I'm calling the meeting to order.

My phone says 6 30, so it is 6 30 here on Wednesday, May 20th.

We are this is meeting four of the Charter Revision Commission.

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

Vice Chairman Sefranik, if you could leave us in the pledge for I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and through the Republic for which it stands one nation under God individual with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much.

Madam Secretary, the roll call, please.

Sir Commissioner uh Chair Britton uh present um Vice Chess Frank, uh Commissioner Armstrong, Commissioner Hernandez, he is not feeling well, Commissioner Jowney here Commissioner McCarry, Commissioner Putnam here and Commissioner Rivera here.

One o'clock.

Six present.

Thank you very much, um secretary.

Uh so I'm gonna begin the meeting with uh public participation.

Um any members of the public here would like to uh address the commission.

I would you stand I can't hear you from here.

And uh and for the just so the mic picks you up name and address.

Michael Henry, 11 Corinthsville Road Democrat.

Um I just want to clarify from the minutes last week of the past meeting to make sure when the commission reviews the appointment process to include all the authorities, boards, societies, councils, hearing officers, entities, and agencies.

I would like to see it include a residency clause for all positions, a 60-day clause to fill vacated positions, a term limit clause also.

And this should also apply to any newly formed commissions, etc.

for special purposes.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh Peter Bazade, I live at two Irving Drive, Danbury, Connecticut.

Um thank you, members of the commission.

Thank you for for volunteering and going through this.

Uh on your agenda tonight is are the are a number of different things, but in particular, I want to speak about chapter three, which regards the City of Danbury Council.

I I'm very familiar with this particular chapter, um, and I'm I'm more or less happy with it, but there's just a number of things.

There's a couple things I want you to consider and think about.

Um there's language in section 3-3 regarding our legislative assistant.

That that language was put there from the last charter revision, which I'm very deeply familiar with.

Uh, and and that language was put there to accommodate the change from the city clerk to using the legislative assistant.

And and I'm just gonna put it out there, not necessarily one way or the other, but I but I think we should think about this position of legislative assistant.

In a lot of ways, it's similar to a town clerk's position.

There's a lot of expertise that's involved.

Uh, it's a special position where pick where the person filling it picks up a lot of deep knowledge about the operation of the city government and facilitating um the council and and the agendas and all sorts of operations regarding not just the council but the city of Danbury.

Um I I think uh this body should consider the language where where it says it's not subject to the merit system.

I know why that those words were put in there because I wrote them.

Okay, uh, and and they were put in there to allow the person serving as city clerk to become the legislative assistant.

They were deliberately put in there.

Uh this is a position uh that that I think we should look at, and my suggestion would be that um that you provide in this in in this section of the charter for the council to have the authority to decide whether or not uh that position should be uh a merit-based position, more or less civil service.

And I I just put it out there for your consideration.

Um I I think the council should be able to decide that by ordinance and and and going forward to see if it works.

Uh and that's a suggestion on my part.

I you know, it's it's just something I I've been thinking about.

Um the rest of the rest of this uh section.

Now that I've had the experience of working with the council for just three years, um, and and learning all the time.

And I'm happy with it.

So I'm not in favor of changing any of it.

Even the 21 members of the council.

I like that there are 21 members.

Many questions and many different perspectives.

My only concern with that is that we continue to have 21 citizens of Danbury willing to step up and serve on that body.

Right now we do, so it's not a problem.

So thank you very much.

That's really all I have to say.

Good.

Thank you very much, Mr.

McGay.

Yes.

Mr.

Sheenies.

Thank you, members of the commission.

My name is Benjamin Shinezi.

I live at Five Prior Ridge Road.

Also a member of the City Council.

And I'd be able to speak on a few items on your agenda this evening.

And I don't have much to say about that since that is mainly governed by the state of Connecticut.

Board of Education is a semi-quase type of an agency that's governed by the state of Connecticut, basically from the formation all the way through.

There's nothing there's not much that the charter can really say about it as much.

So I'm gonna leave it out there.

But 12 years ago, to try to combine the agencies into one, and there's always pushback regarding it.

So should it should it be a charter thing that we can have where it's one instead of two?

It's just a cost savings because it is expensive to have two of everything.

You know, for example, the Board of Ed has a different software with the City of Finance Department has.

I know you have a treasurer on your board, he sees this practically every week when he has to approve the expenditures, which he's very much involved with that.

He sees the two systems, he sees the costs.

And we're not talking a few dollars, we're talking hundreds of thousands a year, having these multiple systems.

So it's something that you should consider when you go through the board of education stuff.

But again, as far as the charter, there's not much we can really change.

The state state um governs that.

Um, the other thing I want to speak of is the town clerk position.

I know it's all at your public hearing regarding the town clerk, but I do believe that the town clerk should be a four-year should be an appointed position, not an elected position.

I think it's important that we have a qualified town clerk that is is properly trained, just like the board of education, the town clerk serves on the purview of the secretary of state.

They tell it its do's and don'ts, what it can do, and secretary of state can actually remove for wrongdoing.

So it's it's there on the state, the state uh legislation, it's under their regs.

Um, so I do believe it should be uh an appointment position.

Should be subject to the merit to merit system.

Because it needs safeguards like anything else, and if you do consider it, I would also like to see that the um that the town clerk is a certified town clerk.

I think the state of Connecticut has a program that certifies town clerk on the section 722 B, that there's a secretary of state shall qualify any candidate that completes its its program to be a certified town clerk.

Um I know our previous town clerk, not the one we have, but Lori K back, she was one of the fewer certified town clerks that we had in the state, but I think it's important to have that if we go this route that the person who does take it that they at some point become a certified town clerk.

But to be a few in a reasonable state of time that that person become a certified town clerk, and that's under section 22b, the state charter that says that gives the authorization for that as well.

And that's under section 22P, the state charter that says that gives the authorization for that as well.

And I think as the council president said before regarding chapter three, I don't have much to say about the about the um the language that currently exists.

I do agree, it's fine.

I'm countable when 21 years, so it's fine.

I had no issues with that at all.

Um 21 members, so I don't, I don't I'm not in any means to reduce that in any way.

I think we all kind of work well, 21 members.

We all kind of you know that along, so I think that works very well currently.

As is mentioned regarding the legislative aid assistant position.

Again, he mentioned it that came about from the town clerk here.

I know at the time there were members like myself wanted it to be a merit system because the you know that position is important position.

The person who has that would feel comfortable in that position, not worried about every two or four years.

Oh my god, am I gonna lose my job?

In reality, it can happen.

And the other administration comes in, he's out, and he brings it as people, which is not fair, somebody who's been there for 15 years.

So it's important that even the current legislative aid should be grant provided with that already.

So that legislative aid now will fall into it when it's protected until the next one will be by a test.

Um I think there should be something in the charter that the um legislative aid again reports to the city council.

Right now, there's not really proper language of who that person reports to under what purview that person is under.

Um I know right now it's the mayor's office, but it is since it's an aid of the council, it should report to the council of whether we did a council president and the leadership of the council.

I think that's important that there's language put in there as far as guidance for the person of how that person reports to the tribute.

Again, he's in the aid of the council, and stated that way.

Again, this is an important position, and it should you know have the rules and safeguards for that position as well.

Thank you, Ms.

Chairman.

Thank you for the chair.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public?

Mr.

Levy.

Warren Levy, five Ogram Drive.

First, I would like to say I agree with Peter's position on the legislative leader's office.

Um legislative assistance office.

Uh at the time, actually, um, we had differences of opinion.

I really wanted exactly what he's um requesting today, and I wanted that at the time, and I think you'll probably remember that.

It should be based on the merit system and shouldn't be it's a great assistance to the council and shouldn't be subject to um one administration changing over as another one comes in.

It doesn't do a great service to the individual or the city council.

Um first of all, I'd like to thank the commission for the work that they've done.

It's a lot of time.

I understand that, and uh my opportunity to speak.

Uh, I'm going to talk about um uh modernization and size of the council for one of my issues this evening.

Dambury's population has changed dramatically since the charter was approved by voters in 1965.

At that time, the city had roughly 40,000 residents.

Today, Danbury is the home of approximately 86,000 residents, more than double the population.

The current structure was designed to serve.

Yet the size of the city council has remained fixed at 21 members.

This means representation has shifted from one council member per 195 residents in 1996, 1965, to one councilman for every 4,095 residents today.

This is not a small change.

It represents a fundamental shift in how accessibility responsiveness in local government uh can be can operate.

Reapportionment uh pressures are becoming unmanageable.

Population growth across the Ambury wards has been uneven, and the trend is to accelerate that with a call for more housing.

Without adding new wards, it soon will be mathematically impossible to comply with reapportionment requirements while keeping ward population reasonably equal.

The commission has the responsibility to ensure the charter remains functional for the next generation, not just the next election cycle.

Compatible uh Connecticut's uh comparable Connecticut cities have much larger legislative bodies.

New Haven, 138,000 residents has 30 members on the border authority.

Stanford, 139,000 residents has 40 members on the Board of Representatives.

Danbury has 86,000 residents and has 21 counts, 21 council members.

We are underrepresented relative to our size, complexity, and the growth of the city.

A practical proportional solution is for Danbury to add two additional wards and two additional at large council members for a total of 27 members.

This restores proportional representation, improves constituent access, and ensures the city can meet reapportionment requirements in decades ahead.

The cost is minimal, but the benefits would be significant.

My second issue is with campaign finance.

In the most recent election, significant amount of monies flowed into Danbury, Ambury campaigns from outside the city and even outside the state.

While donors have the right to participate, this raises the legitimate concern about outside influence and the perception that local decisions can be shaped by non-local interest.

The state of Connecticut addressed this problem years ago in its citizens' election program, which has strengthened public trust, reduced the role of large outside donors in the state races.

I'm not asking the commission to design a full public finance system today.

That requires study, cost analysis, and public input.

I am simply asking that the charter include authorization, a clear statement that the city of Danbury may adopt a public campaign finance system in the future if the community so chooses to do it.

This keeps the door open.

Given the increased role of outside money in local races, it is prudent and responsible to give future leaders the legal ability to act.

These are two of the recommendations expanding expanding the city council and authorizing public financing are not partisan issues.

They are structural.

They strengthen representation, transparency, and public trust.

Our charter should reflect the reality and prepare us for the 50 years, 50 years ahead, not the 50 years past.

I want to thank everybody for my giving me the time to speak.

Thank you, sir.

Any other members of the public?

Sorry, Larry.

I didn't see it.

That's okay.

I didn't see him either.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak again.

I was going to talk about something that came up last time, but it was touched on again at this public speaking earlier.

I think you brought up the subject about job descriptions and such in there.

One of the things that I'd like to address is a universal look at the job descriptions that are included in the charter.

Anything that touches on modern modernization and perhaps using the term professionalizing some of those job descriptions.

And I want to first pick up a little bit.

I know something that's recently happened in some of these other uh departments in the city, they've had a lot of job changes, and they have to hire people and they have to post the job and they have certain job requirements.

And I understand some of that is beyond the purview of the charter.

But for those that are mentioned in the charter, I think an effort should be made to universally looking at them, modernizing all of the job descriptions, professionalizing them as addressed to the specific aspect, whether it's a college or training or certification from the state.

And obviously, none of those things will answer all issues with somebody being hired by the city, but they will help to define the perspective of professional capabilities in the job.

So I think that if you take a look at all of them at universally, rather than just trying to pick the one and then maybe leaving the rest for some other time.

I think you look at all of them.

I think you'll all be having a better result for the charter.

And that's that's all I want to talk about.

Jeff Harold and Foster Street.

I forgot to say that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Laurie?

Um I have a few things to say, but I only have three minutes, right?

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Okay.

So first of all, I think that there's there's confusion about the city clerk, the town clerk, and the legislative assistant now.

We just had a conversation about it today, in fact.

But I think that people don't really know what the legislative assistant is actually doing compared to the town clerk now.

It's not the same.

I don't think it's really the same much.

I mean, we we work together sometimes.

I need information.

She helps me a lot.

I'm not helping you much, but yet there's a lot, there's a lot to learn.

And now if you wanted to call totally different, they so are.

And so anyway, uh Jeff and Job.

So town clerk has to be in control of an entire department of things that have nothing to do with the city clerk's job.

Not really.

I mean, besides minutes and agendas, and maybe some you know, different things that have to do with the council from time to time.

But there's all those other things that I brought up the last meeting, which was a lot of things.

A lot, a lot of things.

And I think that if you wanted to do an appointment, I'm gonna go over here now because time, um the fact that the mayor could come in and remove someone is a problem for that department for those people who work there as a career who have been civil servants for however long, however many years they've been there, who are certified.

If you want to make somebody be certified as the town clerk, they have to at least be, let's say, elected for four years, and it takes at least you're not gonna learn the whole department in four years.

If you want to be certified, it's gonna take you longer.

You need to learn the job before you can take the tests.

So I think that just like uh in the teaching world, a lot of the administrators and the higher ups in the state do not consider what the teachers have to go through.

They don't ask them what their opinions are and how the classroom really works.

And in this case, I think that it's important that people talk to the people who work in the town clerk's office.

Because it's not about me or the next town clerk, it's about the people who stay here and what they have to endure whenever somebody is either coming or going, whatever if they if it's a civil service job, and that they I don't know if the HR can even break down for a test of civil service what this department can do because it's very big.

So I think it would be probably beneficial to have somebody who's been in the town clerk's office, maybe like my one of my assistants for 22 years in that meeting, if there's going to be a meeting about civil service, to get a better perspective of what this town clerk's office does, so you can actually maybe have a test that will at least find the right folks if it's gonna be that way in the future.

Absolutely.

I have more to say, but I'll stop there for today.

Thank you.

Well, any other members of the public, Mr.

Flanagan?

Thank you.

Michael Flanagan, uh 35 Jefferson Avenue, and I'm uh City Council.

To add to what Lori's talking about, which was you probably some of you know, maybe don't know, is we have Danbury Hospital.

I know you know that.

But everything that goes on in Danbury Hospital, babies born, people die, have to run through her office, not the office where they live.

So someone from Bethel or Brookfield is in Danbury Hospital has a baby.

All the paperwork runs through her office.

So that is something that uh her office has to deal with that most of the towns around us don't, with the exception of the military because they have a hospital.

So there's a lot of things that go on in this office because of the size of the city, because of the hospital and other things that make the town clerk's job in Danbury a little harder than say Bethel, not picking on Bethel, but it's different in Bethel, maybe a smaller department or Brookfield.

But because again, the Embury Hospital has an awful lot to that.

I just wanted to make you aware.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public?

I think that's everybody that's here.

Um, any other members of the public, any other members of the public?

Seeing none, I will now close public speaking.

Thank you all very much.

Um, we will move on to the minutes.

Um, so we should all have um copies of the minutes from the last meeting.

Does anybody have any corrections or questions on the draft?

Good to go.

Make a motion to accept the minutes as presenting.

So it's presented.

Motion's been made to accept the minutes.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion, any discussions?

Seeing none, I will try your mind.

All those in favor accepting the minutes signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Any abstentions?

The motion carries.

Is that an abstention?

On the motion.

Okay, so we have one abstention.

Uh Commissioner Armstrong.

So moving on.

Um, and I apologize if I'm out of breath.

I do them with two broken ribs just as an FYI.

So I'm gonna do my best to get us through it.

Um so the next item on the agenda.

Uh, we're gonna go through the red lines.

So council is working very hard and turning around some work products for us at the end of every week.

So we do have words on paper from everything that we discussed last week.

Um, it did get sent to us um in our emails, so we all should have had copies, and Elisa was gracious enough to provide us copies for tonight's meeting.

Um does anybody have any comments or questions, clarifying questions on the red line for what we discussed last week.

Uh Commissioner Safranic.

Bottom of almost at the bottom of page nine, and it talks about three, it talks about reapportionment.

And it says um the three of the four members failed to timely designate a fifth member.

Timely is not a legal term.

What is timely?

Well, I mean, so it's a predicated on the on the previous 30 days.

If you look back at the previous language, um so there is three of the four 30 days.

If three of the days, the reference of 30 days.

Why do they put timely though?

If you already have the 30 day being used.

Well, yeah, yeah.

I mean, if you want to remove that, we can remove it.

The idea is that within the 30-day window, you're looking to uh you know efficiently select another member.

So I just I don't want to to me, though they'll disrespect them to me, it's a contradiction.

I think one you give a specific time frame, and then you're saying timely, timely arguably it's an adverb, it's not a specific time because this is such an important part.

I want it to be very clearly defined.

I think we had said 30 days at the they have 30 days to come up with a fifth member.

If not, then it goes to the mayor, and the mayor must do it within uh the first council meeting after that.

That way it doesn't drag on for another you know two months because the mayor could not take action then for two, three, four months.

Now you're dragging on, and then the commission has no authority whatsoever.

Could it be just make a reference back?

Yeah, that's fine.

I mean, if that's what the if that's what the designate a fifth member within 30 days, yeah.

I was gonna say, can we just to Isabel's point?

Could we just say something like if three of the four members fail to fail to designate a fifth member within 30 days?

Yeah, the fifth member shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council at the next at the next council meeting.

Yeah, and it's next right.

At the next regular, yeah, that's fine.

We can do that.

Okay, is that that that's okay with uh council?

Yeah, does anybody have any objections to that?

Are you okay with that?

I have a question of person behind me.

Behind you, um, the first paragraph of section two for um uh I just want to confirm that that should be 2021 referenced and not 2031.

For which second?

Um section two-four, the first paragraph.

Um right that the current words would continue through the general city election of it says 2021, but if we reference back the dates originally noted, it would be 1991 and then the following February of 1992.

And so my question is should that be 2031 and not 2021.

Yeah, that should be a 30.

Great catch.

That's why we do this.

Yeah, and then we'll fix the uh we'll make an amendment on the timely term.

I mean, the the timely references to the 30 days, right?

So, but I think for simplicity purposes, let's just yeah, we'll just say that if they fail to make within 30 days requirement.

So that's fine.

Because if you're not doing within 30 days, you're not timely, right?

But we can just change that language.

And then I have one additional question.

Um page 12, the very right.

The oath.

I know it came up at our last meeting.

There were working on some language for that.

Yeah, because that's you're not gonna be uh it didn't get noted, so I wasn't sure if that would meant it was gonna stay that way.

Oh, yeah, no, no, no.

Yeah, this is uh this is a working document.

So that yeah, this will help you god language, I think is what was requested for an amendment.

Okay, lost commission reason.

So that's still being reviewed.

That's still being reviewed.

Yeah, yeah, we're not leaving that uh as it um I have a question.

We're taking out section 2.8 on page 11.

That was all crossed off.

Okay, yeah.

So that one I talked to Dan uh beforehand.

That is sort of just our way of noting that we're gonna review that office when we get to the department.

Okay, because we're gonna talk about whether to be appointed or stay elected.

So that is so then on the next page, the oath of office doesn't change from 2.9 to 2.8.

Correct.

Yes, correct.

Depending on what we do with this section of 3.8.

But yeah, that that was a uh scribner's error on having it redlined.

We're not eliminating that paragraph.

Any other comments or questions on the red line?

And this is just so everybody knows that this is like council said a working document.

So we're just gonna keep building on this every meeting on what we do and be and referencing back to it.

Um so this is just gonna save us time on the back end of creating the draft report for the council at the end of uh the end of June.

Um the only comment I had, and it was a tiny tiny change, but it was in the in the preamble.

It was um the right kind of bottom third representative council and in the right of every citizen and resident, I think we had mentioned to be decision making, right?

Yes, yep.

What page?

That was the only one chapter that I caught.

I believe.

Oh, okay.

Do we have any other comments on the draft?

Uh yeah, Commissioner Armstrong.

I have one comment.

And it's it's it's not really changed language, but I thought it would be changed.

When you go back to the uh part we just talked about reinforcement, um talking about the the group um how the committee would be done.

Uh there's a chain, but it's not clear.

I mean it's not clear when it gets down to if it's only two parties, if it's only two parties, doesn't it?

That maybe it would be two.

Uh uh, if there are more than two parties.

So in the age we live in, there could be more than two parties.

So I think that language, and I will defer to our reapportionment expert, Commissioner Safranik on this, but I do think there is language in there.

It's legalese, right?

So you gotta dissect it, but it's gotta make it clear.

In the in the event that there are members of two political parties or members of two political parties and members unaffiliated with a political party, members of the city council who are not members of the major political party shall select one of their number, which person which person shall designate two members of the commission in lieu of the designation by the minority leader.

So the way I'm interpreting it is you only have a majority minority.

You don't have a majority minority, minority, minority, minority leader.

So whatever the minority is designates it.

So let's just take for example, let's say there's Republican, Democrat, independent working families, pro-Dambury, pro City Hall.

There's only one majority, one minority out of that.

So whoever has the most in the minority becomes the minority.

Am I explaining that properly?

We gonna sound general.

You can only have one minority.

You can't have multiple.

Well, even if there's like three different minorities, one of them has to be the majority of the minorities.

So that's really bad.

It's like going up downstreet, you know.

If if I made it, and not I don't understand it, and this was my question last week's.

Yeah, no, I remember we.

So um, here's how I interpreted the legal easy, and I am nowhere near a lawyer.

So it sounds to me as though right, the majority party would have the opportunity to appoint two people.

Right.

And then the coalition of those remaining, which includes all of the others' parties, unless there's a specific minority that's larger than the other minorities.

So example, let's let's say there's four Republicans, one working family, one uh independent.

The minority party becomes a Republican party because it's more than all the other ones.

It's a larger group of the small subgroup.

Yes, no.

I mean, so here's the thing.

There's no I don't think so.

I actually think that if you're thought because I think Mike didn't let you something.

I'm sorry, I apologize.

I was trying to interpret it that way, right?

I assumed that if there is not then, right?

If there's more than one um minority, right?

Other parties other than the majority, then that coalition needs to identify, right?

Choose a person to be their minority leader, and that person then appoints two additional people.

Which can be a person from, you know, ranked number two party or rank number five party if there are that many.

We just how I thought that read.

We discussed that at Corporation Council's office, and I was spoken with other um people.

So that's that is our read of this.

Now the language, you know, could get adjusted, right, to avoid this confusion.

But but we actually have the same interpretation.

So it's so let me ask you this then.

How does one elect the minority leader?

So that coalition has to have a lot of.

They leader.

They create they create one.

Is that the minority party, though?

Yeah.

Because it says the because it says here the members of the council who are not members of the majority.

So anybody's not members of the majority automatically default to default to the minority, right?

I mean, we could you could amend that language, right, to say you could say minority instead of those who are not members of the majority.

Okay.

I mean, yeah, that's more that's a wordier way.

So I interpret it as that it's the largest group in of the minority parties becomes a minority party.

I don't think so.

No, okay.

Yeah, no, and it's a fair, it's uh like if you have three Republicans, two independents, the minority party is a Republican party, not the five that are not minority.

I see your interpretation, uh, Commissioner.

I think I think that we discussed that.

But that's why I think if you wanted to, we could amend the language.

No, the language probably needs some clarification because it is a other group that are left, they they nominate two then.

If you're not in the majority of those, whatever's left, yeah, they select one, right?

Select one, the minority selects one, which then designate that person designates two.

The difference is though, is that you're saying the minor majority leader puts two minority.

There may not be an official minority leader if you have one with each.

So, like right like right now, um Mike or Candace is minority, minority leader, Candace.

So Candace is minority leader, but if you have uh one Republican, one independent, and one unaffiliated, they may not elect a minority leader.

One particular person, because it's one of each, where there's three Republicans, so there's nobody else.

Am I getting there or no?

And I and I can call Lisa was involved in reapproachment last time around, and I think she might have some subject matter expert guidance on this one if you want to, so I'll give you the floor for a minute.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

So I agree with Isabel's interpretation.

Okay.

Um so let's say you have three Republicans and one unaffiliated, they will become a group of four minorities.

Okay.

Who then, according to this, would pick one person to be the leader who then picks two people to be on the commission, which I think is a redundant step.

You don't need that.

But are they are they picking the minority leader for the caucuses just yes, but the I'm not sure why that is a step in there?

Because if if there is a minority party, why don't they just agree on two people to submit to the commission?

Exactly, because there is a minority leader.

Correct.

So I do think there's a lot of people.

That's why it says the majority leader creates two and the minority leader, who they've already established from day one when the council was seated.

No.

No, you're looking, well, no, you're looking at it as if it's two parties.

Right, but the minority leaders designated the day the council seat is seated.

Right, but that's not what the language is.

No, but that's not I'm predicating it's that.

So day one, let's say 25 December, the council is seated.

You choose a president, a majority leader, at that same meeting, you choose a minority leader.

That minority leader now chooses two, and the majority leader chooses two.

But that's when the minority leader is designated back at that.

So I think yeah, so I think if I I'm gonna I'm gonna put on my lawyer.

I yeah, I've I've I'm tracking.

I've I think so the way that it's set up now is that is an official title.

It is, and I don't know if the titles of the council leadership have a direct.

It has to.

It does but this is here now.

Follow follow my laboratory.

In the in this paragraph, it says two members shall be appointed by the majority leader, and two members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the city council in the event that there are members of no more than two political parties.

So that's only if you're assuming it's a Democrat and a Republican.

So let's say if in the scenario that there is the minority leader who is a Republican, the majority leader who's a Democrat, and you have one unaffiliated vote that doesn't caucus for either party, that would then trigger the second paragraph here, because now you have members of three political parties.

So who's the minority leader?

Is it so then the minority lead the minority caucus and that independent council person would then get together to elect the person to then select the two?

So I'm looking at my proper name.

Like a minority leader is a proper name designated the day the council is seated.

And I think I mean it'd be nice to go back to 2009 to figure out why we develop this structure.

Right.

Legislative intent.

That's exactly that.

You'll have to be so is that the intent then that we're not using the proper name minority leader.

You're creating a new minority leader then.

I think you're only using the proper name minority leader if you're in a situation where absent of Chernobyl.

I like absent, but I'll get the clue.

No, it says it already.

Yeah, it's in the it's in there already.

I do so I think the language is confusing, but I actually do think it does lay out pretty clearly what happens.

Okay.

That's my personal.

Can we clean up the language a little bit?

So it's more than a good idea.

Can we can maybe we can ask the lawyers to maybe take a crack at the end?

Yes, they look I I'm I'm on board with that.

And is there any objection to that to see if maybe they can do that?

I'm sorry if we cut it like the views up with that one.

That was a very great point you brought up.

It is very, it is very confusing.

We can we can rewrite this in different ways and then present each option to the commission, then you can all you can discuss and figure out what you like the most, right?

So it's not gonna change everything that we decided last week about choosing the fifth member.

So all of everything we agreed upon last week is all staying in there.

This is just cleaning up language as to what happens if you have um more than two political parties on the council.

So if you have a in the true independent green party working family, whomever.

So any objection to that.

No, that makes sense then.

Thank you.

All right.

Um any other comments on the red line before we get to three.

All right, thank you all for that.

All right, so now I figure we'll just um uh uh follow the same roadmap uh as we did last week, uh just going chapter by chapter.

Um so we'll start off um section three-one, which is um the council, which is uh the language that talks about um the number of the council and um there, I mean there's compensation language in there, but this is just the general paragraph of the council.

We want to leave the compensation language in there and maybe or take it out and let it be an ordinance or a resolution, or just leave it because it's never been acted upon.

Well, it might be nice for the charge or articulate the compensation.

That's it or resolution ordinance to make it active anyway.

Yeah, right, but it's for it's just to defray expenses, right?

I think we that's the common that's the quote unquote compensation.

Okay.

Yeah, I think it's fine.

I mean, I I mean, this is me as a commissioner.

I I think this paragraph's good.

I I but if anybody else has any recommendations or comments, we can talk about it, certainly.

That's why we're here.

I just want to acknowledge that in public comments.

Um, the question of 21 members has come up.

And one of them, yeah.

Do we want to talk about it instead of a number?

It did come up.

I I think it's I can start it off.

Um, I I hear the arguments that Danbury um has changed.

I think right now um the arguments either ways to raising it or lowering the number.

But I think um, you know, hearing all things considered in what we have in front of us, I I think it's fine as it is.

So that's that's my opinion.

So I can I will hear everybody outward here.

So I do have a question.

Sure.

Yeah.

So if there's 21 members on it, and now there's 86,000 people in the city of Danbury.

And this was written was 40,000 people less.

Am I in the 60s?

Or is that when the charter was originally was there always 21 members going back all the way to the 60s?

I my understanding is it was 21 going back to consolidation.

And I believe that's the number.

So that was the town that the city council was downtown and then the wards were the outside.

Other than so, what year would that have?

65 consolidation.

So we have for proposing a four-year term for mayor because of the growth of the city.

I'm just giving my opinion here.

Then maybe it is something that has to be considered that you do have to add more, you know, than 21 people if we've doubled in size with the population.

Um that's just my opinion.

You know, I guess the growth of the city is tremendous.

Here comes Mr.

Armstrong?

I think I read somewhere.

Didn't they and bear have one of the largest councils?

We in proportion.

I think if you look at true city councils, we have one of the bigger ones.

Yeah.

If you I mean you could look at a Greenwich that has like town meetings, which are not true like councils.

Right, but I'm done at we have councils.

We're one of the bigger ones.

We have one of the larger ones.

Right.

I would use the argument that we don't need to by using the America.

Our country is 10 times the size of our Congress has stayed the same.

You know, so using that as a reference, um, we're just having it's more important than for the wards to represent more people.

I think it's like 13,000 now, give or take.

Um, but we didn't increase the Congress as the country, you know, exploded to 300 million.

We stayed the same for 200 years.

And I would use the same argument for for the council that and as a as a former political chairman, finding 21 is tough to run.

Finding 28, 29, 30 to run for council is going to be really, really tough.

Um I think it's getting harder and harder to get people, you know, civic involvement.

It's just my you know, from my experience.

Any other comments on that one?

Okay.

We can keep the conversation going and come back to it if we want.

Um, but it sounds like for now we have a at least a consensus to just keep that paragraph um as it is.

Um three-2 presiding officer.

I'd like to take the clock out.

Okay.

Why make a specific time?

Let's just say there shall be a meeting.

When you're doing, at least in my opinion, when you're doing a charter that doesn't get changed very often or very easily.

I don't like making permanent, you know, it shall be on May 31st.

It shall be on May 13th.

Well, God forbid there's a snowstorm on May 13th, you know, or a micro burst.

You know, you're in violation of the charter now.

Yes.

You can also say, you know, if anyone wants the time to be in there, you can say, or as such time as designated.

Sure.

I mean, if you wanted to not make, you know, if you might have some reference to time, you could do that.

Uh that's a great term.

It's up to the commission.

So is there as such what was the term designated at such time as uh as designated.

Something to that effect.

Is there an argument now?

My lawyer brain is going off.

But is there an argument to be made that there's a time in there so that the meeting can't be called, for example, at one o'clock PM.

Yeah.

When nobody can be able to do that.

I mean, in the absence of an in the absence of a specified time.

Right.

Arguably any time could be appropriate.

Right.

Okay.

But not to that's my, but again, that's that's my lawyer bringing it on.

Well, I mean, yeah.

No, I like that.

It's such time as designated that, or such time.

Yeah.

That's that could be great.

You want to remove reference to eight o'clock.

We can leave it in and put or a such time.

Although the council needs that seven, I think we need at seven.

So we could do it.

We could say seven o'clock.

We could say seven.

Seven o'clock or such time is the first, yeah.

The first Monday is is good too.

I think first Monday is good because that's when the terms start.

So when the minority leader and majority leader are designated.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um as designated by whom we're good point.

I see.

Let me so let me let me ask um the Commissioner Suffrage.

Yeah.

Would you be okay with seven o'clock?

Sure.

Designated by whom.

Just just the they shall meet at 7 o'clock on the first Monday of December.

Sure.

Because I think let's just say there is a snowstorm.

I'm just thinking through like what would end up happening.

Practically speaking, it would just be the next day.

Like we would cancel it per FOIA.

And then it would just be.

Well, no, the new council doesn't start until they are replaced.

And so the original council would still be active until the moment of swearing it.

And I'm a lawyer.

But if they are, and if they're already sworn in at that point, right.

By by the virtue of being elected.

Yeah.

So the council exists at the time of the inauguration.

Okay.

This is just the meeting.

They meet the council takes office at 12 miles.

Business day, I believe, of December.

So they would have already taken office at this point.

So they could choose when the next meeting would be because.

So this taking off has happened regardless of whether a swearing in ceremony has taken place.

So I think the swearing, you can get sworn in.

So the way it's been done historically is you can get sworn in.

We do get sworn in, usually before the term begins, because getting sworn in just qualifies you for the office, but your actual term doesn't start until it says it starts in the charter, which is that I think it's first business day in December following the election.

Because I think for the terms for this past year, we got sworn in third leak in November.

I think we didn't take office till December.

Why don't we just say that?

I think well that it does say that.

The section where it says the terms shall begin.

Which might be in chapter two, perhaps.

I know it's in here.

Oh uh page six, maybe the terms of moments will commence at 12 noon on the first business day that's gonna follow the election.

And so the successors have been chosen and qualified.

Uh page six.

Yes, page six.

Terms of all municipal officers shall commence at twelve noon on the first business day of December following their election.

They shall hold office until the successors have been chosen and qualified.

So to me that means the terms of the terms run from 12 noon first business day in December till 12 noon on the first business day of December after the next election.

Do we I don't think that covers the does that cover?

Yeah, what we're saying.

Yeah, it says the same thing about the legislative system.

That's what I'm saying.

I don't know.

What I'm saying is that's we are clear to me.

That other part is not just clear.

So in the on the city council section?

I guess that's just dictating the presiding, what it means to be the presiding officer, right?

Yeah, I think yeah, this this paragraph is the or is basically the organizational meeting.

So when the city council elects their president.

If I may again, please.

So the way it works is once uh council takes office or they're sworn in, they have to have one meeting, which is just their organizational meeting.

It's very specific.

The only thing they deal with is choosing a council president and then um choosing the process for um announcing uh special meetings.

Um that those are the only two things on the agenda, and that's what occurs during this meeting.

So and then the next meeting is their first official meeting where they actually act on items.

I have another question.

Um we live in the day.

Does that preclude doing it virtually?

Uh it doesn't say you have to do it in person, it says that it will be done.

So we could technically have a meeting that's virtual.

I think the way that the charter is written personally, there's nothing that precludes the city council from doing any of their meetings virtually as it's written, like today.

Well, they did them virtually during COVID, correct?

Correct.

And I still think state law allows you to do that.

I think only is still meeting virtually.

I think it's just a matter of what the council wants to do.

When was the last virtual council meeting?

It was quite a while ago.

Yeah.

So I think you could.

It's just it's up to whatever the council ends up wanting to do.

Can I bring up a quick question?

That actually just happened.

There was a little bit of a lot of debate.

You get elected, what happens if the person passes away before they get sworn in?

Do we need to have any kind of mechanism for that?

Or do we refer to state statute?

Is there is there a vacancy second?

That talks about it.

I apologize.

Let's see.

That does that actually happen.

Section two six discusses vacancy.

Okay.

I'm sorry about that, but there was already you said two six.

Any vacancy from whatever part shall be.

Yeah.

Is it a person sworn in to create a vacancy, or is it just being elected creates the vacancy?

He was on the ballot.

That was correct, yeah.

Yeah.

But Greg didn't win, though.

So that's why it didn't matter.

Yeah.

But like we had one on the unfortunate passing of Louise McMahon.

She was elected.

But she passed away between being elected and being sworn in.

And the question was we went round the round.

Right.

Is there a vacancy if you're not sworn in?

It's a good question.

Well, is there a legal appointment?

Because the language says that you serve until your successor is sworn in.

That's true.

That's true.

And it wasn't, and she wasn't sworn in.

She was never sworn in.

So she was elected.

Right.

But then she who was her replacement.

These now all five are different.

Who's to say who's that?

Exactly.

So let me throw it.

I did actually.

That's my problem.

Sorry.

Yeah, no, wait.

Over her position.

So let me throw the beat up gallery.

So here's my here's my uh throwing into the the hat here for discussion.

So it says accept as otherwise provided.

Where are we?

We're we're in the vacancy section, 2.26.

So any vacancy in any elected elective office except the board of ed from whatever cause.

Does that in theory cover somebody failing to qualify?

Is that is that a catch-all?

I mean, like that's just whatever causes a part of as far as you can get, right?

Yeah.

See what happened this time was the council didn't appoint in 60 days.

It was 65 days.

I'm not trying to be a stickler, but no, but we added language, right?

That was one of the things we edited.

Uh yes, we did.

That's why I didn't thought about that.

I think a lot of these timelines, though, like just in just the way they work out, it's like yeah, there's like also no way to really enforce them for unless I think legally speaking, like you would have to file a citizen would have to file like a writ of mandanus for the count suing the city to act.

Make them actually act like that.

Okay.

Having the language in there to actually file that and get in front of the judge.

Right.

No more 90 days.

Yeah, the question comes up.

If vacancy in the city treasurer occurs right now, what party appoints the treasure the Republican Party because you're a Republican.

Yeah, that's that would be my own.

Whatever your designation is.

So I'll give you an example.

Um, like when Louisa McMahon passed, she thought she was a Republican.

Could the mayor appoint an independent or an unaffiliated?

Let's see.

Uh when the person vacant in the office shall have been elected as a member of a political party, such vacancy shall be filled by appointment of a member of the same.

So it would have to be a Republican.

So it's your it's an even swap.

But then the so I mean traditionally the chairman of the re of that party presents a name, and that is perfunctory.

Yeah, but that doesn't always have to be.

It just says because the charter says the city council shall it'll be on the agenda.

It doesn't have to be the chairman of that party.

That's courtesy, not a guarantee.

Correct.

It's my reading.

Thankfully.

I so I think any cause from whatever cause covers the failing to qualify.

I just it came up, and that's why it was just not, it doesn't say good cause, it just says cause.

I mean, that's that broadens the scope.

Yep.

Right.

Um continuing on in chapter three.

Um so are we good with with seven o'clock and keeping everything else the same in that section?

Yeah, I just want to.

I know we've made a commitment to change all the uh gendered language, and so I just want to point out that there's one section.

Uh retain his vote as member of the city council.

Under two one uh three-two.

So last sentence.

Which means that president has to be a man, that's all we'll strike that from the record.

For your own for your own safety.

I'm sorry, I think I got um okay.

You know I'm gonna ruin it.

Moving on, moving on.

Section three-three legislative assistant.

Okay, who wants to?

Yes, yes, Commissioner Armstrong.

Um I'm sure this is I'm missing something in here.

Uh, but it talks about the mayor and it's opposed the mayor's unable to fulfill uh their responsibility, the president of the council takes over.

And he has to uh she has to resign his her is a position.

Now the question is I I have maybe maybe the math had is that what happens to the council because the council, I think I read it here that the once you resign and become the chairman, you didn't lose your vote.

Uh in for that when it's time to vote when the that person so now I have a vacancy in war six.

I think what you're talking about is if the president becomes like acting mayor, right?

You know, temporary.

Isn't that what happened when Bowton?

Julio became the president by vote.

Okay.

But that was a true vacancy in mayor.

So the mayor resigned and and mayor Cavo became mayor.

But if, say, for example, the mayor has to for whatever reason advocate the duties of the office for a week.

Well did that when he went in for surgery.

Yep, exactly.

Perfect example.

Then the pre president will become acting mayor while still being a voting member of the council.

But if that person becomes full mayor, they have to resign their seat on the council, and then the council will backfill the vacancy, fill president, and that person becomes mayor for the remainder of the term.

Maybe I'm wrong again.

Yeah.

Uh I if the percentage of the time that the person has become mayor, is there ever that triggers an automatic uh uh um another election?

Because I signed up to be president, I didn't sign up to be mayor.

Um and so the person may readily say, I hey, I signed up and I don't mind doing 60 and 90 days, but I I'm not gonna mayor goes into a coma.

Yeah, a year, and you're like, well, wait a minute.

Right, I signed up for this.

Let you would advocate and then the majority leader would take over.

So it would be I mean, we have a pretty clear like line of succession.

Let's get digital.

Let's just do let's just do one of the.

So I the line of succession in Danbury, at least, the way we have it set up, is it's true mayor president, and that's it.

So if the president for whatever reason didn't want to do it, he would have to resign as president.

The council would have to elect a president, and then that president becomes mayor.

That's my reading of it.

So it wouldn't just go to the next person on the totem poll in the council.

I thought it was a I thought it was a trigger.

Yeah, if you have a certain percentage of the time left, then there has to be a new election.

I think that's because sometimes do have special elections, but I think that's I think it's by if whatever the charter says.

Like if the charter is where we are.

I know, I know.

Well, our charter, our charter, our charter says that the council shall fill the pre or the uh the president shall resign and assume the powers until the next election.

So that basically just means that they become mayor till for the remainder of the next election could be a special election.

Could be three years or four years.

Especially now if you're talking about extending uh uh the time of a person's a tenure, uh we need in my opinion, we need to have some language because just because I become president because of my position, I didn't sign up for this for the next four years.

Uh I mean you gotta give me as a person, that's it's just let's make it practical.

Uh that the person that becomes the mayor now is start like uh I mean the president if he or she becomes mayor, always has the option as uh Chairman Britain said, you know, to resign, right?

And then if that were to happen, the council's mandated to fill the president's vacancy, but they'll fill that vacancy.

That person who is now stepping into the president role for the charter would assume the mayor's role.

So I mean there's it would be basically a simultaneous switch, right?

The the temporary mayor, if he if he or she doesn't want to serve, resigns while that is in the works, the council's filling the president vacancy, then that president is not going to be aware of the acting mayor's decision to find they'll take over the mayor's seat over it.

And I also and I think that would just happen procedurally.

I mean, if you want it to be uh really spelled out, this commission could decide to do that, but um, we have to be careful not to um articulate every nuanced angle because then this charter will become you know a 50-page document.

And I and I think, and and this is just my this is my position as a commissioner.

Like when you are agreeing to become like the council president, you're also agreeing that there could be God forbid a situation where you become mayor.

Because the charter says you are technically like the vice mayor, right?

Like the vice president.

When you agree to be president, you're agreeing to the possibility that you could God forbid something happens, you could become mayor.

That's just my personal opinion.

That's how I would have looked at it too.

Yeah, that when you come like that, it's part of that you're gonna you're responsible if something happens.

Step up.

That's a good point.

Any other comments on that section?

Questions?

And again, this we've got a bunch more meetings, and we're gonna keep the it's a working document.

So if we want to come back to something at a later meeting, we can.

So okay.

Uh so section three-three legislative assistant.

Who wants to kick that off for us?

Um, do we still need the first sentence?

I think no.

I had that crossed out in my sheet.

Yeah, I did.

And then the question of the merit system was brought up in public comment.

What do we just to be clear?

Yeah, sorry.

So the first sentence now will be what?

So strike it.

Yeah, no, right.

But where is um we have some red line here, but on or after 12 noon on the first business day of December 2011.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I think yeah.

Yep.

Can I start?

Please.

Um having heard the audience speak and having worked with the legislative assistant, I think it need does need to be a permanent merit-based system.

I think that continuity of uh uh documents and knowledge and so forth can't be arbitrary and capriciously done from person to person.

You know, like I saw it how it evolved when you know it was a city clerk and then it was a legislative assistant for the city clerk, the legislative assistant or the assistant city clerk, that was the person that actually did most of the work, and that consistency, I think is what kept the council um target and on task.

Think of the upheaval.

If uh it's a political patronage position, you don't get someone as qualified as they could have.

Um, and I think that's a detriment to the council.

I think it's a detriment to the city for the same reason I think the town clerk, which is the same situation.

These are these positions have evolved from when we had consolidation to their you know, um substantial substantive positions that require someone who has the knowledge that that can be conveyed, and it's not you know whimsically uh chosen and switched from from you know mayor to mayor and so forth.

And I think it's consistent with what the council needs.

You know, just the I don't know if I can use like a personal matter, the input that Elisa's given us, you know, we wouldn't have had that if she wasn't or giving us that input.

That was that great perspective that she has from having been in the position that she has.

Did I read that right?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any other I have that as well.

Any other comments on on that section?

I agree with Mark's comments.

So my comments are ditto.

I do um think there is a lot of value in um the institutional knowledge that comes with these positions, and I've a long been in of the opinion that I wish the council had much more of like a role on like the interactions with the legislative assistant, because technically the point of the legislative assistant is to help the council, right?

That's the council's clerk.

Um that's how other towns do it.

So Peter's idea of like giving more oversight to the council is like provided by ordinance, they can elect to kind of set the procedures as to how they hire their legislative assistant.

I thought was an interesting idea, but um I I definitely think that um there's wealth in the institutional knowledge of the legislative assistant.

Especially when there's a um substantial turnover in the council and you have new members, uh they may not be familiar with a lot of the procedural nuances that our legislative assistant um but you know does know.

We could we could handle that situation.

This deep learning curve.

And all the nuances are I think we would just need we would need language though as to how that would work, though, because if the council is the appointing authority, I don't know how that would work as it goes into the HR civil service piece of it.

Yeah, that we'd have to find a way to Wordsmith something, right?

Because in theory, because in theory, right?

The for civil service positions, like there's interviews, presumably like probably for a department head, for example, or something, the mayor interviews chooses from a list, would it be the entire council?

Which is why I think Peter's idea about an ordinance is interesting.

I think there has to be an establishment either by ordinance of what the qualifications will be first.

That's where I was going with it.

Or do we establish it because establish other qualifications for the departments?

It does.

So is it a comment upon us to establish?

But once we put it in the charter, it can never be changed.

It's that's why society changes, we need a different certification.

You know, like what you shall be certified, and what's your certification?

Which is why I kind of like the ordinance idea, which I didn't think of before.

And then that kind of falls in with all the other, unless we're doing a residency thing.

Right.

It gives it gives the council adaptability.

You know, is is residency still necessary as it was, you know, 30 years ago.

You know, where you couldn't get around as quickly.

There wasn't you know internet and so forth that you could establish.

I don't know.

What do you think?

Yeah, I mean that makes sense.

I'm one person.

What can we find?

No, I just the question.

Question is so if we're gonna make the legislative decision, which I think we should, a merit-based system.

So a drug department or you know, an actual employee.

Do we as in the charter set the qualifications?

Or does the council by ordinance set the qualifications because that legislative assistant is there?

But then what do we do with all the other job descriptions in the charter that are designated and laid out?

Yeah.

My opinion on job descriptions generally are like sometimes less is more because you can also because you can always add to a job description in another way.

This is permanent or ten years.

Go a hundred miles to change one word.

Okay.

Is it I want to be fair?

I want to be fair about I just want to point something out.

Yes.

Um, so currently the way it is, regardless, the mayor makes uh an appointment, that goes to the council and they have to approve it by two-thirds vote.

So the council does have to approve the appointment currently.

And would HR write that?

Job description.

Does that have to be a good question?

I think that I think the qu I think this is the to your point.

I think the question is if it were to become merit-based in some form, how would that look as the council being the appointing authority?

Like who would do the interviewing, right?

Like, yeah, the mayor, the mayor appoints, right?

But if it's the council that is passing the ordinance and truly being the person that is appointing the clerk, how would that look in practice?

I think is the question.

There's no other job in the city that has that quasi thing on the right.

Right?

It's it's it would be different.

Well, if we establish it in the charter qualifications and be limited on that, so they can actually fill it in.

Then that's where that would be the posting for the position, and then they can weed through the whatever resume was put in place.

At least uh HR would.

And then so well, so then civil service would certify whether or not this person is qualified, and then the applicant applicants would go to the council, the president, the minority leader, majority leader.

I I don't know how that would trigger from that point.

There's a lot to figure out.

Um curious if this has happened in other municipalities recently.

This might with a charter, it may be interesting to see if anyone's might this might be a two-weeker or three week.

Not to digress, but like the the town clerk is specific and easy.

It's it's the town reason that the clerk of the the mayor that you know, it's the clerk of the city, so that's easy, it's department head.

This is that elected body, we're not really employees of the city.

And the council president changes.

Exactly.

It's always nuanced.

So can we can we so this is the action item?

I think we have a consensus.

We would like to do something with this.

Can we workshop some language and get some versions back to us to look at as a group next week or the week after?

Yeah, which I think it is possible.

Um we just wonder, should we do it right?

Yeah, okay.

Everybody good with that on the same page?

Okay.

Okay.

Perfect.

Um 3-4, general powers and duties of the council.

So I had one question.

And pardon my ignorance, but um kind of halfway down the page, it says um the council is authorized in adopting ordinances to incorporate any nationally recognized codes, rules, or regulations that have been printed in book form.

Now, do all the codes, rules, and regulations get printed in book form, and if not, does that mean we're not subject to adopt them?

I am glad you mentioned this language because we saw it.

And we are gonna recommend that we remove the printed in book form.

Okay, uh text, because obviously um technology is uh advanced now, so um, we're gonna remove that.

So it would just say um probably it would just say promulgated or published, yeah, rather than printed, right?

I mean, printed is very specific.

And printed in book form is even more specific.

Oh, yeah, we're gonna, yeah, that's that's coming out, yeah.

Yeah, national register printed in book form or is it electronic?

I think my design doesn't work.

uh text because obviously um technology is uh advanced now so um we're gonna remove that so it would just say um probably it would just say promulgated or published you know rather than printed right i mean printed is very specific and printed in book form is even more specific oh yeah we're gonna yeah that's that's coming out yeah yeah yeah is the national register printed in book form or is it electronic I think Mandarin doesn't we're gonna use the electronic version of the national register I think it I think it is but I don't I'm wondering that's where they got it from will it always be printed in book form right the question right yeah I mean the book form language is clearly uh antiquated it has to come out uh it would really just be council is authorized to incorporate national recognized codes rules or regulations that have been um that been published published probably published doesn't have to be um in paper form that can be in electronic form so we'll we'll put some words together for that thank you yeah it's a good question secretary on me is that is it good catch um three dash five uh any other comments on that one that one's pretty uniform language I nothing jumped out for me in that section what I said on three uh three dash four yes okay we got um there is a reference just below the printed in book form there shall be maintained two copies of such codes um I don't you don't necessarily have hard copies of everything so do we really need two copies of something is there a reason for that like is there a statute I think back originally they people went into the stacks but I wonder though if there is some like archaic state statute better because I know this is just at work for me and Waterbury there's physical copy that we have to keep for something that's state mandated.

It's got a seal to it it's got it's not electronic where it can be recreated or doctored it's you know it's I guess I wonder I just wonder if there's a state statute so can we flag that and see if like that's something we can take out because yeah if we don't need it I mean it's a point we'll take in like the newspaper part you know yeah because I think that is it might be a it might be FOIA might yeah I I don't know off the top of my head because I know technically anybody can come in and just ask to see something at any time but if you can do it electronically like put in the front of the computer and say here's our core of ordinances I just wonder but yeah yeah but it's good catch anything else in that section three five general procedure I think this is the section where the council sets their regular meeting schedule and how to call specials I'm I'm pro leaving this the way it is anybody has any let me ask you oh sorry that's five on three five um and I don't know if it's something that we it's Robert's rules or whatever I would love to see a way that an ad hoc has to be created by four members and not just one and I get four by three minority plus one majority.

Would that be something we could put in under general I mean we saw what's what's happened sometimes where it gets becomes extremely burdensome if one person wants to send something to ad hoc just because whimsically or to you know bog down the system and I come up with four like I said with the three minority if there is such or if um and then the fourth one would be the majority party would that be on the revenue procedures should it be in the charter should it not be in the charter it's just something I wanted to know where it would drop in if we do decide to do that.

Can I just ask you to say that again so as it stands now anything on the agenda any one person out of the 21 people can send it to ad hoc for no reason whatsoever because when do they want to the last meeting there were 13 thereabouts 13 items sent to ad hoc whimsically in my opinion that's not a proper use of that procedure in Robert's rules.

And I think I think most of the council agreed to it that it was you know a little overthought I'm sorry in the case of your appointment is the comments right well that wasn't even my appointment the last meeting when every when that one particular person said 13 or 14 things ad hoc now we created 14 ad hocs now they all have to report back one of them was a donation for like popsicles for the police truck.

Yeah right yeah one was a donation for I think like a large donation from a very reputable organization that had to wait 30 days to go to ad hoc come back and come back.

I just don't think that's what the what Robert's rules of order wanted when they created the ability to send to an ad hoc and I would love to see something dropped in somewhere if we can we get the for the next meeting what the current authority is for the ad hoc procedure because the council might have whatever the rules I know that is covered in a separate part of the charter.

Okay.

Um not really designed to delve into um to that level.

Okay, so but that just that's just the legal, that was the way this was drafted legally.

Um I don't really see uh within chapter to see a clean place to put that on Commissioner Sefernic.

So do we want to I might want to save that for the uh section on uh committees 13 uh yeah actually yeah 213 I might be it might be better under uh 313 than under five when we get that and for the next meeting though, can we get what the current procedure is for ad hoc?

Because I know I think it's by ordinance.

I think right now there's an ordinance that says what the procedure is for an ad hoc, but it derives from Robert's holes, right?

Yeah, ad hoc part.

I personally thought it was an ordinance, but I thought I thought it was Robert's.

I thought it was an ordinance, but uh we'll double check.

Um the other question is then how many I mean is the commission and well I think whether you want four or three, I mean I'm not sure what the number is.

Well, I'm saying four because it's if it's if there's if there is minority representation, it requires at least one in the majority.

So that you're not stying me.

No, the majority the minority can't just sign me and you know shut down the council by sending everything to ad hoc.

I'll uh we'll report back on the procedure.

Sounds good.

Thank you, Commissioner Sepranic.

As always.

Um quorum.

That language is pretty Can I ask a question?

Yeah, yeah.

A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum.

Is it members present or members elected?

I think the way it's been interpreted is I don't have them for buttons.

We need to fix, I mean, because or isn't there one or two items that it has to be the two-thirds of the elected body, I think?

So yeah, so it depends some things are present in voting and some are of the entire body.

Do we have to clean that up in this or no?

It's understood.

I mean, we could.

Council.

I mean, is there a majority of members elected?

A majority of members.

I mean, you could say yeah, members elected, you could say majority of all members, right?

I mean, however, you want to majority.

Well, there is a big difference, obviously.

A majority of all members of the members elected.

Is it present?

Well, all members say present.

Yeah, all it would have to be all members of the entire um we just leave it alone if I'll keep my mouth shut.

And we have specific we have specific sections that specify present versus not.

Yeah, what so I would say like can we just copy what it says about when like a majority of the entire membership shall constitute a court?

Like whatever, because I don't want us to get into a habit of like having different versions of how in other parts of the charter.

So if we have something that says like um something, a majority of the entire membership of the council in another section, we can just copy that and put it okay here.

Because I think it does clean it, I mean it doesn't change what that means.

Right, no, so we're cleaning it up.

I think cleaning it up is fine, in my opinion.

So you want us to look for language and then outside.

It's consistent all the way through.

Yeah, that's what it was.

Well, consistent for those that require for the entire membership.

And if we can't then something that says the entire membership majority of the members elected, or majority of the entire membership.

And if it's not consistent throughout the charter, um after the entire membership, we'll have to decide what language you want to use.

Right.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

And going back to three-five quickly.

Um this is just cleanup language.

Um does anybody have an objection so for the third paragraph where it says the council shall keep or the the last third of that paragraph.

The council shall keep for public inspection a journal of all its proceedings.

Is there any objection for it to be a record of all of its proceedings?

I think that's just a more current term.

Sure.

And then continuing on including all roll call votes, which shall be the official archives of its proceedings instead of record of its proceedings.

So it just clarifies the difference between the two.

Archives instead of record, yeah.

And then the next sentence would be said records instead of journal.

Shall be maintained by the legislative assistant.

The record so kept shall be authenticated for each meeting by the so it's currently says the signature of the president or the legislative assistant or both.

Um we already do that, but I think just a objection to changing the language to like the attackment of the legislative assistant or president.

So instead of signature, it's just they attest to it.

It's basically doing the same thing.

It's just a more current term.

Sorry.

So instead of signature, it's it would be a testament.

Yeah on the last sentence there.

Um but for consistency, the beginning of that sentence, the records that should be changed to archives, then, correct?

At the very beginning, yes.

Because if you're changing a record in the sentence before that to archives, then the records referenced here should be archived.

I concur.

Perfect.

Um three-seven.

Any questions on that one?

That was pretty straightforward.

We should leave that one alone.

None.

So here's so the subject of going back to our discussion on um entire membership.

Yep.

Uh says except it's otherwise provided ordinance and resolution shall be enacted by majority vote.

A majority vote of the entire council membership, I would say, right?

Yeah.

Not a major because that could be in a majority vote of those presentations.

For for which section?

Three-seven ordinances and resolution shall be in so I would present.

So I would I think that this is my opinion here.

I think that that being majority vote of those present.

Would be would be present in voting.

Or those seated because if there's five people missing and you only have 14 people, it doesn't fail.

It doesn't fail.

It wouldn't fail right for an ordinance and resolution.

Yeah, I think that I think of those present.

I I don't even know if we need to touch it, frankly.

That's my opinion.

I feel like we might be over-engineering it a little bit for that paragraph.

Um haven't you already decided what the quorum is?

And if it's a quorum, if you don't meet the quorum, then you then it's the number of people who met the quorum.

Yeah, is it not?

So in theory, if you have 11 people, you would need what's six six, right?

Six out of the eleven to pass something.

So if we were to change three-seven to a majority vote of the council, if you only had 11 people present, it would have you would it would have to be unanimous to pass anything.

So it kind of defeats the purpose of the quorum section.

In my opinion, which is go back to that.

That makes sense.

Yeah, 100%.

That's why it went back with the quorum.

It kind of ties into the the other ones.

Although it did come up in public comment that you can then have ordinances that are approved, right?

Six out of 21 people can approve.

I think it's just a reality of how it works.

That's how Congress works too, on a lot of things, right?

So any other questions on that?

Um three-eight public notice and hearing newspaper.

Yeah.

You said website.

What's the state statute say on that?

I think there is a statute.

I think it's newspaper still.

Statutes still say newspaper, not other form of media.

Um there are there is legislation that is changing some of that, but that's with other unrelated issues, not with this.

Yeah.

Let me ask you this.

The legislature, do you foresee a changing in the legislature?

Changing it for zoning uh matters.

Now uh there's legislation being proposed, but you don't have to publish in a newspaper general circulation with respect to zoning approvals or permits granted.

So I mean there's a shift statewide.

We tie this to the state statute and say that way if we put it in newspaper and we keep in the state legislature changes it next year, we're stuck with newspaper.

And from what I gather, it's really expensive.

Don't you have to publish a lot?

Very expensive.

Like tens of thousands of dollars a year for us to do that.

So is there the so like if the consensus of the group is like if we want to change the language to just say that the city's notice requirements are going to be whatever the state statute requires the notice requirements to be.

We can just have the lawyers wordsmith the language so that if the legislature decides to change it further down the road, we don't have to reopen the charge.

Yeah.

So the city would just put it in something with the minimum requirements that are needed.

I think isn't there like a circulation size that requires now or something like that?

It's got to, you know, you can't publish it in a leaf or something.

It's I believe it's generally circulation.

General circulation.

Okay.

Any objection to that?

We'll just see.

So Glenda question.

Uh is that the only place?

Or is it I mean the circulation is so minute.

Yeah, neither you know that it's not even possible to get the public here to be able to say we allow the public to notice it.

So is the only vehicle we use in that, or are we expanding to some kind of uh media?

So I think the idea is that if we change the language to follow what the state allows, we would be able to do more than just the newspaper, so we could put it on the website and yeah.

Doesn't the language already um provide for that?

It says and by posting notice of such hearing in a public place.

Okay, so don't we define what that public place is?

It's a good point.

But I think that is like the physical posting on this box in the outside.

But our town clerk is here.

I was just wondering if you're gonna put that in Spanish as well.

When we put up notices, we have to do it in Spanish as well.

In the news news time, yep.

Yes.

Oh, I got things I could tell you.

Can't you just put it in the tribuna?

Because it has to be in the legal.

Try and do one at a time just so that camera can.

That's all just for the Spanish.

Thank you.

Would you want to chime in?

So there is a difference between what the town clerk's office has to notice and what we notice for public hearings for the city council.

Um meeting notices that's right.

So yeah, point well taken.

Um, this is specifically the public hearing sections on the council.

So for this one, did we want I'm just trying to keep us on point on like task here?

Did we still did we want to make the language so that it just encompasses what the state tells us we can do so that way we're not locked into having to do the newspaper because it is expensive, and I think the news times is down to like less than a thousand papers daily, which is kind of sad, but still I would agree to it.

Okay.

Any objection?

And then we'll get some language from the lawyers, and then we can keep looking at it as we go.

And I think I believe what Lori saying is also Jimmy too, but it's the state is requiring proportion of your citizens have language.

Um I think that's gonna be great if we can get that information as well.

So just to be clear that we're presenting you the right edits to come back.

So obviously we can say that notices will be posted in accordance with Kennedy general statute requirements, um something to those lines.

Yeah, so like keeping the the times the same, right?

So five business days, not more than 15 business days, but instead of by publication, it'll just be something to the effect of like in a manner that is required by state statute.

Right type thing.

Right.

So yeah, we'll keep the and then I think by having it as state statute, that would also include if there's any requirements for a different language to be included as well.

So that'll should cover everything that we would have to do.

Um three-nine approval of ordinances and appropriations by the mayor.

Any questions on this action?

I think it's good as is, in my opinion.

There's a couple um grammatical um stylistic changes that we're gonna propose when we come back.

Nothing substantive.

Yeah, we're perfect.

Uh okay, three-10 publication of ordinances.

Any comments for that one?

So same question published in its entirety in a newspaper.

So I think there's no objection, the same idea that we had for the last one.

Sure.

All right.

Uh referendum section.

Any comments on this one?

I think it's good as it is, in my opinion.

We don't recommend anything in this section.

Uh seeing none, uh section three twelve emergency ordinances.

I think it's good on this one.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

It's got a pretty good procedure in there later.

Uh three-13 committees.

This came up a lot.

Um the public um speaking sections.

Somebody asked for a standing committee for education, which I think is a good idea.

I don't know if there's any other committees that should be standing, but that education.

I guess I'll propose this to the commission then and tell me your thoughts.

Um maybe language that just it doesn't say the committee shall establish standing committees or they shall establish ad hoc committees, but maybe language that just gives the council the ability to appoint committees, and if they want that committee to be a standing committee, it can be, or if they want it to be an ad hoc, it can be an ad hoc, but it's just up to the council.

Is there any objection to that to just basically what I would propose is just eliminating that it has to be an ad hoc?

So if they want to appoint an education committee, they can.

But as of right now, the charter technically doesn't let them do that.

Anyone object to that language?

So basically case by case basis, there can be special uh standing committees, right?

Yeah, I guess that would be our intent is is just to if the council would like to establish a standing committee.

Do you want to make their threshold or just simple majority?

To establish a committee, like to create a standing committee, that's a big big step.

Do you want it to be simple majority or should it be two thirds?

What do we think?

I don't know.

I think usually it's simple majority for everything else.

But now you're creating a standing commitment, it's gonna be per perpetual.

They could get rid of it.

By having a simple majority.

Okay, right?

I mean, I'm just kind of thinking out like how it would play out.

Your argument was sometimes the standing committees just take on the life of their own.

Yeah.

Once you're creating it, it's gonna be there forever.

And is that something you want to do?

That's why I think it originally.

So I think like how this could play out, right?

In real time would be if the council wanted to establish a standing committee, they could do it by resolution, like I create these five standing committees on public works, committee on education, public safety, whatever.

And they could rescind it if they wanted to.

Perfect.

I mean, putting it in the charter.

I would be personally hesitant on putting like the list of standing committees in the charter, because it would be impossible to get rid of it if you wanted to, but if you leave it open for the council to decide to do it, then you put the ball in their court how they want to regulate it.

That would be how I would just look at it for 30 years as a reason why they never they they kept it as ad hoc.

So it gives you more flexibility.

So do we need to add language saying that it may appoint or rescind committees by resolution?

We'll just say the city council may appoint committees.

Yeah, right.

It might be something I suppose the uh the city council shall establish from time to time committees thereof of the body thereof or something like that.

So if we think the do you understand, do you understand what we're trying to get at?

Yeah, I mean I think you're basically saying that the council candidates discretion form a standing committee, not uh advocating any right to have ad hoc committees continuing.

Um I mean, I guess the vote would be whether you want to be majority vote or two thirds.

I mean, we'll have to figure out what you want what this commission wants as far as the voting requirement.

Um you could say that you know, standing committees, you know, maybe uh you know, maybe adjourned at the directive of the council.

We send it by resolution, or just in it by resolution, yeah.

And then you have to say, yeah, according to however many to whatever vote you want the resolution to do.

Or just leave it simple.

You know, the the council the council shall have the ability to establish committees, period, and let them decide.

I'm I'm all I'm usually more for keeping things as vague as you can so that the body can regulate how they want to.

That's how you would there be a great job security, right?

Would there be a committee besides either a standing committee or in a documentary?

I don't think so.

In practice, that they've all been so we could.

I mean, you could specify standing committee as a separate section 2313.

But if the commission wants us to just say committees, period.

So let's say if it does it, let's just say, for example, the it just says the city council shall have the ability to establish committees.

I think that's just that period take care of it.

Yeah, or do we even need to say that it's understood the 10, right?

Right.

So then so the argument is do we even need this section?

Of course.

Of course, now we've removed any reference to the ad hoc committees.

And yeah.

Is this is this to speak to the language of the issue you were talking about with the ad hoc committees?

Yes.

That this would be where we would part of it, it could be yeah, that actually ties in with that point.

I would say is everybody okay with the more general form of committees.

Yeah, that's where I'm from.

I would like to uh maybe we could see some language about how other people are dealing with that.

Sure.

I think that because right now they have the current committee.

Uh it just I think what I heard from the public, it was a little bit they wanted more than the present status of ad hoc.

Uh they wanted standing committees.

Um agreement.

But I'm just saying they want a standing committee when we had the public.

All right.

I think there was more than two people who say that.

Uh so I would like to see some language because I'm sure it's gonna be vague, but I think there's got to be some language.

The standing committee, like you say, gives it a life of its own, and you won't be the council to have the ability to maybe even limit the tenure of a standing committee.

So uh, but for the purposes that might be advantageous.

Okay.

Any other comments on that section?

We've we're gonna get some good stuff back on that.

Uh 314 investigation.

I think this one's good.

Anybody has any questions 315 and 316 the fiscal year and the audit sections.

I think those are well.

I think those are good.

Well, as long as we follow it.

Okay.

There you go.

Um, last section 317 procedure for conveying leasing real estate.

Um, I think this is pretty boilerplate, no need to change it.

And I didn't hear any recommendations on this section to change it.

So any comments on this section?

I mean, we talked about a lot, so we've got a lot of changes that are coming back to this.

Well, this one says uh two-thirds of the entire membership of the city council.

So that's our magic language.

Entire membership of the city council would be our you know you know uniform our uniform term.

That's good.

There's six people absent, you can't ever pass it.

Or whatever the number comes the magic number comes out to, it's right.

Is it six?

Um, any other questions on anything in chapter three?

Yes, council.

Just so we all know.

Um week 14.

314.

So it's it's just uh consistency um revision that could be made.

Um say it's about two-thirds of the way down.

Um talk about conserving property government or affairs and the city.

Um make a gender change there on his uh term tenure of officer employment shall terminate.

Yep.

Uh we then go on to say um shall be entitled to any further proceedings or hearing concerning dismissal is the word.

Yeah, but that's referring back to the termination.

The employment shall terminate.

So we're just gonna get rid of dismissal and putting termination.

Okay.

Um dismissal is a legally different term than termination.

And there's no reference to dismissal previously, so that's all changed.

So any objection to that technical change.

Yeah, sorry.

There's a reference down.

There's a reference to uh termination, employment termination.

It's uh it's the seventh line from the bottom, and then if you continue on in this rather long sentence, then says uh provide however that such officer employee shall be entitled to any further proceeding or hearing concerning dismissal.

Well, this is with respect to the termination of their employment.

So dismiss dismissing someone versus terminating someone are legally distinct terms.

So we're just gonna say termination to be consistent with the employment termination language.

That is two lines above.

So you're swapping dismissal with term with termination.

That's right.

Got it.

I got a question in that section two.

It says the council shall have further power to require any complexity uh the organization spending city funds as a closing information and account for the spending of such funds.

Now you don't have I don't know where that I guess once I give an audit.

Is that what we use in the vehicle?

Uh to because you're not only talking about city employees in this particular case, you're saying anybody who gets funding.

So there's a lot of uh agencies in the community that gets funding from the city, and a certain amount of power you would have, but some of it you don't have because of the fact these are not your employees, and this is not your organization.

Um not quite sure.

So are you saying like I just want to make sure I understand your question?

Maybe all went together because there's no paragraphs here.

Yeah, right.

So it's very hard to follow.

So are you saying, like, just for example, if the city enters a contract with like a nonprofit organization and we give them funding as part of that contract?

Is your question how can we act on this paragraph?

So how can we compel that organization to give us documents information?

I guess it's an enforcement question.

It would be this doesn't happen sometimes.

In writing, but how do you do that?

There's usually language tied to any um distribution of city funds.

So for example, there's number of grants that get distributed to certain entities within the city, even if they're not city offices or agencies.

If the money's tied back to a city distribution, there's usually language that allows for the city to investigate or acquire consent, you know, before you do something.

The city does require reporting for grant funds out to the community.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, like with um with CDBG money, for example, you know, that's something that the city sometimes dishes out to uh to agencies or quasi-agencies like the housing authority, for example, um, gets funding through the city sometimes to grants that the city has and they give it out.

So there's language in some of those uh some of those funding documents that allow the city to have authorization to control how that is used or what the recipient of the money does.

So it's it's uh it's all legal, uh legal language, the fine print as they say and the contracts, yeah, and in documents, contracts, yeah.

Conditions tied to any word maybe in the dismissal and in private sector.

We use separation.

I don't know if I want to use that word.

I only said termination um because we use terminate earlier in the sentence.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

Any thing, any other comments on chapter three?

We'll get a red line, hopefully next week.

Um, and we can go over everything we talked about tonight because I know it was a lot.

So hearing none.

Um other business.

Does anybody have anything for the good of the order?

I have no uh chairman's report tonight.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Appreciate that.

I'm going home and don't write to bed.

So um I'm gonna try to go to bed.

Um is there a motion to adjourn?

So move.

Seconded, any discussion?

Are you none?

I'll try your minds.

All those in favor, 25 by 75.

Five.

Opposed it is eight twenty.

Thank you all very much.