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.

Hello, my name is Karen Polanzo.

I reside at 27 Middle River Road.

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

Um or things that I felt should change.

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

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.

Most town charters, all of them have that.

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

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

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.

So just looking at it, I saw that the zoning commission shall have the powers and duties not inconsistent.

And it's also under the common council not inconsistent.

And I don't know why the wording says not inconsistent instead of just consistent.

Well, I use a double negative.

Um the sentence for the council, it's 93 words on all that you guys do.

And it's very long.

To me, it's a run-on sentence, it's very convoluted.

You really don't know what the powers of the common council are because it just runs on and on.

Um under a quorum, it says a majority of members present.

Um shall constitute a quorum.

So the council has 21 members.

If 11 show up and 10 do not, that's a quorum.

So you have 11 people making the decisions for the city.

I don't know if that'll ever happen, but it's to me it should not be that way.

It should be two thirds as it is every place else.

Enactment is the same thing.

There's no blurbs in there, as it is like in other charters.

It also appears like the number of years of experience for key positions, the director of finance, superintendent highways, city engineer, superintendent of public utilities, superintendent of public buildings, construction superintendent, planning director, executive director of the Department of Elder Services, HR director.

It's all five years experience, plus maybe some additional qualifications.

And the director of finance does not need a master's degree in accounting.

They just need a degree.

It has in the charter that chief of police, fire chief, have to be a resident.

And by ordinance, there's a lot of other people.

And if you're serving a commission, there's no place that says that personnel holding key positions in the city of Danbury, such as the mayor, director of public works, superintendents, department heads, etc.

Must be a resident of the city of Danbury.

If you're not a resident, then how can you effectively be invested in the community, governor or preside over the key departments for those people in the city?

And the appointments by the mayor, the chief of staff, corporation council, director of finance, and director of public works say it can be maybe disapproved by a two-third vote of the entire membership of the city council.

So the council is 21 members, six to 15 members, it would have to be 15 members to disapprove and six members to approve.

So you could have eight members approving it, and the rest of the council does not approve it, and yet they are sworn in.

And a couple of discrepancies.

And several years ago, I just notice it now.

Tim Nolan was a superintendent of highway, and he's now listed as a superintendent of public services on the website.

So that's in direct violation of the charter, his job title.

And there should be more than five days' time frame from the budget to give the public time to review that final thing.

And that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Yes, ma'am.

Hi, my name is Lynn Waller, 83 Highland Avenue in Danbury.

I was preparing for my show tomorrow, to tape my show tomorrow.

And I looked at the announcements and realized that tonight was the public hearing.

So I'm a little jumbled here.

I did not prepare for it in advance.

But I wanted to discuss the fact that what I read in the paper, they wanted to shrink the number of council people on the council.

I do not like that idea.

I think two people from each ward and seven at large are a good number.

And there are times when I would bring an issue to a council person who just didn't want to hear it.

And whether you were Republican or a Democrat, it didn't matter.

I also don't notice any independence on the council.

And at the moment, there are more independent citizens of Danbury than there are Republicans or Democrats listed.

So I would like to see someone from the independent party who is elected to the position here.

But I don't want you to shrink the number of council people.

I assume it's the mayor wants to have access to five million dollar bondage without talking to the public for a referendum.

I know that it is at $3 million at the moment.

And if we are if he's in for two years, he can only bond six million without having the public say something.

If you change it to four years, as I saw in the paper that they would like to do, he can borrow 20 million without talking to the public.

And I think that's wrong.

I think the public needs to be able to speak to any of these issues, and that we should have the right of referendum on that sort of thing.

I know there are emergencies, and all of us would be understanding if there was an emergency, but I just think it's wrong to give them access to 20 million dollars over four years.

They want a longer term for the mayor.

A long time ago, I thought that was a good idea.

I think it was Mr.

Rotella was just telling me or someone, oh no, I'm sorry.

They were just telling me that they were writing down my notes from a lot my comments from a long time ago and that I had asked for a four-year term.

If you're going to give the mayor the access to five million without going to the public, then keep it at two years.

If you are leaving it at the three million, then go ahead and give him the four years that he wants.

It's April.

They have to approve it by May in order to get our mill rate on for the year.

If they could begin the process earlier, it would give the council a little longer to go to their ad hocs and to talk about things, possibly get the public in listening at.

I don't know.

I've been asking them to come for years, and they don't.

But I just would like it to start earlier so that it wouldn't be such a rush and that we would have a better chance of knowing what was in the budget before we're put in.

And I praise the Lord and thank them for not raising our taxes too much this year.

That was a complete surprise, but I'm very pleased about it.

I also wonder what is the rush to do this charter revision.

It's happening very quickly.

There's no coverage on TV, and by that I mean on the television through Comcast.

And I was just talking to the to Mr.

Newmuller, and he said they are fixing that, and it will be on there, so that's good.

But when you meet on Wednesday nights, it's not going to be on TV, so that the public is not going to have a chance to see it.

I think that's wrong.

And I'm non-citizens asked or non-I don't know how to put this politely, but I have the feeling a lot of the people sitting on the commission are there to do the mayor's bidding.

I don't see many normal taxpayers that have been asked to be on here or just average citizens that were asked to be on.

I was on a commission 20 years ago, 30 years ago, and they had regular citizens on it.

This time most of the people are either a council person or married to someone or on the school board or something like that.

And it it doesn't seem like there's many average Joes on here, I guess is the best description.

And I feel like they are sort of there to help the mayor or to give him what he wants.

And I want to remind you, you are here for all of the people of Danbury, not just the mayor, not just the Democrats who happen to be in charge at the moment.

Were you Republicans?

I would be saying the same thing.

You're not here just for the Republicans.

You just need to remember who you're working for on this charter revision.

It's not easy.

It took us six months to get ours accomplished from what I read in the scheduling.

You expect to have this done in a couple of months.

Maybe it's because you don't plan to cover much, I don't know.

But once you open the charter, you're allowed to talk about anything in it.

And I would really like you to consider some of the things we're talking about.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um any other members of the public wish to address the commission.

And I am going to ask that for your comments.

Um, just make sure that they're pointed to changes or suggestions to the actual document itself.

Yes, my name is John Cook, and I live at 152 South King Street.

The first one is going to be an easy one.

Uh two cycles ago during election season, uh two people that I thought were pretty qualified were elected.

They were elected as members at large.

Sean Ratchford and uh Barry Rickard.

So I had four people I could call on in Ward One.

It was great.

If you want to keep it that way, it's great to have four people.

But I think it should be spread out amongst the city and not have two people from one ward, maybe one member at large or a ward that's a little bit larger.

And I know ward one is a large ward, but I don't think we need four people up there.

Uh that's the first one.

That's the easy one.

Um the second one is I think we should go to four terms, four four-year service.

Uh the reason for that is um I live on South King, and uh I'm very good about putting up signs because it's right across the street from the school, but they were they're up there in June, which tells me that maybe the people are we're starting to campaign during that second year.

We could save the city some money.

Cities around us have changed to four years.

I think probably maybe for that reason.

Uh so I think four years is good.

Gives a gives the people in office uh an opportunity to make some serious changes in this community and see them through the end.

Whereas two years, we have some major things going on in the city, and uh some the officials right now don't see it to the end, and things change.

So I think that would be important to do, change it to a four-year term.

Um that's it for me.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public wish to speak.

Hello, my name is Jackie Wrightsis.

I live at sixth Dartmouth Lane.

This is very short and sweet.

I just would like to address the brevity of the mayoral term.

I do not think that two years is sufficient for team building.

Team building is really important.

I don't think it's enough time for setting an agenda that's based on fact-finding and based on having a deep knowledge of our city's ins and outs.

I don't think it's enough time for uh long-range planning.

I think that relationships are key, and it takes a long time to build relationships.

And as was just said, the person gets in and then she or he has to start almost immediately running for re-election, and I don't think that's sound practice.

That's all.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public good evening.

Um Circle Drive East, and I also represent the second ward in the city council.

Um to the commission, thank you for doing this work.

Um I know that reviewing a city charter is not glamorous or fun.

Um the fact that you're here speaks of you in the city of Danbury, so thank you.

Um before I get into substance, I just want to acknowledge something openly.

I know this process hasn't been without controversy, and folks have some real concerns about opening this commission and maybe in some way shifting power in one way or the other.

Um, I do want to reiterate to this commission that that's your job to make sure that that's not why you're here.

Um, your role is to look at this document with fresh, unbiased eyes and not to serve any political agenda.

Um, but in my mind to ask an honest question, which is what is still serving Danbury well in the city charter, um, and what is quietly getting in our way.

Um, in my view, it's a risk-benefit analysis.

Um, I think that what needs to stay, you know, could create a risk or invite misuse down the road, then that's something you need to consider.

Um I'm gonna give a couple examples because for selfish reasons, I have my own thoughts.

One of them is the ban on standing committees.

And some of you know I am very passionate about public education in the city.

Um when I joined the council, I wanted to create a standing committee or at least an ongoing committee with the uh Board of Education, the leaders and the staff in the public school buildings as well as the city council and the council members and the mayor's office.

This was not something that our city charter allows.

It actually only states that we can have ad hoc committees.

So what happens is I had to write a letter to the mayor, get my fellow council members to sign on, get it on the agenda, have the city council vote to put it to an ad hoc.

And what an ad hoc is is a temporary committee that should have a limited purpose.

So what that means is that we have to basically state that we are going to talk about one issue or a small cluster of issues, and if we want to go off track, we're really violating the charter.

So even though I had a large group and pretty much everybody on both sides of the city and the school district wanted this, we had to go through these hoops just to be able to have public meetings to talk about long-term strategy, talk about budget before the month before that we had to vote on it, maybe have these meetings a year in advance.

And then of course, when elections happen, members change, we have to do it all over again, and I have to recreate an ad hoc to be able to have these same conversations that we already started.

So standing committees and having the opportunity in the charter is one of my first pleas.

Um losing my voice a little bit.

One of the other things I wanted to mention, and somebody else had made a comment about it was the dollar values that exist in the charter.

I believe that the mayor is allowed to take 1,000 dollars on behalf of the city as far as donations.

But that was written initially in 1990, um, and the no amendments have have changed that dollar amount as well as the three million dollar bonding.

Um I think $1,000 in 1990 is probably closer to $3,000 now.

So I think for efficiency purposes, that it might benefit the public to be able to have the mayor accept donations that go to the city or grant dollars that go to the city with no public match without it having to go on the city council agenda for every single thing that's over a thousand dollars that don't impact us in any way.

Um and the bonding as well, even though it allows for three million dollars in the 1990 version of the charter, I believe it could go up.

But if you're worried about, um, like I believe Miss Waller said, if you're worried about the power that that gives the mayor, I think you can be thoughtful about having it be for routine maintenance or things like that rather than just broad authority.

Also, just a couple things that a lot has happened since that charter was originally written.

I know there's been some amendments, but technology has changed.

What we worry about from emergencies from a city perspective has changed.

I would probably consider adding some digital publication options, not just newspaper for hearings, notices, ordinances, maybe updating meeting rules to allow remote or hybrid participation.

Um, and I believe that Ms.

Planzo said it, um, modernize the job descriptions that are in there or maybe remove them completely and have it just be more generalized as far as what those job descriptions are.

Um I did notice that there's no ethics processes or conflict provisions in the charter.

I think there should be now in this day and age an easy way to have conflict of interest submissions and have ethics reviews put into the charter that will withstand the test of time.

Um allow digital petitioning, allow people to be able to do things and present in front of the uh city council without having to be here physically.

Um there are a lot of folks now that do things online, don't have the ability to access to get here in person.

I think it really helps uh the public to be able to have the accessibility of the council.

And just another thing updating some of the emergency ordinance rules that are in there, the things we face now with IT security, um public health issues really don't exist in that charter.

So just keeping it up current.

So thank you again for your time.

Appreciate everybody coming out today.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Sir, for East Pembroke Road.

I'm here to propose a charter revision that gives the city hall or city flexibility to offer better retirement options like pension plan, especially in public works, utilities, and buildings.

Since moving away from pensions, turnover has gone up in these departments, and that affects core services like road work, water systems, and facility maintenance.

As a city employee, I see problems with losing skilled workers.

That takes time to train the next person, which also costs more in the long run.

We asked the Charter Revision Commission to take this under consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Jan Maria Jagish, one coachill.

Um just a couple of things, and I I I'd like to uh reinforce the idea that I think that one of the things you should consider is changing the term of the mayor from two years to four years.

For the reasons I think that may have been stated before, somebody gets into office, especially first time in, you have to learn the position, you have to learn the office.

By the time you're learning the office, maybe you've got a year and you're all of a sudden now have faced with having to run again.

So I think four years just makes a lot more sense.

And if you have to compromise, go with three.

I think that there should be something about the rules governing ad hoc to just uh to prevent misuse of ad hoc so that ad hoc is not, you know, something is not sent to ad hoc just to send it to ad hoc.

So for example, if someone is applying for a grant, there's a time constraint on those grants.

For someone to say send it to ad hoc, there's no skin off of anybody's nose if we're trying to apply for a grant and get money.

As a member of the Cultural Commission, one of the issues comes up where you're notified about a grant that's available.

But now you have to get permission first to apply for the grant.

It seems to me that somewhere along the line, the red tape needs to be changed.

I mean, if if Greg Wensick, who's the head of the cultural commission sees something that comes across our desk and says, oh, you know, you can do this, but you know, you got like two weeks to apply, he can't do it because he's got to go to the he's got to go to the you know, the um board first and say, hey, can I do this?

And then after they say yes they can, you know, now it's too late and the deal, you know, there's no options, okay.

Um I also agree with the previous speaker who mentioned about the um the amount that um the the mayor can accept in donations.

I mean, a thousand dollars gets you no place, you know, and I agree that it should be raised at whatever threshold that you think is appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chairman Britton and members of the Charter Revision Commission.

My name is Ryan Hawley, and I reside at 18 Brighton Street here in Danbury, and I currently serve as a city councilman representing roughly 90,000 residents.

But tonight I'm speaking as a private citizen, a lifelong Dan Barian, a 13th generation nutmegger, and offering my personal perspective on our city charter and our future and its future.

Before I get into my comments, I just want to take a moment to recognize the weight of what you're doing.

Uh in my view, the most impactful Charter Revision Commission in the city's history was the one that led to consolidation in the late 1960s.

The commission didn't just revise language, it reshaped the footprint of Danbury through a series of changes on paper.

They brought together the town of the town of Danbury and the city of Danbury and created the structure that we operate in today.

The effects of that have lasted generations.

That effort reflected what we might now call strong change management.

It reflected the balance of the town's ward-based representation through the Board of Selectmen with the city's at-large common council.

It created a hybrid structure that allowed for community buy-in cooperation and a unified path forward for a moment when it was necessary.

That was the right solution for the time.

But now we are here more than 50 years removed from that moment.

And just as that commission had the responsibility to rethink the core structure of the government in their time, I believe we have the same responsibility and obligation today.

With that in mind, I want to highlight a few areas for your consideration.

First, the office of the mayor.

The mayor serves as the chief executive of our city, responsible for an administration and day-to-day operations.

Given the scope and complexity of that role today, I believe it's worth examining whether the current two-year term best supports long-term planning and execution.

A four-year term could provide greater continuity and allow an administration to more effectively implement its agenda on behalf of the residents that elected them.

At the same time, that conversation should be paired with a thoughtful consideration around term limits, balancing stability with the opportunity for new leadership.

Second, the structure of the and function of the city council.

As the legislative body, the council's composition directly impacts representation.

I would encourage a review of the balance between at-large and ward-based seats to ensure neighborhoods feel represented while maintaining a citywide perspective.

Grounding that in our history prior to consolidation, the town of Danbury operated with ward-based representation while the city operated fully at-large council.

The hybrid model that we have today was designed to bring these systems together.

That was a thoughtful approach at the time.

It helped unify a community that was coming together under one government.

But today it's fair to ask whether that comp that compromise is still necessary or whether it is time to revisit the idea of a fully at-large council that reflects a unified citywide electorate.

A fully at-large structure may also offer practical benefits in simplifying our reapportionment process that currently does not work.

If representation is not tied to a specific ward, the city may be able to streamline or avoid any complexity and challenges that come with redrawing district lines.

Related to that, I would suggest reviewing the role of standing committees.

Clear expectations around committee structure, responsibilities, and authority would strengthen the council's ability to do detailed policy work and improve overall effectiveness.

On compensation, I think it's important to make a clear philosophical decision.

Either the role is defined as a volunteer public service, or it is treated as a compensated role that reflects the time and responsibility required.

Right now, it operates somewhere in between.

Clarifying that on the charter would create a better alignment and clearer expectations for those who choose to serve for our city.

Third, modernization of the charter itself.

There are areas in the document that could benefit from updates to reflect current norms and practices and adjustments for inflation.

That includes modernizing notice requirements, incorporating the use of technology, and clarifying language that may be outdated or ambiguous.

For example, I would encourage the review of the oath of office.

It's it may be an opportunity to ensure the language reflects the values of the community today while maintaining its seriousness and attend.

Similarly, updating the charter to use gender inclusive language throughout would be a small but meaningful step in ensuring that the document reflects and represents all residents of Danbury.

And uh at the end of the day, this process is about alignment, alignment between our governing documents and the city we are today, not the city we were decades ago.

Danbury has a long history of adapting and bringing different systems and communities together and finding practical ways forward from its early days of swamp field to consolidation that defined modern Danbury.

Our community has never been static.

It evolves and responds to the needs of the time.

In many ways, the work of this commission is part of the same story.

You're not just reviewing language on the page.

You're helping define how our city will govern itself for the next generation.

As someone who strongly believes in localism, I see this as some of the most important work we can do here locally.

The decisions made at the local level are the ones closest to people's daily lives.

And when we get this right, we build trust.

We strengthen community and we create a government that truly reflects those.

I offer these thoughts in good faith, and I look forward to the commission's discussion and deliberation.

And like any resident, my views may evolve as I hear more from this body and from the community.

Thank you again for your time and sincerely thank you for your service.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name's Andrea Gardner, 112 Deer Hill Avenue.

I also represent the fifth ward in the city council.

Thank you, Councilman, for that.

Um all those comments.

And I'll just build on those because a lot of things that I meant to say.

So I'll start primarily and build on what Ms.

Yeagish said about the um the process now for grants.

Um council councilwoman Robinson, I appreciate how you how you identified what is quietly getting in the way with our city charter and the process for um nonprofits applying for grants, especially when there's no match, is one of those ways.

Timing is everything.

Uh they're often cyclical and at points in time during the calendar, there's a very short window to respond to opportunities that become available.

Um actually this time of year is happening right now as fiscal calendar fiscal budgets are concluding, and there may be some residual line item budget money to spend, and those organizations and nonprofit other funding agencies don't want that money to carry over.

So I would suggest including something in the charter that allows just a very narrow and practical procedural reform, which wouldn't reduce any of the city council council's fiscal authority.

And I have some recommended language, which I think I'll just share rather than go into it right now.

But it would um it would serve the city well because it would preserve council oversight, budget, it would preserve their budgetary authority, um, uh preserve the acceptance of the authority, but it removes the barriers that somehow are hard for nonprofits to get the funding they need.

Um then I also want to uh support the salute the recommendation of an ethics process that that's embodied within in the charter.

And while um I I think uh there is value to having district representation on the city council according to neighborhood, I feel that two per district is a little much with also an at-large model.

Um it's true that there are cities in Connecticut with larger city councils than Danbury's, but at 21, I I feel just my observation, participating that it is a bit cumbersome.

Those cities that have more than uh the city council seats than we do actually have more districts within their communities.

So if there's 30 on the city council, there's 30 districts, and everyone's representing a district.

So again, I don't know what the solution is.

But I feel like 21 could be reduced, and we wouldn't lose touch with our uh residents and maybe even conduct business more efficiently.

Um again, with the modern technologies, there's changes, um, certainly with public noticing and the the line item budget for that.

Money for that could easily support a paraeducator in the public schools or summer internships for seniors.

So I don't know what the solution is, but maybe something where there's at each of the voting locations there are kiosks and public notices get post at our voting locations so people know where to look when um they um are interested in keeping track of city business.

There could be a drop-down menu on immediately on the opening page of the city website looking for public notice, it's just one click away.

You don't have to navigate the website.

Um those are just a couple of things that I thought of.

Um I also support a four-year term, um, not just for the mayor, but also for city council members because the the speed in which two years comes and goes is really very quick to anyone elected to the position to sink their teeth into what the duties are and be responsible and responsive as a city councilor.

I feel that's also with zoning and board of ed.

Um so the cycle, if it were extended, I think could serve the city well.

And that's it.

Thank you so much for listening and for your agreed service.

I don't think we're rushing through this at all.

I think waiting 17 years is um waiting too long.

And I I know each of you have um given your commitment to to meet this the the um the optimistic schedule of seeing this through by the end of the year.

So thank you so much for that.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public?

Good evening.

My name is Benjamin Chenaze.

I reside at Five Briar Ridge Road here in Danbury.

I'm also too on the city council representing the sixth ward.

And as a as a member of the city council, I've been there for over 20 years, so this is not my first, but at this rodeo here.

I was I served on several of the ad hocs for the for not the actual commission itself, but the ad hoc to create the commissions.

So I'm pretty familiar with the charter from for in all these aspects in it.

I just want to go over certain things where I see this that the charter does need to be changed.

There are a lot of inconsistencies within the charter that that has occurred over the years where one person interprets it one way, I interpret it another way, and this is just a battle going back and forth which version of the charter is actually correct.

Um for example, um, so some of the things that I like to see, I know it's a short session here, so uh some of the things that I'd like to see happen.

I do like the 21 council model.

I know people here want to see it be tinkered with.

I disagree.

I think it worked since I've been on the council.

I think it worked since it's first started in the mid-60s.

We never had an issue with with the 21 members that are here.

And I think we all got along uh on pretty well.

Um the other things I would like to see change as well is reapportionment of the wards.

Um, as you know, just a few years ago, the city spent close to 100,000 trying to redistrict reapportionment over wards, primarily because of the ad hoc could not agree on a single map.

And the way it is is two members from one party, two members of another party, and you vote on a fifth member.

That has never happened in probably in 30 years on this ad hoc.

So that definitely needs to be somehow come up with a better solution of how to reapportion our city, which is very important with voters, and it helps with where uh which district is big and small.

But that's extremely important that we really should be um that should be one of the things you really need to tackle because reapportionment's gonna happen in another three years again, every 10 years, and we can't be spending another 100,000 dollars trying to figure this out.

The other things I think we need to look into is our town clerk.

Um currently our town clerk is like us, we are voted in every two years.

Um the town clerk is uh has always been a position of trust, but we've lost a very good town clerk we had here.

And why do we lose her?

Because you went to a town that was appointed and it was a permanent position.

I think the city of Danbury should adopt that model of having our town clerk appointed.

Because the town clerk is a matter of trust.

Because in theory, the way it's stated now, anybody in this room could be a town clerk.

As long as you get enough votes, you're a town clerk.

Doesn't mean you're qualified to be a town clerk, but they could be a town clerk.

We need a the town clerk over the years has evolved to a major part of our city, and they really need to know their job.

So I think our town clerk should be a civil service and it should be a certified town clerk.

So they actually know the job.

Like I said, I'm a certified public accountant.

Again, it to be again, it took me a lot of years to become that, and it had to be tested to become that.

But I would think you want your town clerk to be something that we know we can trust in that person.

Because like I said before, anybody in this room can be a town clerk.

And I can't be a town clerk.

I know nothing about being a town clerk.

But I can apply, I can go for it and I can I can possibly win.

So I think that needs to be definitely be needed to be looked at as well.

Um as we go through it, as you know, with our budget, it's a very important document.

It's probably the most important thing the city council actually approves on.

One of the things that we do do is that in order to change the mayor's budget, we need two thirds of members to do so.

Not present, two thirds.

That means 14 votes to change the mayor's budget.

That has never happened in like 40 years.

It's almost impossible to get 14 votes.

So and the to approve the budget, you just need 11 votes.

So you need 14 votes to change it, but 11 votes to approve it.

Because any ordinance, it's voted on by majority rule, 11 members.

So again, the inconsistency.

So if you need two thirds of one, it should be two thirds for both.

And if we do with a four-year model of the mayor, which I don't necessarily disagree with, then the council should have more of an input on how the budget is presented.

So it's just something you should consider when you do that as well.

Um another thing that was talked about was the um the five million dollars upgrade, which I don't necessarily disagree with.

Um I stood when I first started on the council, um, the magic number was 500,000.

Went from 500,000 to 3 million.

But since we adopted that 3 million, it was every single year was 3 million, 3 million, 3 million, 3 million.

So if we do it to 5 million, the odds are it'll be 5 million every year as well.

Um as we pay off those bonds, it's 20 years.

That's the maximum for bonds, is usually 20 years.

So in theory, we can get a $3 million bond and pay it off over 20 years.

So we just got to be conscient of that as well.

If we do do the $5 million increase, which I just I agree that we should do, there should be a cap on how much we can do on the five million, whether it'd be 30 million once you hit it, then it should stop until you know we can pay some of that bond off.

I think um I think our treasurer would be as well.

So we should at least consider the magnitude of the five millions over time.

So that's something we should look at as well.

Um I know we talked about the one million dollar the gift.

Um that's been talked about for 25 years.

And I think other commissions like yourself did talk about it to raise it to $10,000 before you come to this commission, but it just never got onto the ballot for the for the voters.

So that was agreed upon many years ago to increase it from $1,000 to 10,000.

But the mayor still had to present it at the meeting.

These are the things that he accepted during the month.

And I think everybody was in agreement with that.

That that's that's not an issue because it is an issue for a thousand dollar donation.

We get them now.

You know, it's it's uh it seems like why is it even on the on our agenda as well.

Um I think the other question I have is um the descriptions of our department heads.

I think if you go through the charter, it's they're not consistent how they're stated, how they're hired, how they're dismissed.

Some the council approves, some the council don't approve.

Sometimes we approved it one time, but the other time we never approved it.

So there's an inconsistency of how the department descriptions are here.

And I think as I looked at other towns, how they do, I think the city of Waterbury has a very good model, how they do their descriptions, is how they're hired, what their roles are, and how they're dismissed.

It's it's like bullet point.

It was very uh clear and understanding and all the departments are are listed that way.

And I think that's a very important thing to make the charter consistent with the description of our departments and titles and all that as well, because it's it's also very important.

I do agree with ethics.

I think we should have an ethics provision in here.

Um I do think um our um conflict of interest provisions should be updated as well, so it's much more clear.

Because over over the 20 years that I 20 plus years I've been here, there were issues with conflict of interests.

And depending on which person you spoke to, you got a different answer.

So I think it needs to be pretty clear on how the how the count how the issues are here in the charter.

And those are my comments this evening.

I may have more later, but this will get you going.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission.

How's everybody?

I always wonder how it looked from this side of the aisle.

Anyway.

First of all, I'd like to thank the members of the commission.

Um it's you got a tough job.

It's one that's way over my pay grade.

So I want to thank you because I know how how challenging it is and and how detailed and uh everything it does because you know you want to get it right, and uh and I told you I I thank you all for that very much.

So uh I'll just take this.

Oh, Gary Simone, Five Dogwood Drive.

I'm sorry, I was so excited up here talking.

Uh I'm gonna take it from a personal standpoint, what everybody says.

Um Congressman, uh Congressman, yeah, not Congressman yet, Mr.

Hawley.

Councilman Hawley was very articulate along with the other speakers.

Uh and I I too agree with the terms.

And I can tell you from a personal standpoint, when I was first elected to the council, uh, I was all excited, and then I then I figured, oh my God, I got I got I gotta really really do this.

And uh it was overwhelming.

Um and that I'm somebody that worked in government and for 40 years, I was director of Parks and Rec in Easton and Parker and Bevel, and uh and then work in the Milford and ran their teen center there.

So I had municipal experience, but then I got in down here and always wanted to serve my own community, and it was like wow.

It took me it took me a good six, seven months just to know what the measure was.

So from a standpoint from that standpoint right there, I strongly would encourage you guys, not just the the mayor's office, because you know, you know, because guys come on.

You know, multimillion dollar business, you know, GM is not changing bosses every two years.

You know, why why should uh a city of the size of Danbury and the diversification of Danbury do the same?

And the same with the council, and same with probably the other elected officials too.

It is daunting.

I found out that you want to do a good job.

When that packet came once a month, it was you know quite extensive.

And I think to do it right, it you need the extension on all the things that above their above the term limits right there.

Uh personal.

Uh as you know, I won but I lost.

And uh and it happened, I was upset, and I was a little upset.

But then you know, life goes on, I moved on.

And I let it go for a while, and then I was down in my batting cage working with my boys and my kids and all that kind of good stuff.

And uh a young Latino mother came up to me, she was so excited because she finally got the right to vote, and she voted for me.

And uh I had to tell her that basically her vote did not count.

Um because I uh I won but I lost.

And uh I don't think that was fair.

I think that was a mistake that was made way back when.

Uh I think it was under the sour administration or whatever administration it was was a mistake because the charter revision wasn't done for 17 years, maybe it was still overlooked, but I think it made a mistake on that because I really firmly believe that uh, you know, when you vote for somebody that your vote should count.

And uh I didn't know what to tell that young lady uh except thank you, and uh she'll get a chance again next year.

So don't go anywhere.

Uh so don't move, I said to her.

But I mean uh I and then that really struck me for a couple of days, it really it really bothered me that uh, you know, when you when you you know you get the votes and then you don't win.

Um I guess maybe only in America, but unfortunately that happened, and uh I like you guys take a look good long, hard look at that, so it doesn't have to come down.

And that just goes to tell you guys how important your job is, because there are so many things up there, there's so many people before me articulated to you guys, and the the task that you have, they have one one thing that may be maybe something comes back and uh doesn't work the way you want to work somewhere down the road.

So uh again, I thank you for your terms because I know how how how difficult this is and and how time consuming it will be.

And I know you all want to do it right.

So I probably thank you.

And that's basically the two biggest things I have to point out right there.

But from a personal standpoint, um from what I'm saying is four years, please.

We need I need I could definitely have used it, and I didn't come in green.

And also the when you vote for somebody, they have to make sure that their vote counts.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Any other members of the public?

No.

You know, I was in broadcasting for years, and it's amazing that I don't know how to use a microphone.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

Paul Rotello, 13 Linden Place Danbury, also uh six Ward City Councilman.

Go wards, I like wards.

Uh we have wards for a reason.

We're all neighbors, and you know, I may not know what's going on at the lake, but I gotta tell you, nobody knows more about the sixth war than Ben and I.

And if you get rid of the ward system, look, let's just back up a little bit.

Danbury, in my opinion, and I think I can back this up.

It's not just subjective, I think it's objective, is the best run city in Connecticut.

Let's talk about housing.

We've had more housing permits than any other town in Connecticut.

We're not the biggest.

19, 20, 21, we pulled more housing.

All anybody talks about is housing.

We build housing in Danbury.

We welcome people from all over the world to Danbury, and they come here, they like it here, the city works.

Um I'm listening to a lot of really well-meaning people tonight that want to change what we're doing in Danbury.

And they want to change the foundational document that basically instructs us how to operate.

I get it.

Here's the problem.

I don't see much of an upside.

Because the city is already the best bond city in Connecticut.

What I see when we tamper with this document is potential downside.

So before you tamper with the document, I'm not telling you what to do.

I'm just letting you know that before you tamper with that document, please weigh upsides and downsides.

Best one city in the uh state using this document that a lot of people are are are saying tonight is very lacking versus amorphous changes that may or may not work out.

We're not going to know until we try them.

And if we try them, if we're lucky, the city will continue to run as well as it does.

I don't think it's going to run any better.

I don't think it can run any better.

Incremental evolutionary changes, perhaps.

Every year, I believe the constituents in Danbury want to be a little bit better off, and maybe a little tiny bit bigger.

And we have been doing that consistently in the city for 50 years.

Let me just back up a little bit.

We heard a history of uh recall consolidation and how the wards came together with the with the at-large.

There are three people in this building that has actually seen this entire process through that voted for charter revision and that voted for the product that the Charter Revision Commission presented and voted for that to go to the voters, and then voted for it at the polls.

And that would be myself, Councilman Chinazy, and Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

We've seen this process work under a mayor from many years ago.

That same mayor wanted to do again, do it again in 20.

That was the beginning of COVID.

And we stopped it.

We technically stopped it.

In reality, that same mayor tabled it.

So it didn't come forth.

The reason why we stopped it is because the original charter revision from his first time around became a little bit too political.

Instead of diving into the ins and outs of standing committees and ad hoc and things like that, by the way, there's a really good reason why we have ad hocs.

It's because standing committees become too powerful.

They become standing, they go on forever.

And these people become amongst themselves fiefdoms.

There is no time limit on an ad hoc.

If we needed a school study that was open-ended, we could we could charge and seat an open-ended ad hoc and they could report back to the council from time to time until the ad hoc was finally closed out.

It's not necessarily an imperative that we have one or the other.

We can have modified ad hoc.

In the existing charter, we could do that now.

So you want to be careful about standing committees because generally the um the uh uh uh chairs become very powerful.

And then of course, if they lose the election, they're out.

So the reason that it was tabled in 20, the reason why the Democrats did not want to vote for this was because the original charter change, which was actually pretty good, got too politicized.

We blocked those political changes, but we weren't sure we'd be able to do it a second time.

And here's what's interesting.

They wanted four year terms in 20, and they wanted to fast track it, like you guys are fast tracking it.

The first time around took 16 months.

The next time they wanted to do it in three, so it would be on the November ballot of 20, and then in 21, they would have their four-year terms.

Now think about, think about what happened in 21.

Who won the election in 21?

Who became mayor?

Dean Esposito.

Dean Esposito would have been mayor for four years.

There would never have been an Alves administration had they had four year terms like they wanted in 20.

As a matter of fact, if they wanted, Ben just showed me a document from 1990 of a past charter revision document.

Had they had four-year terms back then, Mark Bowton would have been mayor for 40 years unless he quit.

Everybody's talking about how hard it is to campaign.

Ben and I, Councilman Chinazi and I, this is a true story.

In the end of October of last year, just before the election, we got a call from some very concerned citizens in a ward area that we had been watching, and they had a major problem that they couldn't solve, so they asked us if we could solve it.

And we worked on it really hard for a couple of weeks during the campaign.

We could do both.

And they had a meeting scheduled for Friday night to call us on the carpet because we weren't working hard enough.

So we said, we'll go to this meeting, sure.

And it was going to be in their backyard, it was going to be outdoors, gonna be all, you know, white gloves, Queensbury rules, but they were really PO'd.

Anyway, that day we solved the problem.

It had nothing to do with the meeting, but we solved the problem.

So instead of getting called on the carpet at that night, they threw us a party.

We had cannolis, we had Coronas.

It was a lovely little party, and they were all very happy that we did that.

And the point is that we could campaign and solve these problems simultaneously.

I I think what we're hearing tonight is that people really want a four-year mayor because they think they're going to get a two-year mayor who's really, really good and they want them to continue.

There's no disqualifying aspect of having to run every two years that really stops this process.

It continues throughout.

I've worked under three or four mayors who who've lost their seats and new guys have come in.

The system keeps rolling along.

But the thing you gotta remember about four-year terms is that you keep assuming you're gonna have a really wonderful mayor.

And some for some weird reason the voters are gonna throw them out.

If you have a really wonderful mayor, he's gonna get that next term.

But what you're kind of saying, what I'm kind of hearing tonight is that you really don't want the voters to get rid of a bad mayor after two years.

I I don't think that that's appropriate.

It's certainly not my position to tell the voters of Danbury how they can vote, who they can vote for, how long these terms happen to be.

We've grown up with two-year terms.

We have every representative in the U.S.

House of Representatives running for every two years, they have to raise millions of dollars, they run all the time, and they can do that.

We have I run every two years and I can take care of my ward.

Dan ran every two years.

A lot of people run every two years, they're able to do this.

And a lot of people do it from cities that are bigger.

And I acknowledge that other communities may have four-year terms, especially smaller ones.

Other communities have city managers, so that takes the load off the mayor.

But just think about what would happen if you instituted four-year terms and the voters voted for that, and you wound up with a mayor that was really falling down on the job.

You'd have to live with them for two extra years, maybe even eight years if he managed to snooker the population and get another four-year term.

So it's six of one half dozen of the other, but I think again, the the question you should be asking yourself going forward is the city functioning?

Obviously, the city functions.

We all get up in the morning, we drive to work, we do this, we do that, the schools are open, the city functions really well.

Then the next question is, is it functioning at a higher level?

It is.

Is it functioning at one of the highest levels in Connecticut?

Yes, it is.

So what is the overriding, the overarching reason that we need to change this charter?

What is it going to do for Danbury that is worth the risk of having it do something negative?

And I think that's what you need to consider with every single decision.

And finally, let's talk about the time frame here.

I mean, I've heard that you want to get this done by November, or the chair wants to get it done by November because that's the big election.

Come on.

We would normally spend 12 to 18 months doing this.

We heard uh from a woman who is who's left the building, who had a list of requests that would take you probably four months to get through.

You will not be able to handle those requests and standing committees and four year terms, and combining at large with board seats and do all that in three months.

If you really want a big turnout, there's a gigantic transformative existential event coming to this country when?

Not in 26, not in 27, but in 28.

That will be the biggest election in this country's history.

If you really want a really big turnout, if that's your goal, and I'm not sure that it actually is, because if you thought if you thought about this, you'd realize that the 28, that's the number to hit.

If you really want the biggest possible turnout, if you really want everybody in Danbury to be at that polls to look at this new document, 28 is the goal.

Don't do it this year.

Don't do it in 27.

Do it in 28.

Take as much time as you possibly need.

And then take a little more time.

You're going to decide something, then you're going to come back and you're going to sleep on it and say, I don't know if we did that properly.

Then you're going to hear from the public.

And they're going to give you a completely different idea and you're going to go back and think big thoughts.

That's what you're going to do.

That's your job.

Take as much time as you possibly need, then take some more.

You know what they say about going on a trip?

Pack what you think you need, take half of it out, and then take half out again.

Do that with this.

Do what you think you need to do.

Then think about it again.

We're not going anywhere.

The city's running really well.

There's no desperation here.

There's no urgency.

We're not heading off a cliff.

We are doing some we are the envy of Connecticut.

Don't drop that ball.

Don't be the guys that 50 years from now they say, well, it was, you know, those guys in 26 that did the charter revision.

That was really the when when Danbury pivoted and it pivoted to the worst.

Don't make that your legacy.

Make people say 50 years from now, man, that charter revision that they did in 28, that was aces.

That's the model going forward.

That's what we want to see.

Do that, and you'll do great.

And I know that you can.

And I'm looking for I voted against this because it became politicized.

But if you depoliticize this and get down procedural stuff and take the time to do it properly, I will be supporting you when you come back with that product, and I'll be voting for your your uh your your finished product at the polls, and I'll be telling my constituents to do the same.

Do it right so we can all be proud of you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other members from the public that wish to speak?

Ma'am.

Hi, my name is uh Luisa Britton and I live at 14 Fairfield Avenue.

Um I also serve on the Board of Education here in Danbury.

Um I'm just calling, I'm just here today to uh speak about extending the terms from two to four years.

Um board, we serve four years.

Uh we also have standing committees that we work through on the board.

Um with the large learning curve for you know, once you get elected to these positions, um two years wouldn't not have been enough for for me anyway to to do this as I'm in my second four-year term.

So I really um encourage you to consider extending the terms from two to four years.

And um we work with standing committees and we it works well for us, uh, both with the four-year terms and with the committees.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other members of the public, sir?

Good evening.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman and Councilman Britton.

Uh, my name is Bill McAllister.

I reside at 6 South Street Unified, Danbury, Connecticut.

And I'd like to start by saying I give all of you a tremendous amount of credit for serving on this committee.

I know it's gonna be difficult and challenging, but I'm sure you're gonna do a great job.

So good luck with everything.

First thing I'd like to talk about uh is I'm here as the chief of the King Street Volunteer Fire Company.

Uh uh my family's been in the volunteer fire service here in Danbury for over four generations.

I like what the Charter says right now about the operation of the Danbury Fire Department, both career and volunteer.

I hope you don't make any changes.

I think it's appropriate where it is right now.

It serves the city well as it has for the last couple hundred years.

Number two, uh speaking also is most of you know I'm on the City Council.

All right.

Uh I am very much in favor, as uh my predecessor here, Mrs.

Britton said, of changing the uh uh term from two to four years.

It just makes sense.

Thing no sooner than you start, you have to you know go out and work on re-election, you lose time working out really what is pertinent for good government in the city is lost a lot of times in your campaigning.

We shouldn't have to worry about that.

We are one of the few cities in the State of Connecticut that has two-year terms.

Four years, I think are are appropriate, I think they are effective, and it will result in a more successful governmental operation in the City of Danbury.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Any other members of the public.

Frank Salvatore, 1903 Revere Road, also a member of the City Council.

I want to stand uh to make some comments to you in your deliberations that are coming ahead.

Um I too agree with the increase in terms uh from two years to four years.

Uh but I also think that the City Council, as is fine, so I don't think we need to change that.

My colleague mentioned reapportionment, that's Section 2.4.

I've watched a couple of times now, and he's absolutely right, where the reapportionment committee had their two members from each side and couldn't come up with the fifth.

I really think this Charter Revision Commission should put an alternative in that should make them find the fifth person and put a rule in there that if they don't do it within 30 days, there's another mechanism for a fifth person to be appointed.

This way they have to do their job.

Public notices, I think 3.8 and 3.10, where they talk about where to put public notices is definitely from before the city and the town consolidated.

It we have we have no newspaper in the city of Danbury.

They need to change how they could put the ordinances out there, how they can put the information out there to the public.

And what and I know that's guided by State statute.

So whatever the State allows, I think you should do as well.

Another colleague spoke about committees.

Uh we've had committees come up.

I don't think having standing committees is a bad thing, uh, especially like the audit committee.

I think that that should be standing so they they can meet.

Uh there's going to be two audits in uh a two-year term and a four-year term, four audits.

I don't think it's a bad idea.

I would still keep the ad hoc structure as well, but I also change the ad hoc rule so not one person can just move it to ad hoc.

I think those have to be looked at as well.

Section six, nine and ten talks about the chiefs of the uh fire department and the police department.

I really do think that that needs to stay that the uh police chief and the fire chief have to become residents of the city within six months and remain that way throughout their term.

Like my uh fellow uh councilman who is the chief of King Street, I'm the president of Battalion 31.

I too like the way Section uh 610 is written, and I think that there should be no verbiage change, especially to the volunteer section as well.

And then finally, uh 710, where we talk about borrowing.

I know there's been a lot said, 3 million, 5 million.

I think what you guys really have to do is think about what was the count what was the uh Charter Revision Commission thinking back then, and what was the value of $3 million back then, and what is that value now?

I don't think it is an issue to raise the borrowing limit based on the net pet present value of money.

So I really think you have to look at that.

Um I wish you guys well in your deliberations in your work, and I thank you for serving the city in this role.

Thank you very much, sir.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Any other members of the public wish to speak.

Al Robinson, 7 Melrose Avenue.

Um, I was one of the individuals who um attended all of the meetings of the last charter revision that happened between 2007 and 2009, I think.

It's been a while.

And I just started doing reporting on city affairs during that time.

And I do recall very well, which is the reason why I'm I'm here now, is that a number of people came to me on both sides of the people who supported what I was writing, it's people who are against what I was writing and said, hey, you need to keep an eye on this.

This is very, very, very important.

Because when you start tinkering with the charter, bad things can happen.

And usually when a charter revision is being done, it's not being done because of what the people wants, being done because of what the mayor wants.

And that's what happened with that last charter revision in 2007, because that particular mayor wanted four-year terms.

That's one of the reasons why.

Not all the reasons.

There were some other reasons, which I don't want to get into.

But when that four-year term proposal came up, and I want you to understand that when that proposal came up, this common council at that time was almost supermajority by Republicans.

And at that time, the Democrats didn't have many victories at all.

But on that particular issue, the Democrats with the Democratic Town Committee, leadership, past leaders, and members of the public came out in force and said no to four-year terms.

Said it so profoundly loud to this council that the council decided to strip that out of the proposal.

Now, again, that's the Republicans who controlled that council at that time.

They struck that out, sent it back over to the Charter revision, said, hey, the people had their say.

It was overwhelming.

Multiple, multiple editorials in the news times, blasting that process, calling it the reporter, Mary Connolly actually called it a power grab.

So let's be clear about four-year terms.

Usually being done by the mayor, because there's been no upswell of support for a four-year term since the last time the situation has come up.

Not until the current member, the current leadership came into office.

And my remind you that the current administration came into office after giving the previous administration, the Esposito administration, one term, two years.

The same administration right now talked about all the accomplishments they have done within two years.

So I do not believe that this city needs a four-year term.

We have people who run for state representative, people who run for state Senate, and we have members of Congress whose powers include declaring war, who have no problem running for two years.

I think they run their campaigns are a lot more involved than a city council person who's running for a ward.

So I can't wait to hear the discussion on this particular topic because I'll have no problem objecting and pushing back to it, and I will do that as strong as I can.

Now, to the bonding limits.

But again, let's talk about what this is.

You're using taxpayers' money.

What's the problem with asking the people to say yes or no to this?

Can anybody name you the last time a bond was not approved in the City of Danbury?

You know, we're not like Bessel or Ridgefield where you have to go out all the time and ask people for their opinion.

You don't have to ask the people's opinion in Danbury that much.

But they should have a say so when you have to use their money.

It's their money.

So what's the problem with leaving it as it is?

And if you have to go over that limit, which you usually do anyway, ask the people for their opinion, say yes or no, should we use this money for this purpose?

I think that's good governance.

And um one of the things also that the last charter revision, one of the things we fought for a lot was in the position of city clerk, which is now the legislative uh assistant, but at the time it was a city clerk.

City clerk at that time was an elected position.

And we talked a lot about why we felt that position should no longer be an elected position, but it should be a position that is under the umbrella of the civil service.

What happened during that charter revision is that they did not do that and they made it an appointed position so that person works under the pleasure of the mayor.

We did not want that.

We wanted that position to be the clerk of the council.

We want that we wanted that position to be a civil service position so that person would not have to be working under the pleasure of the mayor.

So I would hope that we can revisit that topic again and maybe change that position to a civil service position, which brings me on to the position of town clerk.

One of my best friends, one of my good friends, first person I used to talk to here at City Hall a lot was Laurie Kay back.

She was an amazing town clerk.

She taught me a lot about that position.

I watched that person work that job, and I think she had bipartisan support because she worked that position with integrity and with dignity that everybody said and agreed to that she did.

It was no question of it.

She worked very hard in her position.

She was not political.

If a member of a town committee called her up asking for a certain type of information or inside information, she would hang up the phone.

She didn't play politics.

She respected that position.

I cannot say the same thing about the current town clerk.

Based upon text messages I saw from a freedom of information request that was done by the independent party and the communications between the head of the Democratic Town Committee and the Town Clerk in regards to the independent party, are very troubling.

Makes it seem like this position has come extremely political, something that even Mr.

Britton talked about with the previous town clerk.

So I think now we have to have a serious conversation about whether that position should continue to be elected or should it fall under the civil service so we should remove the politics from that position because clearly, based upon the text messages from the Freedom of Information Request, it's become extremely political and extremely troubling.

And finally, I think that we should leave the City Council the way it is.

There's a reason why there's people who represent wars, because those people represent those neighborhoods.

You know, my re my my my ward is the ward three, Germantown area.

I would not expect somebody who lives over in Ward 7 or Ward 6 to understand the needs and concerns in my particular ward.

I want to call the person who represents my ward to speak for me.

At large, never works.

Never works.

I would be surprised if people can name the numbers, the members of the at-large currently right now.

But you probably know if you are in Ward 6 that your councilmen are Paul Rotello and Vincenzi.

You would know that in a heartbeat because they're there working in your neighborhood every single day.

Something I learned from following uh Lou Wallace, who was the State Representative in the 109.

That guy, he would campaign every single day.

It wasn't even for him, it wasn't even campaigning.

He would just knock on doors all year long.

Just to find out what's going on with his neighbors asking, hey, what's going on?

What's your concerns?

Is everything okay?

You're not going to get that from an at-large person across the entire city.

But you will get that from your ward representatives, or you should.

And if you don't, you should throw them out.

Because they're not really doing your job, their job.

So that's all I have to say for now.

I'm I'm sure there's plenty more times we can talk because I remember during this process, you can talk at every single meeting.

And I would hope that you do not fast track this.

There is no need to fast track it.

I don't know how you're going to do it.

Again, I was here for the last time this was done.

It took 16 to 18 months, and it would they did that for a reason.

They went through that charter with a fine tooth cone.

And they cleaned out a lot of stuff that you guys don't have to deal with right now.

And although I don't agree with the makeup of this commission, and I don't really agree that I don't even think this is actually legal in my opinion.

We are here where we are at right now, and I hope you guys do your job and take the politics out of this, because if you add politics into this charter and you revise it based on politics, you're going to have a very serious problem.

And it probably won't pass.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Any other members of the public wish to speak.

Any other members of the public?

Sir?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I want to thank you for taking this role on.

You didn't have to do it.

You were nominated and then voted on by the council like previous ones.

And you want to do it for the betterment of the City of Danbury.

Today you heard many folks opine on issues that they believe in.

And while some of us may have differences of opinions, I want to be clear that I do believe everybody here who has spoke has what they believe to be the best interest of our city in mind.

Many people have different opinions, but it doesn't mean that their opinions aren't in the best interest.

It's what they believe to be the best interest.

And I'm going to go over uh a couple points that I'd like to see discussed by you to then present to the voters.

I'm not gonna go through all of it.

Uh, Mr.

Chair, uh, if you may, maybe my chief of staff can talk on the department head side since she really is the person who's uh helping me run those departments and had many discussions.

Um, but I want to touch on a few things here at this public hearing.

Um you're tasked with coming up with the language of what the charter will look like.

And we heard many folks say, um, what's the mayor's will, possibly, and and past recommendations to open up a charter revision or what is in the mayor's will.

Um let me from a personal point.

There's not a time I go out.

There's not a time that I'm campaigning.

There's not a time this week that at one point in the day I don't have somebody come up to me and go, man, you really got to do something about those two-year terms.

It's not just me, it is the public.

And what you're going to do here is determine what the public gets to vote on.

I don't have the say on ramming four-year terms down anybody's throat.

I can give you the reasons why I think it's a good idea.

Then you can all determine if it indeed is a good idea.

And then ultimately, when this is all done, everything we decide here will then get voted by the city council, where the majority of the city council will have to say yes to then send this to the voters, where the voters will read these changes.

And then the voters will say yes or no.

Not the mayor, not this commission, not the city council members, not the folks on the internet, not the folks in this room until we're all in the ballot box and say yes or no.

So my ask is the city has been talking about this for a long time.

Both parties, both parties have played political games with it.

Let's stop the political games, and let's put it to the voters.

And why is that?

You do have more time to execute, not just campaign.

I came from the private sector.

I was not a 22-year mayor.

I was not in City Hall for 15, 20 years before becoming mayor.

I was out there working.

And in the private sector, you work under agile environments.

You have to be able to pivot.

You have to be able to move.

We've had a document that hasn't allowed the city to think in a different way in 17 years.

And 17 years ago, because of politics.

I don't even want to say how old I or the chairman was 17 years ago.

It didn't get the opportunity to do some more real deliberation and some real fundamental changes.

And change is hard, I understand that.

But progress is good.

We're talking about progress.

We're talking about the ability for the city to operate in a more efficient manner, like so many other places do.

And many of you are private business owners, have served and run for office, run major corporations or nonprofits, educators.

You see the need and the ability to be agile.

And we're not asking for a lot of flexibility.

We're asking for something that is going to give us the ability to be stronger when we execute, to create stability.

And we're looking for stability.

And I'm not looking to hit or promote four-year terms just for the mayor.

I'm here for four-year terms for everybody that runs for office because it is about stability.

And that stability comes not just from the elected officials, but the people in this very building.

Because the chief executive is responsible for a lot of hiring here as well.

And I'll tell you, after I won that election in 23, and if it wasn't 23 and it was four-year terms, I would have tried two years after that and I would have been okay.

Department heads who are worried of what's going to happen when I come to office, because different administrations do have the ability to change teams around them.

Stability helps with that.

And I came in here and I didn't make those changes.

I gave everybody an opportunity.

And that's not always the case.

And in fact, that's actually very rare.

It's very rare if you look around in all the other communities.

So giving them the employees here the stability to know that they'll be okay and they don't have to worry every two years.

We can recruit higher level talent.

We can build and retain institutional knowledge in these seats, but give the voters a chance still every four years.

We do it with so many races, and we already have it in Danbury example of that with the Board of Education, and nobody has come and cried file here and say, we need to change the Board of Education to two years.

And I know they're governed by a state statute, but most people don't know that.

And if there was a problem, we'd hear that uproar and we don't.

And we get a more serious candidate pool.

It's difficult to make the decisions in front of these offices.

I was in a high performing job getting to travel all over the world.

And I was very, very hesitant the first time I ran because you put your life on hold for this.

But I made that sacrifice.

But not there's so many people who maybe wouldn't.

You may find a better candidate to run against me.

Good.

I want to beat the best.

But let's give folks those opportunities.

It's lower administrative cost for the city if you don't have to run elections every year, because that's what we do right now.

Every year we're running elections in several different polling locations with early voting.

Less voter fatigue.

We can improve engagement when this happens.

Because in the last three elections we've been in, we have spent millions of dollars in this city.

People are tired of the fires, they're tired of the text messages, or tired of the calls.

But let's let them tell us if they want four years or not.

That's what we're asking you to do.

Let's ask them this November, would you like four years or not?

Let's let the voters decide.

Not insiders in this room, not people who watch every city council meeting.

And that's my ask of you on the four-year terms.

Um I do want to talk on the bonding a little bit.

Yes, um, it it's about it's taxpayers' money, it's always taxpayer money.

That this is the definition of government.

In 2017, you know, or 2007, it went from 500,000 to 3 million.

It passed in 2009.

In 2009, in today's dollars, that's worth just under five million dollars.

Not even sure what that's worth in 2007.

Uh and I'm very aware that referendums don't usually fail in Danbury.

But referendums take time to get to the voters.

Uh just in my first term or so, we had an incident with the roof in Danbury at a school that needed to be repaired, that wasn't addressed, and we had to come in and clean up so many messes, and that was one of them.

When we got a quote, it was three million dollars.

Three million dollars.

Our bond limit for something that you don't plan for, because that roof wasn't planned for, is three million dollars.

The cost of doing business in this country has gone up exponentially in over the last few years.

The city is also a business, and our costs have gone up.

If we need to use that money for an emergency, we may not have it covered.

Because next year, that roof, how much would that cost?

We never know when supply chain issues are gonna be around.

Companies are charging more because their costs, their their margins are lower because of fuel costs.

We don't know when things are going to change.

What we're asking you to do is to be practical on that.

I'm not coming here asking you to up it to 20 million dollars from high office.

What I'd ask you to do is to at least look at what the value was then to today.

So when emergencies happen, like culverts after a storm right here on West Street that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars that you can't plan for, and that happens throughout the city, a 44 square mile city, the largest city land wise, yes, towns are a little bit bigger in the Milford and Newtown, with the some of the oldest infrastructure underground of the country here in New England.

We see these things happen all the time.

And if we need to fix something fast, we may not have the ability to go to the voters and wait.

All we're asking you to do is give us at least the amount of what it was in 2007.

Um the other thing I wanted to touch on, I wanted to pine in a couple things.

Um, this is my personal belief, and I know it differs than many people, even on my side.

I don't think uh the city council size should change.

I don't think we should change the words.

I I do think it is working, I think it's a good thing.

Um I appreciate everybody's opinion on that.

Uh really it's gonna be up to you folks if you want to present that to the voters or not.

I think that is something that is working.

Listen, um, at the end of the day, uh it is about progress, like I've said before.

And progress isn't easy.

It takes people to have courage to do things that maybe weren't even done before.

Uh, in business, and then when I came in here, try to change their culture.

One of the worst things you can say to me is, well, that's the way it's always been done.

Well, that doesn't mean there's not a better way to do it.

But it doesn't mean the way that it's been done is the wrong way to do it.

I'm asking you to look over this document, present the voters what we may believe is the better way, and let them decide if that is the best way or not.

So I thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you.

I thank you for the hours you're going to deliberate on this topic.

Um, there are many opinions I have, and I can give them throughout.

Uh, but those are the ones that were top of mind, and I think most important that I wanted to be front and center uh for all of you for.

So thank you for your attention to this.

And if I may, uh the chief of staff come in to talk about some of the departmental uh things that we like to see to have the business to run in the city, uh be a little bit more agile and certainly more efficient.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you all for allowing me to address to you tonight.

Um I did have a chance to speak with any of our department heads.

Um some of you know I've actually been working with the city for 10 years, so this really should be my second revision.

But uh the first one, I was 14.

So I'm not 24, unfortunately.

Um I'm gonna go through some of the top items, and I'm gonna be very technical.

So I see people already trying to leave.

I'll start at uh section three-eight public notice and hearing.

I did hear this often tonight, and I'm glad that it was brought up by several people.

Um the current state statute does say that we have to put our notices in uh newspaper.

The state has looked at this, so I urge you to take a look at this and perhaps consider uh making the language that what Danbray must do should be current with Connecticut state statute.

Instead of putting it in here, must be a newspaper and digital.

If this document doesn't get touched again for another 20 some odd years, then we're stuck again putting it in the newspaper.

And in today's rate, one department alone last year cost 65,000 just to print uh ordinances and publications in the newspaper.

Um, the whole department citywide, I've I've calculated over 100,000.

So we have to weigh that in who's actually reading it in the paper versus how much we can get it out in digital and on boards.

So that's in section 3.8, section 3.10.

Uh let's go to the dollar amount.

I'll I'll mention this too as the donation that was mentioned often tonight.

This actually came to me from multiple departments.

Uh the paperwork just involved in having to receive a donation from one individual donor a year over a thousand dollars.

So, say the recreation department has somebody who wants to give, you know, 250 a month.

Once that hits that thousand from that person, we have to say no, hold on, I can't accept that.

Have to go to the council now and start this process.

Um, and the council has the opportunity to then call an ad hoc and take another you know, month or two to process something like a simple as a donation.

So some people are turned off by that, unfortunately.

Uh so I do urge you to look at that and raising that a little bit so that our departments can still receive uh donations from the public, which we always appreciate.

Um administrative departments, section 6.2.

We do have some uh changes technically that just have worked over the years.

Um jump ahead of that 6.1 treasurer.

Unfortunately, you have your treasurer with you.

But there's one line that uh we just want to be clear of.

Um this came from our finance director.

In the second paragraph, no disbursement shall be made from any funds of the city except by checks and by the treasurer.

Um, and then it says audited or approved by the director of finance.

We wanted to add order designee in case the director of finance is unavailable.

This is how it's been working, but it should be uh stated in the charter so that we are doing it correctly.

Uh section 6.2.

Uh Department of Civil Preparedness uh is what we call the Department of Emergency Management technical change as well.

But um it's it's a state statute that we have a department of either, so uh that name change would be fine.

We also want to add a department of technology services.

Um, I've spoken to the council about this before within the budget ordinance about how technology has grown.

Uh for you know, whatever reason earlier on, the IT department was built in under finance.

Uh, this really restricts how IT can work.

It's it's something that you know impacts our public safety, um, dispatch systems, uh, really every department and keeping it under finance makes it uh pretty strict for us to leverage the use of the IT.

So I would ask you to formally create uh the Department of Technology Services and remove the manager of information technology from from there.

Uh there's another department change that was requested by our director of elderly services uh within the state and throughout the country.

The word the term elderly is going away.

She's asked that the change could be made to call it the Department of Aging Services.

Um other than that, section 6.3, appointments of officers and employees of the city.

Uh, this one, again, I mean, you can talk about it and we could speak to police and fire and also um your legal counsel on this, but having to confirm every police officer and firefighter from entry level or lateral does give us um a time lapse.

So there have been multiple instances throughout my career here that the academy spot is actually opened up before the date of the council meeting.

So we've had to make a decision like, you know, is this person gonna get approved?

How can we send them to council or notify the council that we're gonna ask for your acceptance?

But I have to get them in the academy, you know, earlier on.

This makes it very challenging.

Um so if there's a way that that can be worked, we'd really appreciate it for a place and fire.

Uh let's see.

Uh just some like clerical uh things for a corporation council, section 6.4.

We have no mention of the deputy corporation council.

Um, there's only a mention of assistant and then multiple other assistants that could be clarified as the deputy who should be confirmed by uh the city council, and then the mayor shall appoint uh and the city council shall confirm any other assistant corporation council.

As it written as it's written now, it says the council can prescribe a new assistant corporation council from time to time.

Uh really that should be based on the budget that gets presented of how many staff members um they are confirming there.

And then each person that gets hired for that job would be confirmed by uh the council.

Just to clear it.

Let's see.

Um this was actually mentioned earlier.

The superintendent of highways is still in here.

That department has just really expanded to be called the superintendent of public services.

That should be a name change, along with um where am I?

Section 6.7 F.

Uh that could even be changed to the superintendent of construction services just to keep it um organized.

Uh I won't I won't get too deep into residency.

That's been talked about.

Um, but police and fire time to time have brought up the fact about um their jobs being tougher to recruit.

Uh there are folks that you know may want to uh be promoted into that site type of role who have served Danbury for years but may live outside the borders, um, not making any decision here.

I just think it should be discussed, and you could talk to people who have been impacted by that.

Uh whatever aging services.

I will give you the language for technology services that was suggested by our uh director of technology.

I'm happy to email that to you because that should be built in here as well.

Let's go to section 7.3, duties of the mayor on the budget.

Umly recommendation somebody had brought up was just that the first meeting has to be April 7th or the next business day.

I don't know if April's ever gonna be our big hurricane season, but I do think it we should probably make sure that the dates in here make sense.

Uh it could be the first meeting in April of the city council or something to that language.

Um then in section E here, this uh kind of came as a little shock.

I'm not sure when it changed, but historically, the mayor presents the um the program for capital at that budget meeting in April.

Here it says it's it should be presented by February 15th.

That hasn't been done since I've been in the city, so I'm not sure when that switch was made, but it would be helpful if in part E that no later than February 15th was removed.

Uh there's another in section seven-four about publications and having circulation in the city.

That can also be adjusted to per Connecticut State Statue.

Uh section 7.5, it asked for you to review with um with council here about emergency appropriations.

Just could be restrictive in state of emergency.

Uh there has not been instances where um we may not get a vote from the council, but there could be where you have to do an emergency ordinance and it has to come to a room.

And if we're in a state of emergency, it may be hard to actually get a council meeting together.

So I'd ask you to look at that.

Uh under section seven-nine, expenditures and accounting.

Um, this one is in part B.

And I'm sure the treasurer would help weigh in on this again.

We think there could be a little issue with auditing here where it says um no voucher claim or charge against the city shall be paid until the same has been audited by the director or agent of director and approved by the director for correctness.

So we want to add if the director is the one auditing that the agent of the director can approve it for correctness so that there's a clear uh distinction.

And that happens again when it says um in the absence of the director of finance or treasurer, the mayor may be authorized to substitute temporarily for both of them.

It says either or both of them.

I think both of them could be where we run into a problem, so it may want to be either.

Um section E, right under that, we have uh the council is able to move money between departments uh only in the last four months of the fiscal year.

I'd ask you to look at that.

And if you have a chance to talk to departments or the finance director, um it's a little restrictive when it's the small departments, uh, not saying it should be you know the whole year, but that might be some an opportunity to expand.

Uh section F, I would ensure that there's no conflict with that 7-5 about emergencies.

There seems to be a little bit of a discrepancy there.

Um section G, something we haven't done either.

This is when a capital program is abandoned.

It says that if something hasn't been done in three fiscal years, it needs to be removed off the books.

Uh, some of these projects, especially with state permitting, unfortunately can take years.

The White Street project we did, we got that grant in 2020.

So there are instances of this, as much as we want to get things done immediately to remove funding from a project that hasn't had the chance in three years is is tricky for our teams.

Okay.

Uh borrowing has been obviously talked about often.

Um, this came from everything the mayor said I don't need to repeat just on project costs.

And then I'm just going to end with section 8.3.

I've heard a lot because this is where I see it the most.

I heard a lot today about how long last uh last commissions have worked, and I while I appreciate all of that.

Uh the lack of gender equality.

I do wonder.

I believe there were women leaders in 2007.

So I would like you to look at that.

It's a very uh male-dominated document we have here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public that wish to speak?

Any other members of the public that wish to speak?

Any other members of the public.

Sir.

Okay.

Good evening, everybody.

Uh Michael Coello for the record, 47 East Lake Road.

I serve on City Council at large.

Just wanted to take a minute to uh thank all of you for uh offering your services to serve on this commission.

I know it's not uh, you know, it's gonna take some time, but I think it's gonna be well worth it.

So I appreciate everybody's time with regard to that.

Um I'll try not to be um repetitive in what's been said tonight, but there's a couple of things that I think that are are worth repeating.

Uh I was talking before, I remember growing up, you know, been here born and raised my whole life, and uh in the early 80s uh or late 80s, there was a time when Danbury was a number one city in America.

I'm probably sure we all remember that.

We got that notarize, that you know, notary for that.

And we've constantly heard how it's continuing and has continued to be one of the hundredth greatest cities in the country.

Um so I think things have have have worked pretty well here.

Um I'm not sure if it's something there's certain things in the charter that need to be changed.

I'm sure you'll find what they are.

We just heard a pretty long list from Taylor uh with regard to maybe certain intricacies in the charter.

Um I think you need to take your time and look at it.

Uh what I would say, I'd like to reiterate one thing with regard to the wards in the council.

There's 21 people on here.

And uh I've had the pleasure of talking to people when I've campaigned and knocked doors to express the importance of having representation for everybody in the city.

So I wouldn't look to uh uh I don't think there's a need to change that.

I think having two um, you know, uh councilmen in each ward is incredibly important because what maybe you know is important to somebody that's in Paul and Ben's ward may be different than the issues that are perhaps in Duane and Andrea's ward or maybe Dennis's ward.

And to just put people at large, I just think that the voters are gonna just uh they're not gonna get the attention to the issues that are uh in their particular wards.

So I think that's important.

And uh I would not look to shrink uh it from the 21 that you have.

So I would look to, if you could strongly consider that, keep the 14 that we have of the ward candidates uh and the seven at large, because our job in the council is incredibly important.

This is not a political issue, whether it's Republican or Democrat.

When we knock on doors, our job as councilman, we're checks and balances, and that's what we do, right?

And it doesn't matter who is in power.

I think that's incredibly important to keep that there.

Uh the other thing I'll say is that uh, and I heard it said before tonight.

This is something worth doing, it's worth doing right.

You know, fast is slow and slow is fast.

There's no reason to rush what you're gonna go through.

So if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

Take your time, have as many meetings as you want, get more input, ask questions.

There's a lot of important stuff that has to be um looked at here.

So um I would just like to stress again, please don't rush this process.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other members of the public that wish to speak?

Any other members of the public that wish to speak?

Any other members of the public that wish wish to speak?

Seeing none, um I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Motion has been made by Commissioner Sepranic.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Commissioner Jowdy.

Is there any discussion on the motion to close the public hearing?

See none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Motion has been made by Commissioner Sefranik.

Is there a second to the motion?

Seconded by Commissioner Putnam.

Any discussion on the motion to adjourn?

Seeing none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Abstentions.

Ayes have it.

We are adjourned.

Thank you all very much for coming out tonight, everybody.