OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Danbury Charter Revision Commission Public Hearing – April 30, 2026

Meeting PortalThursday, April 30, 2026
BodyDanbury, Connecticut
SessionMeeting Portal
DateThursday, April 30, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:44:44

Transcript — Verbatim
0:04

All right, good evening, everybody.

0:05

I'm calling the public hearing uh to order.

0:09

It is 7 o'clock PM.

0:11

Um we're gonna start off with the Pledge of Allegiance.

0:13

If Commissioner Jowdy, if you could lead us in the pledge, please.

0:21

Yes, America.

0:23

And the Republic for which it stands under individual liberty and justice for all.

0:34

Thank you.

0:34

Um Secretary Almeida, if you could please do the roll call.

0:43

Good evening, everyone.

0:44

Uh roll call.

0:45

Commissioner Almeida is present.

0:48

Commissioner Armstrong?

0:50

Commissioner Britton.

0:51

Here.

0:52

Commissioner Hernandez?

0:54

Commissioner Jowdy?

0:55

Here.

0:56

Commissioner McCarry?

0:57

Yeah.

0:58

Commissioner Putnam?

1:00

Here.

1:00

Commissioner Ribero?

1:02

Commissioner Safranic.

1:04

Here.

1:05

All are present.

1:08

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

1:10

I'm going to now read the public notice for today's public hearing.

1:18

So the public hearing notice today, April 30th, 2026, 7 p.m.

1:23

is a public hearing in City Hall Council Chambers to hear comments from the public regarding the revisions, possible revisions to the City of Danbury Charter.

1:32

And I'll also read on Monday, it was published Monday, April 20th in the News Times, the public notice of the Charter Revision Commission.

1:41

Notice is hereby given that the City of Danbury Charter Revision Commission will hold a public hearing pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-191 at which parties and interest and citizens will have an opportunity to be heard in relation to the following.

1:57

Said public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 30th, 2026 at 7 p.m.

2:02

in the council chambers in City Hall in Danbury, Connecticut.

2:05

Okay.

2:10

So this P this hearing is being held in accordance with Connecticut law, which requires that a public hearing take place before the Charter Revision Commission begins any substantive work on potential revisions to the city charter.

2:21

Our role as a commission is to conduct a thorough, fair, and thoughtful review of the charter and ultimately make recommendations to the city council and if appropriate to the voters.

2:31

But tonight is about listening to the public, and therefore the commission will not engage in any back and forth dialogue.

2:37

Speakers will be called in the order that they are signed up, and please be courteous in the length of your remarks.

2:42

I ask that you keep your remarks to around three minutes as the chair.

2:46

I reserve the right to extend that time.

2:48

And please direct all comments to the commission as a whole and remain respectful remain respectful with your remarks.

2:55

This is a forum for constructive input, and we welcome a wide range of perspectives.

3:00

After all speakers that are present have had the opportunity to be heard, we will close the public hearing.

3:06

And with that, uh we will now begin public comment.

3:10

So if those that wish to speak and address the commission, um if you want to line up at the podium, I think that might be the simplest way to do it.

3:17

Um and we'll just alternate sides.

3:19

But um, if any members of the public wish to speak, um please line up and we'll hear you in turn.

3:25

Do any members of the public wish to speak to the commission?

3:27

Yes, ma'am.

3:29

Hello, my name is Karen Polanzo.

3:31

I reside at 27 Middle River Road.

3:33

I was looking at the charter to look to see for discrepancies or things that were not consistent.

3:40

Um or things that I felt should change.

3:44

I also read other towns' charters and ordinances to get additional information.

3:49

I noticed that our town charter did not have in it a section on ethics, and I feel that that is appropriate to be in there.

3:56

Most town charters, all of them have that.

3:59

It's also an ordinances, but it belongs in the charter and additional information in the ordinances.

4:05

And the reason for that is ordinances can be changed by the common council.

4:10

The charter is the living document of the city of Danbury, and everyone should be held to that document because the city has to vote on that.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Charter Revision█████████████████████████████████████████████91%
Procedural██5%
Ethics1%
Public Safety1%
Engineering And Infrastructure1%
Technology and Innovation1%
Summary of Proceedings

Danbury Charter Revision Commission Public Hearing

Date: April 30, 2026, 7:00 PM

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on potential revisions to the City of Danbury Charter. Over a dozen residents and elected officials spoke, offering a wide range of perspectives on term lengths, council structure, bonding limits, ethics provisions, and modernization of the charter.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Karen Polanzo (27 Middle River Road): Noted the charter lacks an ethics section and recommended adding one. Criticized the use of double negatives ("not inconsistent"), a 93-word run-on sentence describing council powers, the quorum definition allowing a majority of members present, and the lack of residency requirements for many key positions. Also suggested more than five days for the public to review the final budget.
  • Lynn Waller (83 Highland Avenue): Opposed shrinking the city council from 21 members. Opposed raising the bonding limit to $5 million without public referendum, arguing a longer mayoral term combined with higher bonding would reduce public input. Questioned the rush of the charter revision process and lack of TV coverage of meetings. Expressed concern that commission members are too close to the mayor.
  • John Cook (152 South King Street): Supported extending the mayor's term to four years to reduce constant campaigning and allow for longer-term planning. Suggested adjusting the distribution of at-large seats to avoid multiple council members from the same ward.
  • Jackie Wrightsis (6 Dartmouth Lane): Supported a four-year mayoral term for better team building, relationship building, and long-range planning.
  • Duane Robinson (Councilwoman, 2nd Ward): Advocated for allowing standing committees (currently only ad hocs are allowed), updating dollar values for donations and bonding (noting $1,000 in 1990 is worth more today), modernizing the charter for technology (digital publication, hybrid meetings, digital petitioning), and adding ethics and conflict of interest provisions.
  • Benjamin Chenaze (Councilman, 6th Ward, over 20 years on council): Opposed changing the 21-member council. Called for reforming the reapportionment process to avoid costly impasses. Recommended making the town clerk an appointed civil service position to ensure qualifications. Supported raising the bonding limit but with a cap on total outstanding debt. Agreed to increase the donation acceptance limit. Urged consistent department head descriptions and an ethics provision.
  • Gary Simone (5 Dogwood Drive, former Councilman): Supported four-year terms for mayor and council, citing the steep learning curve and the need for continuity. Shared a personal story about winning the popular vote but losing the seat due to charter rules, asking the commission to ensure votes count.
  • Paul Rotello (Councilman, 6th Ward, 13 Linden Place): Warned against sweeping changes, arguing Danbury is the best-run city in Connecticut. Defended two-year terms as ensuring accountability. Opposed standing committees as potentially creating powerful fiefdoms. Urged the commission to slow down and aim for a 2028 referendum, taking 12–18 months like previous revisions.
  • Luisa Britton (14 Fairfield Avenue, Board of Education): Supported extending terms from two to four years and allowing standing committees, citing her positive experience on the Board of Education.
  • Bill McAllister (6 South Street, Councilman, King Street Volunteer Fire Chief): Supported four-year terms. Urged no changes to charter sections governing the fire department (career and volunteer).
  • Frank Salvatore (1903 Revere Road, Councilman): Supported four-year terms and keeping council size. Suggested alternative mechanisms for appointing a fifth member to the reapportionment committee if it deadlocks. Recommended updating public notice requirements to include digital options, establishing standing audit committees, retaining residency requirements for police and fire chiefs, and adjusting the bonding limit for inflation.
  • Al Robinson (7 Melrose Avenue): Opposed four-year terms, arguing past proposals were political power grabs. Favored keeping the bonding limit and requiring public referendums. Supported making the city clerk a civil service position to depoliticize it. Strongly defended ward representation. Criticized the current town clerk for politicization. Questioned the legality of the commission's makeup.
  • Mayor (speaker not named, but identified as mayor): Supported four-year terms for all elected officials for stability and better recruitment. Asked the commission to adjust the bonding limit from $3 million to approximately $5 million (inflation-adjusted) to handle emergencies like the school roof repair. Opposed changing council size. Urged the commission to let voters decide on these issues.
  • Taylor (Chief of Staff): Presented technical revisions: update public notice requirements to comply with state statutes and allow digital publication (city spent over $100,000 on newspaper notices in the last year); raise the donation acceptance limit; add a Department of Technology Services; rename departments (e.g., Emergency Management, Aging Services); adjust confirmation process for entry-level police/fire hires to avoid academy delays; clarify deputy corporation counsel role; change superintendent of highways to public services; remove outdated budget submission dates; allow flexibility in emergency appropriations; update accounting provisions; and make the charter gender-neutral.
  • Michael Coello (Councilman at-large, 47 East Lake Road): Opposed reducing the 21-member council, stressing the importance of ward representation. Urged the commission to take its time and not rush the process.

Key Outcomes

  • The commission voted unanimously to close the public hearing (moved by Commissioner Sefranic, seconded by Commissioner Jowdy).
  • The commission then voted unanimously to adjourn (moved by Commissioner Sefranic, seconded by Commissioner Putnam).
  • No substantive votes on charter changes were taken; the commission will now deliberate and prepare recommendations for the city council and potentially the voters.

Meeting Transcript

All right, good evening, everybody. I'm calling the public hearing uh to order. It is 7 o'clock PM. Um we're gonna start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. If Commissioner Jowdy, if you could lead us in the pledge, please. Yes, America. And the Republic for which it stands under individual liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Um Secretary Almeida, if you could please do the roll call. Good evening, everyone. Uh roll call. Commissioner Almeida is present. Commissioner Armstrong? Commissioner Britton. Here. Commissioner Hernandez? Commissioner Jowdy? Here. Commissioner McCarry? Yeah. Commissioner Putnam? Here. Commissioner Ribero? Commissioner Safranic. Here. All are present. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I'm going to now read the public notice for today's public hearing. So the public hearing notice today, April 30th, 2026, 7 p.m. is a public hearing in City Hall Council Chambers to hear comments from the public regarding the revisions, possible revisions to the City of Danbury Charter. And I'll also read on Monday, it was published Monday, April 20th in the News Times, the public notice of the Charter Revision Commission. Notice is hereby given that the City of Danbury Charter Revision Commission will hold a public hearing pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-191 at which parties and interest and citizens will have an opportunity to be heard in relation to the following. Said public hearing will be held on Thursday, April 30th, 2026 at 7 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall in Danbury, Connecticut. Okay. So this P this hearing is being held in accordance with Connecticut law, which requires that a public hearing take place before the Charter Revision Commission begins any substantive work on potential revisions to the city charter. Our role as a commission is to conduct a thorough, fair, and thoughtful review of the charter and ultimately make recommendations to the city council and if appropriate to the voters. But tonight is about listening to the public, and therefore the commission will not engage in any back and forth dialogue. Speakers will be called in the order that they are signed up, and please be courteous in the length of your remarks. I ask that you keep your remarks to around three minutes as the chair. I reserve the right to extend that time. And please direct all comments to the commission as a whole and remain respectful remain respectful with your remarks. This is a forum for constructive input, and we welcome a wide range of perspectives. After all speakers that are present have had the opportunity to be heard, we will close the public hearing. And with that, uh we will now begin public comment. So if those that wish to speak and address the commission, um if you want to line up at the podium, I think that might be the simplest way to do it. Um and we'll just alternate sides. But um, if any members of the public wish to speak, um please line up and we'll hear you in turn. Do any members of the public wish to speak to the commission? Yes, ma'am.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com