Charter Revision Commission Working Meeting - May 6, 2026

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission held a working meeting on May 6, 2026, beginning at 6:33 PM. Six of ten commissioners were present, establishing a quorum. The meeting included public comment, approval of prior minutes, a detailed presentation by commission counsel on the current charter's structure, and a discussion prioritizing topics for review. The commission aims to work efficiently to propose charter amendments for the November ballot.

Public Comments & Testimony

• John (last name not given): Spoke in favor of a two-year mayoral term over a four-year term, arguing that it allows voters to more frequently voice their opinion on the mayor's performance.
• Councilman Michael Henry (11 Corn Tassel Road): Opposed a four-year mayoral term, stating it would weaken voter oversight and note that only 19 of Connecticut's 169 cities have four-year terms for mayors.
• Jeff Harold (Foster Street): Asked the commission to provide a bulleted list of reasons supporting a four-year term, to better understand the perceived benefits.
• Councilman Quella: Spoke in favor of a two-year mayoral term. (Details of his comments included based on Commissioner Putnam's notes.)

Discussion Items

• Presentation on Current Charter: Commission counsel Joseph Mortality provided an overview of the eight-chapter charter, explaining the general powers (Chapter 1), elected offices and terms (Chapter 2), the city council (Chapter 3), the mayor's office (Chapter 4), boards and commissions (Chapter 5), city departments (Chapter 6), finance and taxation (Chapter 7), and general provisions including conflict of interest (Chapter 8). Key points included: the mayor's two-year term, the city council's 21 members (14 ward, 7 at-large), reapportionment process, budget adoption requiring a two-thirds vote of all council members to change, bonding limits (any issuance over $3 million in a fiscal year requires voter approval), and gift limits for the mayor's office ($1,000 per donor per year).
• Prioritization of Issues: Commissioners discussed topics raised at the public hearing and their own concerns to develop a work plan. Topics included: four-year vs. two-year mayoral term; conflicts of interest and adding a formal ethics section; reapportionment; committee structure (ad hoc vs. standing); digital publication of legal notices; bond limits; the number of city council members; financial oversight of the Board of Education; residence requirements for police and fire chiefs; the minority representation rule on council (which can seat minority-party candidates who received fewer votes); budget adoption timing; grant acceptance process; technology and FOI compliance; city clerk title change; and technical updates (gender-neutral language, outdated references).
• Meeting Scheduling and Efficiency: The chair emphasized the need to be efficient while thorough, planning to break charter review into focused meetings by section and bring in relevant city personnel.

Key Outcomes

• Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the organizational meeting and the public hearing were approved with a modification to include comments from Mr. Coelho (who spoke in favor of a two-year term and of a 21-member council with 14 ward and 7 at-large seats). Motion carried by voice vote.
• Work Plan: The commission agreed to prioritize a list of approximately 15-20 topics for potential charter amendments. The chair will group related sections and schedule focused working meetings.
• Next Steps: Commissioners will review the charter on their own. The chair will prepare an agenda for the next meeting, which will include substantive discussion on a set of key items, likely inviting city staff to participate.