridge Road, assistant town clerk): Expressed that the charter revisions regarding the town clerk were poorly written and needed thorough revision. - Claire Jabora (23 Fairmount Drive, City Council member): Thanked the commission for their work; urged consistent language throughout the charter, distinguishing between "nominated and confirmed" vs. "appointed." - Mike Flanagan (Gibson Avenue, City Council member): Reported that constituents and the teachers’ union were unhappy about not being consulted on Board of Education charter changes. - Al Robinson (7 Gross Avenue, former charter revision participant): Urged the commission to slow down, arguing the process was being rushed and the proposals would not pass with voters. - Robert Willow (Lois Street, teacher and union executive board member): Opposed the Board of Education language personally; preferred it not be in the charter; supported staggered terms; favored an elected town clerk or civil service if appointed. - Candace Faye (31 Old Lantern Road, City Council member): Asked the commission to be thoughtful and deliberate on the recommendations. - Michelle Coello (47 East Lake Road, former Board of Education member and DRTC chair): Opposed unstaggered Board of Education terms, citing loss of institutional knowledge; concerned that no board members were involved in discussions; urged careful consideration. - Debbie Rizzo (460 Musket, former Bethel Board of Education member and realtor): Opposed unstaggered terms; advocated for civil service if town clerk becomes appointed; expressed public concern about rushing. - Mike Coello (47 East Lake Road): Thanked the commission and asked them to review recordings of council meetings; opposed rushing but not opposed to a charter revision. - Andre Smith (no address given): Criticized the process as perverted and asked legal questions; stated the process was wrong and the city had failed to follow the statutory requirement for revision every 10 years. - Andrea Gardner (112 Lap, City Council member): Defended the commission’s schedule, noting it was not rushed after 17 years; supported getting the charter on the ballot in November. Discussion Items - Recommendation 1 (Preamble – taxpayer): Clarified preamble is aspirational and not binding. Accepted unanimously. - Recommendation 2 (Charter-wide “appointed” to “nominated”): Accepted unanimously to align with council logic. - Recommendation 3 (Staggered terms for Board of Education): Rejected after debate. Commissioners cited low probability of complete turnover (1 in 705,000), cost of separate elections, and historical precedent of unstaggered terms in prior charter drafts. - Recommendation 4 (Replace “designated” with “appointed” in section 2-4): Accepted unanimously. - Recommendation 5 (Oath of office – include “under God” or “under penalties of perjury”): Accepted with revision to include both options, allowing the oath-taker to choose. - Recommendation 6 (Remove “elected” from quorum language in section 3-6): Accepted. - Recommendation 7 (Change “state statutes” to “general statutes” throughout): Accepted. - Recommendation 8 (Clarify committee language in section 3-13 – ad hoc, standing, committees of the whole): Accepted with removal of redundant language. - Recommendation 9 (Section 4-1 – report gifts to council): Accepted; no objection. - Recommendation 10 (Town clerk – keep elected): Accepted after hearing public input. Position will remain elected with a four-year term; civil service or appointed options rejected. - Recommendation 11 & 12 (Board of Education section – referral back and shall/may language): Accepted the referral back; rejected blanket shall-to-may change. Instead, kept “shall” but added explicit carve-outs for student data privacy and limited financial access solely for auditing, budgeting, and financial reporting. Also added “electors” language for board membership. - Recommendation 13 (Two-thirds confirmation vote for department heads, police, fire): Rejected. Current majority vote confirmation retained. - Recommendation 14 (Reinstate struck language in section 8-2): Accepted with one abstention from Commissioner Safrenic. Key Outcomes - Approved minutes of previous meetings unanimously. - Accepted 13 of 14 council recommendations; rejected Recommendation 3 (staggered BOE terms) and modified Recommendations 5 and 11/12. - Directed corporation counsel to draft revised language incorporating changes (student privacy carve-outs, oath options, etc.) for final report. - Final report to be prepared and submitted to the appointment authority (City Council) as per statute. - Commission adjourned with thanks to members and the public.

This joint conference, mandated by Connecticut General Statute Section 7-191, was held on July 27, 2026, at 3:00 PM. The purpose was for the City Council to confer with the Charter Revision Commission on 14 specific recommendations for changes to the draft charter report. Council President Peter Bazade presided. The council had previously voted on these recommendations; the commission asked questions to understand the council's rationale. No votes or decisions were made during the conference itself; the commission will deliberate and vote on the recommendations in a separate meeting. Discussion Items - Recommendation 1: Amend preamble to include "taxpayer." No questions from the commission. - Recommendation 2: Change "appointed" to "nominated" throughout the charter. Commissioner asked if this change applies only to positions requiring council confirmation. Councilman Rotello explained the motion was to ensure consistency, except for reappointments where "appointed" remains. The vote was 20-1 in favor. - Recommendation 3: Remove staggered terms for the Board of Education. Commissioner Safranic asked for the rationale. Councilman Coello stated the concern was losing experienced members if all 11 seats turned over at once. Councilwoman Robinson added that holding elections for a small number every two years allows focus on the Board of Ed and ensures continuity for disciplinary hearings. The vote was 13-8. - Recommendation 4: Replace "designated" with "appointed" in Section 2-4. No questions. - Recommendation 5: Strike revisions to Section 2-8 (oaths) and either refer to state statute or include both options. Council explained the need to allow either an oath or affirmation, per individual choice. No further questions. - Recommendation 6: Remove "elected" from Section 3-6 (membership). Councilwoman Lapine stated that not all members are elected (some appointed), so the term should be "entire membership." - Recommendation 7: Change all references to "state statutes" to "general statutes" for legal consistency. No questions. - Recommendation 8: Amend Section 3-13 to include "ad hoc, standing, or committees of the whole." Commissioner asked why there were six no votes. President Bazade ruled the question irrelevant to the conference scope; discussion was not pursued. - Recommendation 9: Include language in Section 4-1 requiring gifts to the city to be reported to the council. Commissioner asked for clarification on the reporting mechanism (direct report vs. finance communication). Council confirmed they want a direct report to the council. - Recommendation 10: Keep the town clerk position elected rather than appointed. Councilman Hawley explained the reasons: the appointment model as presented was incomplete (terms, removal, qualifications, safeguards) and that appointing the clerk could risk election integrity. Commissioner Safranic asked if those concerns were addressed, would he support an appointed clerk. Hawley said yes, but the council's recommendation is to keep it elected. - Recommendation 11: Refer all of Section 6-18 (Board of Education financial oversight) back to the commission for further refinement. Councilwoman Robinson expressed worries about mission creep and student data privacy (FERPA). She suggested a data use agreement rather than "full access." Council discussed concerns triggered by past financial mismanagement (2019-2024). Commissioner noted that the Board of Ed's counsel had agreed to most language except the "shall" requirement for reports. - Recommendation 12: Related to Section 6-18, further define financial information requirements. (Discussed jointly with 11.) - Recommendation 13: Require a two-thirds council confirmation vote for department heads in Section 6-4. Councilman Hawley and Chinese explained the need for consistency across department head appointments. Commissioner raised concern that eight members could block appointments; council acknowledged it is a recommendation for consideration. - Recommendation 14: Reinstate Section 8-2 (deletion of entire section) to protect the incumbent IT director from forced reappointment. Councilman Chinese stated the charter as drafted would require the current IT director to go through a new appointment process, and the recommendation aims to grandfather the position. Key Outcomes - The conference concluded after the council and commission discussed all 14 recommendations. The council voted to adjourn from the conference (motion and second, all in favor). The commission took a break before proceeding to their own meeting to deliberate and vote on the recommendations. - No action was taken by the council or commission during the conference; the recommendations will be considered by the Charter Revision Commission in a subsequent session.

The Danbury City Council held a special meeting on July 23, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. The primary purpose was to consider transmitting recommended charter revision changes from the Committee of the Whole to the Charter Revision Commission, followed by a joint conference between the two bodies. The meeting was marked by extensive debate over the rushed timeline, lack of public notice, and procedural concerns, ultimately resulting in a motion to transmit the recommendations passing on a roll-call vote of 14–3. Public Comments & Testimony - Michelle Coello (47 East Lake Road, resident and Chair of the Danbury Republican Town Committee): Thanked the council for a line-by-line review over two nights of long meetings, but noted that council remarks came out less than 24 hours earlier. She reported that 33 members of the public had spoken against the charter changes, many questions remained unanswered, and asked the council to slow the process down to allow public and stakeholder input. - Lewis Marks (31 Topfield Road West): Expressed strong opposition to rushing the charter revision, stating his "sense of morality has been offended." He argued that the administration’s supermajority should not allow them to push everyone around, criticized violations of public notice requirements (Section 3-8), called Section 3-14 (investigation by council committee) "pure nonsense," and proposed a civilian review board. He accused the administration of advancing political ambition, lacking accountability, and of politicizing the process from the start. Discussion Items - Motion to Accept Committee Minutes and Transmit Recommendations: Councilman Salvatore moved to accept the Committee of the Whole and public hearing minutes and to transmit the approved changes and amendments to the Charter Revision Commission, then convene a joint meeting for final presentation to the council. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Lepine. - Procedural and Timeline Concerns – Council members raised several issues: - Councilman Rotello asked Corporation Counsel Joe to outline next steps. Counsel explained that the council sends recommendations to the commission, then there is a "conferring" meeting, the commission prepares a final report, which returns to the council for final review before ballot questions are prepared. The process could be completed by the August council meeting. - Councilwoman Shay questioned whether the commission could make substantive changes without another public hearing. Counsel clarified that the statute does not require an additional public hearing, but the council could allow public comment on the returned report. - Councilman Chianese asked about the nature of the joint conference—who chairs it, whose meeting it is, and whether proper notice had been given. Discussion revealed that notice for the proposed Monday meeting had been posted at the town clerk’s office pending the council’s action, and that the legislative assistant had issued notice on possible dates before the council voted. Several council members objected to this practice, calling it rushed and disrespectful to the public. - Councilwoman Faye strongly objected to moving forward, criticizing the lack of notice (less than 24 hours for a 25-page document), the fact that the meeting was scheduled without consulting the full council after the previous Tuesday meeting ended at 12:30 a.m., and the insufficient time for the public to review and comment. - Councilman Quello echoed frustration, noting that 19 council members were present Tuesday night and had not been consulted about tonight’s meeting. He argued that the public had only 24 hours to review 25 pages of changes, the rushed timeline was irresponsible, and that the charter revision deserved as much care as the new high school bond. He opposed rushing the process and insisted the public deserved more time. - Resolution of Joint Conference Chairing: After debate, Councilman Salvatore noted that in 2009, the mayor appointed only the majority and minority leaders to meet with the Charter Revision Commission, not the entire council. Council President Bazaid ultimately stated he would preside over the council portion of the joint conference. Counsel confirmed that it was permissible for the council president to run the proceeding. Key Outcomes - Motion to accept minutes and transmit recommendations to the Charter Revision Commission carried on a roll-call vote: 14 in favor, 3 opposed (Councilwoman Coello, Councilwoman Faye, Councilwoman Wallace Smith, and Councilwoman Robinson voted “no”). The motion passed with the majority in support. - The joint conference between the council and the Charter Revision Commission is scheduled to take place on Monday, July 26, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in the Black Box Theater. - The council adjourned following the vote.

The Danbury City Council Committee of the Whole continued its review of proposed charter revisions from the Charter Revision Commission on July 23, 2026, with 19 members present. The meeting covered chapters 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, during which the council debated and voted on numerous amendments and recommendations to send back to the commission. Key outcomes included votes on the town clerk appointment, committee structure, board of education oversight, and employee protections. Discussion Items & Key Outcomes Chapter 2 - Motion by Councilman Henry (Section 2-6) to add "and approved by the city council" after appointments: failed (13 opposed). - Motion by Councilwoman Faye (Section 2-2) to reduce terms from 4 to 2 years for constables, zoning commission, and alternates: failed (14 opposed). - Motion by Councilwoman Jabbar (Section 2-4) to replace "designate" with "appoint": passed (voice vote). - Motion by Councilman Chinese (Section 2-8) to recommend the commission revisit the oath of office and align with state statutes: passed (voice vote). Chapter 3 - Motion by Councilman Henry (Section 3-3) to remove the mayor from the removal process of the legislative assistant and require two-thirds council vote: failed (14 opposed). - Motion by Councilwoman Faye (Sections 3-8 & 3-10) to ensure public notice language reflects current state statutes: failed (13 opposed). - Motion by Councilwoman LePine (Section 3-6) to change quorum language to "a majority of the entire city council membership": passed (voice vote). - Motion by Councilwoman Jabbar (Section 3) to standardize references to "General Statutes" throughout the charter: passed (voice vote). - Motion by Councilwoman Jabbar (Section 3-13) to define committees as ad hoc, standing, or committees of the whole: passed (voice vote). - Motion by Councilman Rotello (Section 3-13) to strike standing committees language: failed (voice vote). - Motion by Councilman Chinese (Section 3-13) to require two-thirds vote to establish standing committees: failed. - Motion by Councilman Perkins (Section 3-13) to impose two-year term limits on standing committee chairs: failed (3 yes, presumably 16 no). Chapter 4 - Motion by Councilwoman Faye (Section 4-1) to lower the gift acceptance limit from $5,000 back to $1,000: failed (nays). - Motion by Councilwoman Faye (Section 4-1) to require the mayor to report any gift acceptance over $5,000 to the council: passed (roll call, 13 yes? The president stated "the ayes have it" with 7? but roll call indicated 13 yes; motion carried). Chapter 6 - Motion by Councilman Hawley (Section 6-2) to strike the change making the town clerk appointed and keep it elected: passed (11-8). - Motion by Councilman Henry (Section 6-18) to return the entire Board of Education section to the commission for revision: passed (voice vote). - Motion by Councilman Henry (Section 6-18) to change "shall" to "may" and define "full access" with protections: passed (roll call, 11 yes). - Motion by Councilman Rotello (Section 6-16) to require council confirmation for the IT director: failed (11 no, 8 yes). - Motion by Councilman Hawley (Section 6-4) to require two-thirds council vote for all department heads: passed (roll call, 11 yes). - Motion by Councilman Chinese (Section 6-3 and 6-13) to retain "Department of Parks and Recreation": failed (11 no). - Motion by Councilman Chinese (Section 6-3 and 6-14) to retain "Elderly" instead of "Aging": failed (10 no). Chapter 7 - Motion by Councilman Chinese (Section 7-10) to refer the bonding limit issue to the commission for review of internal controls: failed (13 no). Chapter 8 - Motion by Councilwoman Faye (Section 8-2) to expand the ethics section beyond monetary conflicts: failed (13 no). - Motion by Councilman Chinese (Section 8-2) to reinstate the provision protecting present employees' positions: passed (10 yes). - Motion by Councilwoman Faye (Section 8-8) to review the 1963 ordinance reference: failed (11 no). Final Actions - Motion by Councilwoman Gardner to transmit all approved recommendations to the Charter Revision Commission and convene a joint conference to confer on the changes: passed (voice vote, with 3 opposed). The meeting was adjourned after a motion to close the committee of the whole.

The Danbury City Council Committee of the Whole met on July 22, 2026, to continue its review of the Charter Revision Commission's proposed amendments to the city charter. The meeting, a continuation from the previous Thursday, focused on chapters 2 through 8 and included extensive debate, motions to amend, and multiple roll-call votes. Nineteen council members were present, with two absent (Councilman Dennis Perkins due to a family bereavement and Councilman Salvatore). Consent Calendar - No consent calendar items were noted. All items were discussed individually. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were heard during this session. Discussion Items - The committee proceeded section-by-section through the charter, beginning with Chapter 2 where several amendments were debated and voted on. Councilman Henry proposed amending Section 2-6 (vacancies) to add that appointments shall be "made by the mayor and approved by the city council." The motion failed on a roll-call vote of 13 opposed to 6 in favor. - Councilwoman Faye moved to amend Section 2-2 to change four-year terms back to two-year terms for constables, zoning commission members, and alternates. The motion, which was expanded to cover all positions in Section 2-2 not yet decided, failed with 14 opposed and 3 in favor. - Councilwoman Jabbar moved to replace the term "designate" with "appoint" in Section 2-4, paragraph 3. The motion carried on a voice vote. - Councilman Chinese moved to recommend the commission reconsider Section 2-8 (oath of office) to either strike it or add language referencing the state statute (Sections 122-125) to allow alternative oaths. The motion carried on a voice vote. - In Chapter 3, Councilman Henry moved to amend Section 3-3 (legislative assistant removal) to allow removal only by two-thirds vote of the council, removing the mayor's role. The motion failed on a roll-call vote of 14-3. - Councilwoman Faye moved to recommend the commission revisit Sections 3-8 and 3-10 (public notice and hearing) to ensure they reference the current Connecticut statutes. The motion failed on a show-of-hands vote (6 in favor, 13 opposed). - Councilwoman Lepine moved to amend Section 3-6 (quorum) to remove the word "elected," restoring the original language. The motion carried on a voice vote. - Councilwoman Jabbar moved to change all references to state statutes throughout the charter to use the official term "General Statutes." The motion carried on a voice vote. - Councilman Rotello moved to limit Section 3-13 to ad hoc committees only, striking the language for standing committees. The motion failed on a voice vote. - Councilman Perkins moved to recommend two-year term limits for all chairmen of standing committees. The motion carried on a roll-call vote (9-7, with some abstentions). - In Chapter 4, Councilwoman Faye moved to recommend the commission revisit Section 4-1, seeking to preserve the $1,000 gift acceptance limit (with no reporting required by the mayor). That motion failed on a voice vote. She then moved to require the mayor to report to the council on all gifts accepted. This motion carried on a roll-call vote (10-9). - In Chapter 6, Councilman Hawley moved to strike the recommendation to convert the town clerk from an elected to an appointed position, requesting the commission reconsider the appointment model with safeguards. The motion carried on a roll-call vote (11-8). - Councilwoman Lepine moved to recommend the commission add qualifications for the Director of Public Works in Section 6-8A. The motion failed on a show-of-hands vote (9-10). - Councilman Henry moved to return Section 6-18 (Board of Education) to the commission for a full revisit. The motion carried on a voice vote. A subsequent motion to change "shall" to "may" in the requirement for the Board of Ed to submit financial reports, and to define "full access" with privacy protections, carried on a roll-call vote (11-8). - Councilman Rotello moved to require the council confirm the appointment of the director of the new Department of Technology Services (Section 6-16). The motion failed on a roll-call vote (11-8). - Councilman Hawley moved to require a two-thirds confirmation vote for all department heads under Section 6-4. The motion carried on a roll-call vote (9-8). - Councilman Chinese moved to retain the name "Elderly Services" instead of "Aging." The motion failed on a roll-call vote (10-8). - Councilman Chinese moved to retain the name "Parks and Recreation" as a separate department. The motion failed on a roll-call vote (11-9). - In Chapter 7 (borrowing), Councilman Chinese moved to return Section 7-10 to the commission for review of internal controls and eligible project types. The motion failed on a roll-call vote (13-8). - In Chapter 8 (ethics), Councilwoman Faye moved to broaden Section 8-2 to include non-monetary conflicts. The motion failed on a roll-call vote (13-5). - Councilman Chinese moved to reinstate Section 8-2 (present employees retain positions) to protect current city employees during departmental changes. The motion carried on a roll-call vote (10-7). Key Outcomes - The committee passed several motions directing the Charter Revision Commission to reconsider specific sections, including: rewording of Section 2-8 (oath of office), clarification of Section 3-6 (quorum), uniform reference to "General Statutes" throughout the charter, term limits for standing committee chairs, reporting of gifts by the mayor (Section 4-1), retaining the elected town clerk (Section 6-2), full revisit of Section 6-18 (Board of Education) with specific recommendations, requiring council confirmation of most department heads (Section 6-4), and reinstating employee protections (Section 8-2). - The committee voted to transmit all approved recommended changes (including amendments) to the Charter Revision Commission and to convene a joint meeting to confer on the final language before presentation to the full City Council. - The committee adjourned after authorizing the process to move forward. No follow-up meeting date was specified.

The City of Danbury Ad Hoc Committee, chaired by Councilwoman Andrea Gartner, met on July 20, 2026, at 7:00 PM to consider the reappointment of Doug Polistena to the Danbury Museum and Historical Society Authority. The meeting included council members Diane Lepine, Michael Henry, Ryan Hawley (ex officio), and John Laughinghouse, as well as several museum authority members and friends. Public Comments & Testimony - A letter from Bridget Gerton (Executive Director of the Danbury Museum Authority and City Historian) and Jeff Harold (President of the Board of Trustees), dated July 14, 2026, was read into the record. The letter expressed strong support for Doug Polistena’s reappointment, citing his long-standing commitment, integrity, thoughtful leadership, fiduciary management, and collaborative approach. It noted that the ordinance establishing the authority does not include a residency requirement for trustees, and asked the council to support the reappointment based on standards established in law. Discussion Items - Councilman Michael Henry clarified that his call for the ad hoc was not about Mr. Polistena personally but about the process for appointments, including outreach to Danbury residents and board composition. He questioned the current membership count and whether the appointment would exceed the board’s bylaw limit of nine full-time members and three alternates. - Marion Hasmeyer (board member) stated that Reverend Brandon Whitfield, listed as a full-time member, has attended only one meeting in many years and that the board is discussing requesting his resignation. She noted that Mr. Polistena is an active and engaged member. - Chief of Staff (unidentified) provided an updated list of active board members from the museum’s website: eight full-time members (including Mr. Polistena as a full-time) and one alternate. Several members acknowledged that some trustees’ terms have expired and that the board needs cleaning up. - Paul Valeri (board trustee) emphasized the board’s effectiveness and commitment, stating that Reverend Whitfield is not active and that Mr. Polistena has been a dedicated member since 2019. He urged the committee not to get caught up in technicalities. - Councilwoman Diane Lepine supported the reappointment, noting that many commissions struggle to fill seats and that Mr. Polistena is clearly active. Councilman John Laughinghouse voiced full support, describing the board as aligned with the appointment. - Councilman Henry reiterated that his concern was process-oriented and that housekeeping (e.g., obtaining a resignation or updating term status) should be resolved before finalizing the appointment. Key Outcomes - Councilwoman Diane Lepine made a motion to reappoint Douglas Polistena to the Danbury Museum and Historical Society Authority pending clarification of the current membership status (including the resignation of Reverend Whitfield). Councilman John Laughinghouse seconded the motion. - The motion carried with all members in favor. - The committee adjourned at 7:20 PM. The reappointment will return to the ad hoc committee after the museum authority provides updated membership information.

On July 17, 2026, the Danbury City Council Committee of the Whole convened (beginning July 16 at 6:36 p.m.) to discuss the Charter Revision Commission’s draft report. After a recess for a public hearing at 7 p.m., the council examined proposed changes to the preamble, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 of the city charter. Multiple amendments were debated and voted on, with recommendations to be forwarded to the commission. The meeting was continued to July 21 at 6:30 p.m. Discussion Items - Preamble and Chapter 1 (City Identity & Purpose) Council members debated the addition of “resident” and “taxpayer” to the preamble’s aspirational language. Councilman Henry moved to add “taxpayer,” which passed 12‑9. The main motion to approve the preamble and Chapter 1 as amended then carried. - Chapter 2 – Reapportionment of Wards (Section 2‑4) Councilman Henry moved to remove the mayor’s appointment of a fifth reapportionment member when the four-member commission deadlocks, instead having the council appoint that member. After extensive debate about political dynamics and past deadlocks, the amendment failed 13‑8. Councilwoman Jabbar then moved to change “appointed” to “nominated” in the same section, which passed by voice vote. - Chapter 2 – Municipal Elections (Section 2‑2) Councilwoman Faye moved to keep the mayor’s term at two years rather than the proposed four years. Supporters argued two-year terms ensure accountability and voter engagement; opponents cited the need for long-term planning and voter fatigue. The motion failed 14‑7. Councilman Rotello moved to keep city council terms at two years; that amendment also failed (12 no votes). - Chapter 2 – Board of Education Terms Councilman Chinese moved to retain staggered four-year terms for Board of Education members, arguing it preserves institutional knowledge and gives voters more frequent input. The motion carried on a roll-call vote. - Chapter 2 – Vacancies in Elected Offices (Section 2‑6) Councilman Chinese moved to strike the proposed language allowing the mayor to fill a vacancy if the council fails to act within 60 days. Opponents noted that without a deadline the council could delay indefinitely; the motion failed 13‑8. Key Outcomes - Amendment to add “taxpayer” to preamble: Passed 12‑9. - Main motion for preamble and Chapter 1 (as amended): Approved (voice vote, ayes prevail). - Amendment to remove mayoral appointment of fifth reapportionment member: Failed 13‑8. - Amendment to change “appointed” to “nominated” in Section 2‑4: Passed. - Amendment to keep mayor’s term at two years: Failed 14‑7. - Amendment to keep council term at two years: Failed (12 no votes). - Motion to retain staggered BOE terms: Passed (roll call – majority in favor). - Amendment to strike vacancy deadline language: Failed 13‑8. - Motion to continue the meeting to July 21 at 6:30 p.m.: Passed (one opposed). The council’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Charter Revision Commission for further consideration.

The Danbury City Council held a public hearing on July 16, 2026, to receive public comment on the proposed charter revisions from the Charter Revision Commission. The revisions included changes such as four-year terms for elected officials, appointing the town clerk, increasing the bonding threshold from $2 million to $5 million, adding transparency provisions for the Board of Education finances, and other modifications. The hearing featured extensive testimony from residents, with many urging the council to send the revisions to a November referendum, while others opposed the process or specific provisions. Public Comments & Testimony - Mayor Roberto Alves (7 West Reading Road) urged the council to send the charter revision to voters in November, stating that a vote to deny the public a referendum would take away their right to decide. He emphasized that the final decision should rest with Danbury voters. - Jan Maria Jagish (Coach Hill Drive) supported the proposed revisions, citing benefits of four-year terms for stability, appointing the town clerk for professional qualifications, and raising the bonding threshold to reflect current costs. He argued that accountability remains through elections and public meetings. - Melody Darrett (15 Westview Drive) shared personal concerns about safety and community connection, asking whether the charter addresses the needs of residents like young women who feel unsafe. She did not explicitly support or oppose the revisions but called for greater accountability and inclusion. - Ellen Cook (56 Samplit Road) expressed full support for the mayor's request to send the charter to voters, favored four-year terms, and believed the town clerk should be appointed rather than elected. - Ashley Fawn (William Street, 5th Ward) opposed the current form of the charter, raising concerns about the language defining the mayor's chief of staff. She argued that unclear boundaries between coordination and executive authority could undermine public trust, especially given her experience as a rape survivor and nonprofit founder. - Karen Palanzo (27 Middle River Road) criticized the process, stating that the Charter Revision Commission had a preset agenda, did not provide a redlined document with explanations, and ignored public input. She noted that the final public hearing was only two months long and that the commission refused to extend the timeline despite having 16 months. - Ray McGarigal (41 Eastgate Road) supported four-year terms and transparency for Board of Education finances, and urged the council not to play politics, allowing voters to decide. - Mary Keating Tahan (1 East Hayestown Road, Barkley Commons) supported all changes, especially appointing the town clerk, arguing that the job is non-political and should be based on qualifications. She asked the council to send the revisions to referendum. - Paul Bamba (3 Crestdale Drive) commended the commission and urged the council to let residents vote on the charter, stating that voters deserve the right to decide their city's constitution. - George O'Lachlin (13 Maple Bridge Road) supported four-year terms, Board of Education transparency, and appointed town clerk, emphasizing that the council should allow voters to decide. - Henry Hall (6 Flirtation Drive) supported the revisions as "good enough" and urged the council to pass them so voters can have a say. - Keegan Willemson (43 Saddle Rock Road) supported the revisions for efficiency, continuity, and transparency, and asked the council to put the matter to a public vote. - Lynn Waller (83 Highland Avenue) opposed the process, stating that the commission ignored her suggestions and those of other residents. She specifically objected to four-year terms for the Board of Education (preferring staggered terms), mayoral appointment of the town clerk (preferring civil service or election), legislative assistant appointment by the council, and the high signature threshold for referendums (10% in 30 days). She warned that if no changes are made, she would vote no in November. - Lorraine Herger (Southern Boulevard) opposed the current form of the charter, citing concerns about four-year terms without term limits, increased bonding without referendum, and appointment powers centralizing power in the mayor. She argued that the issues raised by the public were not addressed and that the charter should be revised before going to voters. - Kate Canada (Topfield Road) raised concerns about Section 618 regarding the Board of Education, stating that the language may conflict with state statute and potentially expose sensitive student data under FERPA. She urged the council to consider these risks before sending the charter to voters. - Elvis Novas (Forest Example Place) supported the revisions, arguing that four-year terms provide stability for long-term projects and that accountability is maintained through elections. He asked the council to let voters make the final decision. - General Pine (14 Lilly Drive) supported appointing the town clerk, citing the technical nature of the job and the need for continuity, especially as a realtor who works with clerks in the region. - Randall Michael (Juniper Ridge Drive) supported four-year terms and asked the council to pass the revision so voters can decide. - Debbie Rizzo (46 Old Musket Lane) opposed the charter as currently written, particularly the appointed town clerk and four-year terms, and argued the process was rushed. - Michelle Coelho (47 East Lake Road, Chair of Danbury Republican Town Committee) opposed the process, stating that the Republican Town Committee was excluded from nominating members. She argued against four-year terms for the Board of Education (removing staggered elections) and the appointed town clerk, saying these changes remove the voice of the people. She urged the council to reject the charter. - Irving Fox (10 Clappard Ridge Road) opposed the elimination of staggered terms for the Board of Education, noting that the current four-year terms with staggering provide continuity and mentorship. He warned that removing staggering would lead to inexperienced boards dependent on the superintendent. - John Cook (152 South King Street) supported four-year terms for stability, Board of Education transparency, and appointed town clerk, noting that the position requires specialized skills. - Natalie Mago (136 Pembroke Road) urged the council to reject the current form, expressing concern about democracy and women's voices, though she did not specify which provisions she opposed. - Eva Vega (3 Crane Street) supported sending the revisions to voters, stating that decisions about the charter should be made by the people, not the council. - Letter from Jan Gagler (former town clerk, 10 Old Hayrake Road, read by a speaker) opposed the charter changes, warning that eliminating the elected town clerk and centralizing authority would weaken checks and balances. The letter also opposed four-year terms, legislative assistant appointment by the mayor, and other provisions, and called for codifying protections for city employees. - Paul McAllister (reading for Warren Levy, Mabel Avenue) opposed the charter, stating that the commission's process was flawed with only 11 hours of public meetings, conflicts of interest, and minimal transparency. He argued that the current charter works well and the changes centralize power, urging a no vote. - Mark Stanton (6 Tangle Wood Drive) supported four-year terms, using his own learning curve as a teacher and Trader Joe's employee to illustrate the time needed to become effective. - Gary Simone (5 Dogwood Drive) supported the charter revisions and also raised the issue of minority representation, sharing his personal experience of winning an election but losing due to the minority representation rule, which he felt undermined voter will. - Denise Minson (93 Park Avenue) supported four-year terms with term limits, and preferred the town clerk be a civil service position rather than elected or appointed. - Joan Belisna (179 Cohenza Street) supported four-year terms for the mayor, Board of Education transparency, and letting voters decide, noting that it saves money and attracts residents. - Kathleen Troy (92 Park Avenue) thanked the commission, noting eight meetings, supported four-year terms, and urged the council to move forward to a referendum. - Larry Reifberg (6 Irviee Drive) supported the commission's recommendations and asked the council to respect their work and let voters decide in November, stating that democracy is messy but the best form of government. - Vacovitz (Statis Avenue) opposed rushing the process, arguing that the council should take time to get it right rather than meet a November deadline. He disagreed with the mayor's claim that a no vote takes away voter rights, noting that a properly revised charter would eventually go to a vote. - Farley Santos (27 Westview Drive) supported sending the revisions to voters, emphasizing that the process was transparent and that the council should trust the people of Danbury to decide. - Al Robinson (7 Melrose Avenue) opposed the current process, stating that the council has the authority to make changes and send recommendations back to the commission. He questioned the mayor's appointment of commission members who contributed to his campaign, the short 11-hour meeting total, and the lack of transparency. He urged the council to ask questions before sending the charter to voters. - Jennifer Doran (Long Ridge Road, Assistant Town Clerk) opposed the appointed town clerk proposal, preferring a hired (civil service) position for continuity and expertise. She noted that the commission did not consult the town clerk's office and that the duties are technical and state-mandated. Key Outcomes - The public hearing was formally closed after a motion. The council then took a 10-minute recess before proceeding to the committee of the whole session. No vote was taken on the charter revision during the public hearing. The council will continue deliberation in the committee of the whole.