OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Danbury, Connecticut/Meeting Portal
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Danbury Charter Revision Commission Meeting - May 13, 2026

Meeting Portal — Wednesday, May 13, 2026
BodyDanbury, Connecticut
SessionMeeting Portal
DateWednesday, May 13, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:21:44

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:00

I will call the meeting to order at 6 33 p.m.

0:06

This is the meeting of a meeting of the Charter Revision Commission.

0:10

It is Wednesday, May 13th, 2026.

0:14

We're gonna start things off with the Pledge of Allegiance.

0:18

And we still don't have a flag, so we're gonna mayor's wearing a flag.

0:25

So we're just we're gonna look this way.

0:27

And uh if uh councilman Busade, if you could lead us in the pledge, please.

0:31

Sure, thank you.

0:32

I pledge allegiance.

0:36

And to the Republic.

0:38

So it just says under God, indivisible with regard to justice of all.

0:45

Thanks very much.

0:47

Madam Secretary, if you could do the roll call, please.

0:54

Commissioner Britton here.

0:56

Commissioner Sefranik.

0:58

On his way.

0:59

Commissioner Almeida's here.

1:01

Commissioner Armstrong?

1:02

Here.

1:03

Commissioner Hernandez?

1:05

Yeah.

1:06

Commissioner Jowdy.

1:08

Commissioner McCarry?

1:09

Here.

1:10

Commissioner Putnam?

1:12

Here.

1:12

And Commissioner Rivero.

1:14

Here.

1:16

Six, seven.

1:17

Seven present.

1:19

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

1:23

Um, we are going to be move on to number four, which is public participation.

1:27

Um, if any members of the public that are here that wish to address the commission, I know we did invite some electeds and representatives from the city here.

1:36

Um, they're going to be actually part of the discussion.

1:38

So if you do have remarks, we'll save those until we get to the substance of the meeting.

1:43

But any members of the public are here and wish to address the commission.

1:46

Uh, now's your time.

1:47

Please keep your uh remarks to three minutes, please.

1:51

So does anybody from the public wish to address the commission?

1:55

Mr.

1:56

Levy.

2:06

Commissioner Jowdy is present.

2:10

Members of the commission, I want to address the argument that extending the mayor's term from two years to four years would allow the mayor to focus more on governing and less on campaigning.

2:25

That claim sounds reasonable on the surface, but it does not hold up under practical and structural review.

2:36

Long terms do not reduce politics, they reduce accountability.

2:41

A four-year term gives an incumbent significantly more time to consolidate political strength.

2:50

Fundraising advantages already favor the incumbent.

2:54

An extended term only widens that gap.

2:58

Donors support sitting office holders because they control the levers of government.

3:11

It becomes more entrenched.

3:13

The second argument offered is continue uh continuity, but continuity in municipal operations comes from professional staff, not from the length of the mayor's term.

3:27

Losing a department head in public works planning, finance, or any other major division disrupts city operations far more than a change in the mayor's office.

3:42

Darren Green's own downtown improvements have demonstrate that this clearly.

4:26

Similar to the two-term limitation applied to the president of the United States.

4:32

A long-term without limit risk creating decades-long incumbencies that are extremely difficult to challenge, which are not healthy for the process of government.

4:45

Finally, the commission should consider campaign spending limits for mayor's race when uh fundraising advantages dominate elections.

5:06

Your charge is to strengthen the charter in ways that improve transparency, accountability, and public trust.

5:15

The four terms, a four-year terms alone, does not achieve those goals.

5:22

Any change of the magnitude must be paired with safeguards that protect public interest, not just political interest.

5:31

Whoever happens to hold the office.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Charter Revision█████████████████████████████████████████████90%
Procedural████8%
Fiscal Sustainability█1%
Ethics█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Danbury Charter Revision Commission Meeting - May 13, 2026

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission met on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 6:33 PM. The meeting focused on reviewing Chapters 1 and 2 of the city charter, with extensive discussion on term lengths for elected officials, reapportionment procedures, and other amendments. The meeting adjourned at 7:54 PM.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Warren Levy (5 Drive, Danbury) argued against extending the mayor's term from two to four years, stating that longer terms reduce accountability and entrench incumbents, and that continuity comes from professional staff, not term length. He urged the commission to pair any change with safeguards like campaign spending limits.
  • Larry (no address given) spoke in favor of four-year terms for all municipal offices, citing reduced campaign distraction, continuity, and the prevalence of four-year terms across the country. He noted that half the country has four-year terms for municipal offices.
  • Michael Henry (11 Corn Towser Road, Danbury) opposed four-year terms, noting that only 19 of 169 Connecticut cities and towns have adopted them. He also advocated for a formal, transparent appointment process for boards and commissions, distributing a list of nearly 300 positions.
  • Jeff Harold (Foster Street, Danbury) expressed concerns about four-year terms, questioning whether they would reduce political activity or increase transparency. He suggested the commission study the cost-benefit of four-year terms and consider both positive and negative lists.

Discussion Items

  • Chapter 1 – Incorporation and General Powers: The commission agreed to add “and resident” to the preamble (“right of every citizen and resident”) and to update “town” to “city” in territorial limits language.
  • Chapter 2 – Elections and Officers:
    • Term Lengths: After hearing from the public, elected officials, and commissioners, the commission reached unanimous consensus to adopt four-year terms for all elected offices (mayor, council, town clerk, zoning commission, etc.). Invited speakers included the president of the council (who supported four-year terms for all), the town clerk (who emphasized the complexity of the job and the need for longer terms), and the zoning commission chair (who noted training benefits and candidate recruitment). The registrars of voters discussed cost savings from fewer elections but noted that staggering terms could offset continuity concerns.
    • Minority Representation: The commission agreed to keep the existing minority representation provisions.
    • Reapportionment: Commissioner Sefranik, citing his experience, proposed lowering the threshold for selecting the fifth reapportionment commission member from unanimous to a majority (3 of 4 members). If the four members cannot agree within 30 days, the mayor shall appoint with council consent. Corporation counsel recommended adding language to ensure compliance with all applicable federal laws (including the Voting Rights Act), not just constitutional standards. The commission also discussed a fallback if the commission fails to submit a plan by September 30: the council may appoint a qualified consultant or other person by majority vote. This was agreed upon with the understanding that the council would not be required to hire a specific firm.
    • Vacancies: The commission agreed to add a catch-all provision: if the council fails to fill a vacancy within 60 days, the mayor shall appoint a council member within 15 days.
    • City Clerk: The commission agreed to remove the reference to the city clerk, as the position no longer exists.
    • Gender-Neutral Language: The commission agreed to update all references from “he” or “she” to “they.”
    • Oath of Office: The commission flagged potentially updating the oath to be more theologically neutral (e.g., “so help me God” or “such higher power”) and will review language.
    • Town Clerk Position: Discussion on whether to change the town clerk from elected to appointed was postponed until the department head section, when HR representatives will be present.

Key Outcomes

  • Consensus on Four-Year Terms: The commission unanimously agreed to move forward with four-year terms for all elected offices, with corporation counsel to draft implementing language.
  • Reapportionment Amendments: The commission agreed to (1) lower the threshold for selecting the fifth member from unanimous to a majority of the four appointed members, (2) add a fallback to mayor appointment with council consent if no agreement within 30 days, (3) include language requiring compliance with all applicable federal laws, and (4) provide a fallback for the council to appoint a qualified consultant if the commission fails to submit a plan by September 30.
  • Vacancy Fill: The commission agreed to add a provision that if the council does not fill a vacancy within 60 days, the mayor shall appoint a council member within 15 days.
  • Minutes Approved: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as amended.
  • Next Steps: Corporation counsel will prepare redline language reflecting the consensus for review at the next meeting. The commission will continue workshop-style review of remaining charter chapters.

Meeting Transcript

I will call the meeting to order at 6 33 p.m. This is the meeting of a meeting of the Charter Revision Commission. It is Wednesday, May 13th, 2026. We're gonna start things off with the Pledge of Allegiance. And we still don't have a flag, so we're gonna mayor's wearing a flag. So we're just we're gonna look this way. And uh if uh councilman Busade, if you could lead us in the pledge, please. Sure, thank you. I pledge allegiance. And to the Republic. So it just says under God, indivisible with regard to justice of all. Thanks very much. Madam Secretary, if you could do the roll call, please. Commissioner Britton here. Commissioner Sefranik. On his way. Commissioner Almeida's here. Commissioner Armstrong? Here. Commissioner Hernandez? Yeah. Commissioner Jowdy. Commissioner McCarry? Here. Commissioner Putnam? Here. And Commissioner Rivero. Here. Six, seven. Seven present. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Um, we are going to be move on to number four, which is public participation. Um, if any members of the public that are here that wish to address the commission, I know we did invite some electeds and representatives from the city here. Um, they're going to be actually part of the discussion. So if you do have remarks, we'll save those until we get to the substance of the meeting. But any members of the public are here and wish to address the commission. Uh, now's your time. Please keep your uh remarks to three minutes, please. So does anybody from the public wish to address the commission? Mr. Levy. Commissioner Jowdy is present. Members of the commission, I want to address the argument that extending the mayor's term from two years to four years would allow the mayor to focus more on governing and less on campaigning. That claim sounds reasonable on the surface, but it does not hold up under practical and structural review. Long terms do not reduce politics, they reduce accountability. A four-year term gives an incumbent significantly more time to consolidate political strength. Fundraising advantages already favor the incumbent. An extended term only widens that gap. Donors support sitting office holders because they control the levers of government. It becomes more entrenched.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com