All right, I'm gonna call the meeting to order.

It is 6 30.

Um, if we can rise for the pledge of allegiance.

Commissioner Commissioner Jowdy, if you could listen the pledge, please.

Pledge of allegiance of America and to the Republic for which it stands on the visible with liberality.

And justice for thank you very much.

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

Certainly.

So present.

Uh Commissioner Spranik.

He is away.

Myself.

Uh Commissioner Armstrong.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Commissioner Jowney.

Commissioner McCarry.

He's also away.

Commissioner Putnam.

Sure.

And Commissioner Rivero.

We have five present.

Perfect.

So one form.

We have a quantum.

Thank you.

Um, Madam Secretary.

So the first item is public participation.

Um, if there are any members that wish to address the commission, please just give me your name and your address and keep your marks to three minutes.

Henry, 11 corn Castle Road Dambray.

Thank you to the commission and Joe.

Appreciate it.

Uh, I spoke previously before.

I know it's gonna come up tonight on the agenda as the boards and commissions.

And I spoke about the need for a review process or a pretty simply to say an application process.

I would say because the amount of boards, commissions, N and D society, I think I spoke there's 300 positions available, and they're all appointed.

Um, it comes down to a lot of them unfilled vacancies to the term 250 or 60 vacancies across the board.

Um, some of the committees haven't met in a long time.

They could be sunset, there could be other people on these committees that could be useful elsewhere, but I think to singularly have it as an appointed process by individuals expressing interest or somebody being recruited.

Of course, just have an application process.

So the whole Dambury community could at least have an option to apply or get looked at and know the result of what could be the outcome could be if they if they actually are responded to.

So I think there's there's some issues with how this process has been done in the past.

I know it's a sole point process by the mayor, but I think if we take it off of his plate, we put a commission or committee in place.

Um, and they could bring our application or they could bring their recommendations back to the council or to another committee, and also like have the board of ethics take a look at the appointments also.

Uh that's been spoken by a lot of board of ethics to see if there's any conflicts of interest or any individuals that may or may not uh be on this on these committees.

The other thing is um I would stress to have a residency clause in those boards, commissions, entities.

So taxpayers of Danberry are the ones that are actually making decisions on these entities that shape the future and the outcomes of what is going to work for years to come.

Um vacancy clause was important because for too long, some of these committees operate with the bare minimum.

One or two people are missing, they don't have a quorum.

Um it affects the decisions and the process and a timelines of people that rely on committees to make decisions.

It would also um I would say I'm a little iffy on term limits, but we could look at term limits if that's something the committee would talk about.

Because there's people that have been on these committees that haven't been reappointed after a three-year term limit goes, so it's a rollover every year.

They may or may not want to be there anymore.

It's just maybe it's an obligation to them at that point that they feel that they need to show.

But I think we need a hard look at this because it's been done this way a long time, and uh appreciate the committee takes a look at it.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

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

Any other members of the public?

Any other members of the public seeing none, we will close public participation.

Moving on to item number five, uh, the minutes.

Uh so we have the minutes from the last meeting.

I didn't have any changes.

Um, did anybody on the commission have any edits they want to make?

I do not.

Okay.

Seeing none, I will now entertain a motion to accept the minutes as presented.

So motion has been made.

Is there a second?

Motion has been made uh by Commissioner Jowdy, seconded by Commissioner Putnam.

Any discussion on the minutes.

Any discussion or any discussion, seeing none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor of accepting the minutes as presented, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Any abstentions, the ayes have it.

The minutes are accepted.

And for the record, Commissioner Armstrong has joined us.

Okay, moving on for the business portion of tonight's meeting.

So tonight we are going to do our usual routine.

We're going to take a quick glance at the red line that very quickly has been turned around to us by our council.

So thank you to them for the uh continuous quick turnarounds on getting some work product.

Um and just like an FYI for the group, the red line is obviously not official.

It's still a working living document.

So we're gonna have an entire meeting dedicated to going through the draft at the end of this month, and I'll get to that a little later in the meeting.

So uh we don't have to go super in-depth on the red lines, but we just want to make sure that at least everything that we wanted to talk about last week is in there, um, and we can shore up the language as we get further down the line.

And then we're gonna do chapters five and eight tonight, which should be fairly um straightforward.

That's the appointed boards and commissions and chapter eight, which is the miscellaneous section.

So there's a lot of the catch all language in there.

So that's the roadmap for tonight.

So starting off on what we did last week on the red line.

Um, it's in our packets.

Hopefully, folks get a chance to read it.

Um any comments for the group on the draft for that.

Yeah, please.

Uh when we were discussing section 3.2 or 3-2.

Yeah, um, I believe the recommendation was to change the meeting time to seven or at such time as designated to offer flexibility, should that need to change.

Um, I don't know if that's possible.

Or I think if I'm remembering the conversation correctly, we ended up with seven just to avoid a situation where somebody decided to call the meeting at 1 p.m.

or something like that for the organizational meeting.

So I think I think the idea, and correct me if I'm wrong, so that's the team here, is just to insulate that particular scenario.

Through the chair, you also have FOI issues about you have to give notice to the FOIC and the state uh of the schedule of your regular meetings, and they usually demand a set time.

Understood.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments on the red line?

And like I said, if we have to circle back at a later meeting on things that you may have not caught tonight, or when we get to the full discussion on the draft, we can always come back to it.

So nothing is set in stone on this document tonight.

The only other question that arose at the last meeting was um whether sorry, in section three-four um the requirement to maintain two copies of the posed rules or regulations.

I know there was um some research that was going to be done.

I just didn't know what the resolution on that was.

So I did look into that.

Um, and there is some statutory uh language that in our opinion uh requires the city to keep physical copies.

Um actually for public purchase if they public owners ours, and also just for having a physical version on hand.

Um so we thought it would be most prudent to at least have two copies available still to comply with the statute and to avoid issues where there's not enough um copies accessible to the public.

Thank you.

Any other questions on the red lines for last week?

I have no questions.

I the only clarifying question I have, and it's actually it's in the legislative assistant section, but we're gonna be going back to that when we meet with the department heads, I think next week on the language for civil service and how that would work.

So we'll flag that to get back to.

Um, and I think we're gonna be doing the departments next week.

Um anyone else on the red line?

There's a lot.

We did a lot of work last week, so appreciate counsel for getting it back to us.

Um they did give us a couple options for the ad hoc committee language, so we can keep them both in here for now, and then when we get to the end, we can pick one that we think is probably best.

Okay, anything else on the red line, or we're gonna move on.

Okay, all right.

So now let's go on to chapter five.

This is the appointed boards and commissions section.

So let's start with section five.

And this is it's a small chapter, it's you know, two-thirds of a page one in the charter.

Um, any recommendations or any comments?

Um, you know, and it's open council too.

If there's any recommendations um from you guys, but start with five point one planning commission and joining board of appeals.

I imagine there's not much we can do with this section because I think that's state statute mandated.

So any comments from the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Arms from five.

Five one.

I thought it was four one.

We're gonna do four, I think next week is the plan.

Okay, so nothing on planning and zoning.

Uh Board of Assessment Appeals, which I also think is still state statute mandated.

Any comments on the commissioner?

I have a comment about the board and commission.

I think it's not as user-friendly since these are issues that uh the general public uh will be wanting in on.

Uh I don't know if it's the chunks, maybe it's my teacher cell as the chunks, or if I looked in some other uh charters, those things are more bullet bulleted.

Um that seems to be a lot more reader-friendly, or maybe at some point the whole document will be versed to reader-friendly as opposed to chunks, because if I'm want to know what each department or commission does, it's not really reader-friendly and spelling out exactly what a commission will do.

So I'm just uh stating that if we could bullet it, some of these points and make it more reader-friendly or user-friendly.

Um, I think it would enhance the quality of the product.

So are you are you thinking more like a table of contents or something?

Like uh, maybe a table of contents, but even when it gets to the substance of it, like what does the the zoning board do, which is a which is a real important uh board and planning and that kind of thing, it's a real important board, but it's not as user-friendly as opposed to what can what do I bring before the board, the planning commission or the zoning board of appeals.

Um I know that's what they're gonna do.

It's that they're gonna continue to be this thing.

Uh but uh where do we have it?

Maybe somewhere else in the in this city in this city's conference, is what exactly does the planning commission do?

What exactly does the board of appeals do?

It tells the makeup and stuff, but it doesn't really tell.

Oh, that's why I'm doing it.

That's why it's being sent to the zoning board of appeals.

That's why it's been sent to planning and why I have to appear.

I'm just thinking as a as a citizen, I want to make it as non-threatening as possible, so that when I go, I can at least have that little bit of anxiety removed from my brain.

So I'm just thinking that uh it's very friendly, I guess if you're an attorney, but for a regular person that goes before the zoning board, it's not real friendly language, and I know a lot of it is condense it down uh to make it uh less lengthy, but um it tells you about the people, but it doesn't tell you about why I'm here as a citizen.

Gotcha, or why we refer to go here or had to go here.

I mean, that's consistent.

I mean, it's nothing irrelevant, but that to me that's consistent throughout the organization.

I mean, throughout the organization of the document.

So your point's well taken.

I I wonder though if that is something that's better because this document is basically just how I'm interpreting it as you know, Joe.

That the charter is telling us that we the city will have this board, the city will have this board, but like an actual definition of what the board does.

I I almost wonder if that's not necessary in the charter itself, but rather, you know, maybe on the website under that particular section, it's like this is the description, this is what the zoning board does, these are where an application you get the application.

This is why you would do an application, because my my opinion on putting too much text in the charter is it's near impossible to change it once it's in there.

So if a procedure to file an application changes or they want to change it, then I know I like I said I read some other charters uh to to look at them.

Uh some other charters and other cities in Connecticut, they have it right there.

If there's another document that this is going to that it's going to give that clarity, I I believe that it should uh reference that document or whatever they say go to this place because if I'm new or if I'm old, I think that the charter is a first place I'm gonna go to if I want to know what I'm going to do and then make it more reader-friendly.

And I understand, so is this you know, I'm not saying it should be clear in the stone, but it should reference it so that at least I can have an understanding of what I'm doing as a as Joe's Q public.

Um as simple as that.

Gotcha.

I think the mayor appoints these position, uh, or whatever whoever does, I wanted to engage in some of this.

I should know what I gotta do, or at least know what reference it.

And I think when, and this is my like council experience talking.

I think when a commission is created, it's created by ordinance, and I think they have to at least in the language of creating a commission or a board, have to put some descriptive language as to what the charge is of that commission.

So I think that document or that information that you're talking about, Commissioner Armstrong exists.

I just don't think it's in the charter.

So maybe if there's a way that we can refer to something that's like not an operative clause or something in the charter itself, maybe that would be helpful just to make it like you said, more user-friendly, but you know, your points are very well taken.

But I do think that the charge of the commissions, when they're created, they exist somewhere.

The website currently has description of all the commissions.

So it would be just so it would be now to Commissioner Jowdy's point, finding a way to connect them.

Right.

So that one person when they go to X can find their way to Y and then to Z.

But sorry, good points.

Well taken.

Um so I guess we'll just move to the commission boards and commissions on the whole.

Um so I know the current practice is the mayor appoints the city council approves, and you know, there were comments from the public, and the points are also well taken.

Um, I think creating a commission to select the commissions kind of is adding just a layer.

Again, this is me speaking as a commission member.

Is it kind of adding another layer of bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic process?

So I don't necessarily think that would it would be more efficient because I applied to be on commissions, you know, like 10 years ago, and you know, it's usually you write a letter to the mayor, and then you know the mayor has their power to appoint you to it.

So I think it's also something that might be better suited to be done on the website, like a list of the boards and commissions or something like that.

But I don't know if through the charter it's the right vehicle to do it, because it seems that's more of like an executive function than it is a charter function, but again, that's my opinion.

But the points are the points are well taken.

The uh state of Connecticut does have a boards and commissions before it goes to the governor.

Oh, like the judicial nomination commission.

Yes, yeah, that's exist.

You have to apply to the boards and commissions first before it goes to the governor.

Um, where does it explicitly say that the mayor appoints or I don't actually think it's in chapter five?

It might be under the mayor's I read that today, I think it's in the mayor's second.

Yeah.

Let's see.

I don't know that it explicitly says it.

Maybe it's in chapter six.

Isn't that in four-one?

It does say four-one, right?

Yeah.

So is the mayor shall exercise such other powers and duties as may be authorized by ordinance or resolution of the council not inconsistent with the chartering.

So what that does is it refers you back to specific ordinances by which specific commissions are created and the appointment process.

So no, sorry.

I'm I'm fine.

Yeah.

So like in theory, the council, if they wanted to, right, you know, again to the to the point Mr.

Henry made.

If in that ordinance when they're creating the board or renewing the commission or board, they could put in that ordinance that it's subject to review by they could create a commission a review commission for that board, right?

So it would be the council's prerogative to set out that procedure the way the charter's already written.

So if they wanted to, they could the way everything is written now, is how I'm reading it too.

So they have the power, it's just it's the council's prerogative as to how they would like to let out the procedure to fill that appointment.

Yeah.

I my opinion on chapter five is I think the way it's all set out leaves a proper discretion to the council to do what they want to do with the boards and commissions, and the mayor's appointment goes back to the council anyway.

So I will I don't have any recommendations for chapter five.

Yeah, please five-three.

Yep.

It references parking authority in general, but then there's four other boards that are not listed.

Do they fall under section five point four?

That would be my guess.

Because I I I almost feel like why are they name one though, not all of them?

I'm just curious.

Maybe statute.

I'm not sure.

I mean why other boards aren't named under section five?

Yes.

Some statutes form or five at least, I think.

Some statutes say that certain boards have to be created by charter as opposed to ordinance.

So that may be the answer.

Okay.

And 5-4 handles that's the right.

That's the catch all.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just noting public comment.

Um, should there be a residency clause for boards and commissions?

Make that explicit.

I would be in favor of that myself.

So it's the will, it's the will of the commission.

Um I just know, and it's come up like at council meetings and in conversation publicly in the past that it's hard to find people to volunteer just generally right now.

So, and I don't think we have that many that are non-residents that are serving on boards and commissions, but to to further like restraint the pool.

That's just my opinion, but it's again it's the will of the commission.

So we know what the total is for non-residents.

We could probably get that.

I think that's probably easier to get from the question.

I'll answer Mike Henry's question.

So I will I will get that to that.

I would be in favor of that.

I think that makes perfect sense.

I like the idea.

It's got some skin in again, Comment.

Yeah, absolutely, right.

We want the people who live here.

So typical.

I think it'd be interesting to know also on the existing board and commissions how many are not residents, because then maybe once our term is expired, right?

Who may no longer be eligible to start in true?

You know, how many shoes are we filling, I guess would be one question too.

Okay.

So I will have Elisa reach out to the mayor's office to get that list, and then we can circle back on that.

It sounds like there's an appetite to do that.

And you know, again, we're a team, right?

So I have a question based on based on that.

Uh so what you're saying is maybe I'm confused.

Uh what you're saying is that uh people who are not Dan Bear residents can serve on boards and commissions.

Appointed boards and commissions as to the because there's no requirement in the charter, it would be pretty much the way I read it is anything that's not an elected position, you would be eligible for.

And there are a few, they've come before the council before.

So I want I just want to make sure that you're not confused anymore.

So, like we the charter doesn't say we have to, they have to be residents, so you you can question whether it should.

Yeah, the question is up to us whether it should be a residency requirement.

So appointed person can be a non-resident, an elected person has to be resident.

If they're an employee, I may understand that, but if they are serving at the will as a what interest would that person have to be on uh a board here in Danbury, unless they have I I'm just not clear, and then maybe there needs to be somebody who does outreach or something.

Let's to confirm uh to have a pool of people someplace.

Yeah, I'm not they're saying uh as a resident, I want to be governed by the people who're at least in the same boat as I am.

Yeah, I I get it.

I get it.

I would be in favor of an addition to the charter with that.

Sounds like we have at least a consensus for that.

So maybe if we can get some language on that, and then I'll reach out to Elisa to get the list of the non-residents that are on a point boards and commissions, and we'll get that back for everybody to take a look at the commission meeting next time.

So noted.

Okay.

Any other comments on boards and commissions.

I'll be right back.

I gotta go to the EIC for a few minutes.

No worries.

Hearing none move on to chapter eight.

All right.

So this is the miscellaneous section that has a bunch of the catch on.

Yeah, go ahead.

Sorry, Commissioner Arms.

Go ahead.

I said the treasure shall have all the powers and duties imposed uh the town.

And so I'm sorry.

Oh, we're not doing section.

What chapter?

I think I'm confused.

We're skipping on yeah, we're gonna we're going to we're having chapter eight.

Yeah, we're gonna do that one next week.

So we're gonna go to chat.

So we're skipping ahead to chapter eight.

Oh, okay.

Uh I'll hold my question in the end.

So we'll just go in line for these.

So eight point one transfer of powers.

Any comments?

I didn't have any for this section.

This seems like pretty spoiler plate language.

Okay.

Chapter 8, section two.

The one thing I want to note about this section is we did get a recommendation at public speaking or at the public hearing from Taylor, the mayor's office and the department heads that they um were looking to strike section eight two.

Um I believe, and we can note that, and when they're here next week, we can bring it up.

But they did, I want to just note for everybody that they did recommend striking eight-2 from the charter.

I'm not entirely I can't remember exactly what the rationale was for that one, but I'm not worried about it.

Yeah, so we can we can circle back when we have Taylor.

Since you have to mention that, right?

Taylor offered to give us her full edits because right.

Oh, you haven't got those because I don't I don't recall everything that she said, and it wasn't really enumerated in the minutes, so it was hard to keep track of all.

Well, we do have uh um fabulous, thank you.

Yeah, so we'll note that one for next week, and then eight three.

Um there's a bunch of the pronoun language in here, so there are kind of standing recommendation to make everything there, they're a bunch in here, just to note.

But did anybody have any uh discussion points for section eight three uh I had a question I think I'm I think I missed it, but um it says about the conflict of interest is where we are, right?

Yes, so it um uh it's a little bit confusing in some sections about who handles the case in which subsection which subsection a yeah in it says this is conflict interest, and you can uh who who determines who determines self-enforcing so I guess with this maybe we obviously have a board of ethics and we have an ethics ordinance.

So I mean I'll defer to council if you maybe want to clarify the way I'd use this provision, it's it's a it's a provision that provides guidelines for council members who who may have a conflict of interest, but we also have a um in the code of ordinances, we have a a more detailed code of ethics which provides for a procedure.

So for example, if someone you know had the kind of conflict that's talked about here, um someone could could bring a complaint in front of the ethics commission, and the ethics commission would have jurisdiction to decide whether that person was in violation of that specific provision.

So the the charter is kind of um the constitutional document that that uh sets out the general uh uh duties and fiduciary duties, if you will, of the council.

Um, or any city employee or or officer, but that that is supplemented by the code of ethics, which has enforcement teeth in it.

Okay, doesn't refer this to in this document.

And I don't know that there's it is this.

I spoke to that with Simon uh when I read this document before, but that because I it nowhere where it says that we have I don't see it here.

A code uh we have an ethics uh commission and things are referred to them.

Um I missed it.

So I I understand that it would be uh I'm making it more user-friendly if you say the conflict the interest is handled by what you just say it, which makes a lot of sense to me.

But um so would something some language in here that says to the something to the effect of the code of ordinances as they are written shall apply to this violations of this section or something to that effect.

Something that says that that's who's taking it because when it even I read it, it tells me who is under the scrutiny of this kind of this uh item, but it doesn't say who am I who's who's handling it?

Who's gonna who's going to work?

It's gonna be the head of personnel, uh Joe Smoke.

It doesn't say that.

And that's what makes it so we we could say we could say we could add an E that says the provisions of the of the code of ethics of the city of Danbury shall apply to this section and to all violations thereof.

Yeah, it makes sense.

Are we okay with that, everybody?

The consensus or is it it would be additionally, it would be new like a new E new letter.

Yeah, I agree.

I guess it'd be F technically defines it.

Uh no, we haven't E.

It should be.

Oh, it should be F, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

I think that'll help.

And that would refer to the city's code of ethics.

Yeah, right.

Interestingly, the Board of Ethics provision in our ordinances references eight-three of the charter.

Okay.

So we actually have it's going one way but not the other.

So we could we could make that analysis reference.

So this will short up.

Okay.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

Very good.

Okay.

Um eight-four.

There was cleanup language recommended by uh chief of staff O'Brien to include authorities in this language in this section.

So it would be of any authority, commission, board, department, or office, and then same as commissions and boards are referred referenced to in that paragraph.

So it's just adding the authorities to that section, which makes sense in my opinion.

Any objection to that?

Sorry, I I just wanted to go back to section eight three for one second.

Section C the way that I read this right, someone cannot receive a gift.

Um if the entity basically has a contract or purchase order with the city.

So that feels right that it's restricting gifts or um whatever gifts from entities that have a current right contract or purchase order with the city, but that doesn't necessarily limit but this has been awarded.

So if it either is going to be awarded or if it has been awarded, they're prohibited from giving a gift to a council person.

But does that really eliminate influence if someone is trying to get a contract, right?

It may not have also some it also says maybe has been awarded.

So I think the may link which would say that if there's a chance that there could be an award, then you have to refuse any gift.

It's actually to persons or entities, persons, firms, corporations, or entities.

Right.

I just know in some right, in some charters, right?

The gifts are restricted outright.

There's no additional caveat language, and so I don't know if this in in some way doesn't the code of ethics speak to a certain extent.

They might define gift.

Sometimes there's like the de minimis value.

Right, something under $10 is allowed and anything above that.

But I don't I don't recall seeing that in here.

Well, the beauty is if we add this other language that incorporates would refer to that other condition.

Thank you.

That that may solve my question.

And and I'm sorry, please please.

And also when you start getting trying to improperly influence the award of a contract, now you're getting it to criminal issues.

Right.

Yeah.

Let me ask.

Can I have another question?

Yeah.

That's the attorney.

It says shoot your reward or compensation.

Is there a time limit on that or something?

I mean, if I gave you a gift today and I have nothing.

And tomorrow I get awarded a contract.

At the point at the time in place, I have I have no contact.

I gave you, I gave the city a gift, whatever.

City should give the gift back to you.

In a in a time frame of or in the I mean it's you know, it's it's hard to say.

Like if it was 10 years ago, I would say, you know, that's that's really not within the purview of what this is about.

But if it if it's if it's within a reasonable time of your being awarded or having been awarded something, I don't think that would be deemed proper under this provision.

Okay.

Sorry.

No, please.

I keep the questions coming for.

Yes.

Yeah.

We're on eight four.

It's just adding authorities in there.

There's any other suggestions for that one.

We could do eight five, which was the same recommendation to add authorities in there as well, since they are um arms of the city.

Um pretty short.

Any um comments on those sections.

There's pretty boilerplate.

I don't really think we need to touch them.

Yeah.

Section eight eight.

I have nothing on this one.

I'm not sure if anybody else does.

Boilerplate.

Um think we can actually change that.

I I have a question.

Yeah, please about eighth eight.

That tells about retirement and um it seems out of place kind of in here because it doesn't talk about any many other any of any other kind of personnel uh related uh items.

Uh is it because we hold a special place for uh people getting a pensions and is in here?

It doesn't talk about any other any other uh personnel issues such as uh grievances or anything of that nature.

I think so.

I think a lot of that would be dictated depending on like the civil service rules, the city's HR policies, collective bargaining agreements would get more into the nitty-gritty of that.

I thought I was wondering why this piece is in here.

This this might just be I don't know if I think this had to do with the uh remember several years ago there was a transition from one type of retirement system to another, and I think the charter commission at that point decided that they should put this provision in there to um spell out how that retirement um procedure would work, but all other you know employee related questions are uh will be addressed separately by uh the mirror, municipal employer relations act, collective bargaining agreements, etc.

So those are separately addressed.

So the pensions wouldn't be part of the collective bargaining agreement.

Excuse me.

I let me just caveat that just by saying I'm not a labor lawyer, but I I would imagine uh a CBA would include some provisions about uh pensions, but again, that's covered by Mira and the collective bargaining statute.

I that's that was one of the questions on that one.

Um I think we were good on periodic charter review.

Um this probably needs to be updated since there's a date in there, so it would probably have to be whatever the date was that we formed the commission, and then every 10 years after that, and keep everything the same would be my suggestion if everybody's okay with that.

I agree with that.

What'd you say again?

So for this one, I think we just need to update the date.

810 to when we 810.

Yes.

And then I have a question that relates to that.

I know being a nudge, but anyway.

No, no, but I want you to ask all the questions that you have.

It says, yeah, but it in some I think it's some.

Like I said before, we have a lot, we have a big map to cover in a short period of time.

And if something happened, if if we're not able to cover the bulk of this, then there can be another one.

Um another commission chosen.

So in where's the language that says, let's say, for example, uh, we want to talk about the picture stuff as the last thing we did start the card, but we're not able to cover here.

Does it have to last until 10 years?

So and how does it say in here that uh it says at least every 10 years?

So do we have to wait the 10 years or there's a provision in the charter that says they can reconvene another charter commission in less than 10 years in three years or four years, like some cities do.

So it's it's at least.

So it can be they could do another one next year if they wanted to.

So it's at a minimum once every 10 years would be what the language would would read.

And they just have to consider the resolution.

So it doesn't mean they have to open a commission, just means that the council has to debate and consider a resolution to open one.

So if they feel and 10, say nothing happens in 10 years and the council feels everything's good to go and they don't want to open it, they can act on the resolution, vote it down, and it it would cover compliance with this section.

When when we have, I think you just tells me I have a presentation for the from HR.

Did you say that?

Next week we're we'll have the chart.

I'm still stuck like check on 8.8.

Um yes, we'll flag that for when patriots here.

Yep.

Yeah, because that seems effective.

Yep.

So I will uh flag eight eight for uh civil service and each arguments.

Yeah, and the effective date is I believe this is also set by statute that it would have it takes effect 30 days after the voters if the voters were to approve any changes.

So let me ask you one more question.

I'm gonna be quiet.

No, no, no.

I told you I want you to ask as many questions as you want.

Uh when we finish with this document, is there something like an executive summary or recommendations that we create?

Okay, so we could we could recommend it.

Oh, we are gonna create an executive summary.

It says we did X, but we didn't do Y.

So we're gonna our our job as a commission is we are going to present to the council two things.

A draft report, which is going to be probably at the end of this month, which will have the our recommendations.

The council will look at it if they feel they don't like something that we recommended, they'll send it back to us and they'll meet with us.

We'll meet maybe one or two more times, and then we'll finish a final report, which will go to the council, which is inevitably what they're going to vote on and work with.

So we will give them a product that will have everything that we discussed.

And if we I don't know what they did 10 years ago if they had an executive summary, but it could be something that we put on there, like a cover letter or something that says, you know, we had discussions about this, but we didn't get to it, or something to your point, but we will be giving them a finished report.

Just through the chair.

Um you just mentioned um by the end of this month.

You mean by the end of next month?

June for the because we're still at May.

Yes, I thought we were in June already.

Now next month.

End of the next month.

We're at the end of May.

I'm already in June.

I'm already in June.

End of next month.

Appreciate that.

Yeah.

Okay.

So that's the end of chapter eight.

I just have a question note.

Um, right.

So during public comment, there were several recommendations to add an ethics section, and I just want to confirm that the solution is to add that section F wherever we decided that was going to go.

Yes.

Um, to refer to the code of ethics of the city, and that should cover the recommendations that we heard out of public comment, correct?

I think so.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just like how the board of ethics references control.

Thank you.

We accept the board.

Yep.

Yep.

Section 2101 talks about who is on the board.

What's the board?

You know who the board's comprised of.

Does it talk about how if they talk about what they terms are too one you say?

Yeah, so um of the code of ethics, not the charter.

Of the code of ordinances.

Sorry, code of ordinances.

Yes, yeah.

So the board is the board of ethics, pursuant to the code of ordinances, is a board of five persons.

They shall not hold uh any other office or employment within the city.

Um let's see here.

At least one member shall be an attorney at law in the state of Connecticut, so a licensed connected attorney.

Um they may be, but they shall not be required to be a resident of the city.

All their members shall be residents of the city of Danbury.

Let's see, the members of the board are appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council, and they serve their survey term of two years.

I think the council just appointed, I think, three new members at the last meeting, if I'm not mistaken.

Four, four, four new members.

Four new members, yeah.

Three in an alternate, right?

Yeah.

Or one reappointment and three new members, I think.

Something to add effect.

Okay.

We good on discussion for five and eight tonight.

Again, we can come back to it if we have to, because we are running a little um and I'll get to this next.

Might as well just go there now.

Um, but I wanted to under the chairman's report just talk about the calendar because I know we've been at it for a little over a month now.

So it's weeks have been flying by, so I appreciate everybody's work, especially council for getting us uh the red lines very quickly.

Um so we had standing meetings in May and June.

So we have four scheduled meetings left in June on the third, 10th, 17th, and the 24th.

We are running right now of everything.

Um we don't run into attendance issues.

Um, should be able to finish going through all of the chapters by the 17th, and then we can dedicate a full meeting to a draft going through a draft report and making sure all of the language that we want is in the document.

So just keep that on your radar.

Um June's gonna go by pretty quickly.

And um, we have been doing a lot, and I thank everybody for how hard they've been working and how seriously they've been taking um the job of this commission.

So just keep overcommunicating with me when you can't make it.

Everybody's been super awesome about that, and that is all I have for that one.

Um we do have one more public hearing that's gonna have to get scheduled, probably late June, early July.

I'm trying to avoid 4th of July week because a lot of people take vacations that week.

So um just keep that in your head.

We have one more public hearing before we send a draft to the um council.

So we have about another month, five weeks or so of work left until um the council does their work and comes back to us probably in August.

So any questions on that.

Okay, all right.

Um so that should take care of it tonight.

Anyone have any comments for the good of the order?

Yes, sir.

Clarification maybe the after the recommendations are gonna the council, may ask it to go back.

Would it only come to this committee or would it go to Mad Hoc or anything in between?

So when we give the draft to the council, let's assume they disagree with something, and they send us back a recommendation.

We would then meet again, go over, discuss what they recommended, and then we either agree with them or disagree with them, but either way, we have to give them a final draft, and then when they get the final draft, they would have to have a public hearing and then follow whatever.

I'm not entirely sure.

It probably could, maybe it probably could, but I'm just gonna delay it or postpone it.

But there's just uh the council at that point would then discuss everything we did.

So we're basically handing them.

This is what we did.

This is what we think should be the charter recommendations from the council at the end of the day, has the to say.

So we're we're about halfway through our job.

So that's great.

Okay.

All right.

Um the comments good to go.

All right.

Um, is there a motion to adjourn?

I have one more question.

Yeah, one more question.

Okay, I will never ever.

I I promise I wouldn't say anything else, but um I know that the secretary, as well as the others of us, went back and made uh took notes on the uh comments made by the public.

And I appreciate that.

I I want to make sure I I don't know if we'll make sure, but at least uh revisit that those comments from the public hearing uh to see if we addressed it or didn't address it.

It's okay.

But I think that we should make sure that we include in our minutes uh that we went back through the comments and and and say, well, we addressed it in section 4-2, or we chose not to address it in at all.

I think that on the shoes uh due diligence uh to the public and that their comments are were well received or not well received, but at least we didn't just put them in in a round file.

Yep.

So um that's consideration.

Okay, we considered it, and we have the minutes to show that we did address some some way and that could some addition question.

And that could be something that we put in the cover letter or the executive summary that we acknowledge the public brought this up, but the commission felt XYZ or vice versa.

We didn't hear it, but we felt that it was good to do it.

So point well taken, and I think we can we can find a way to plug that.

Okay.

Okay.

So now is our motion to adjourn.

So motion has been made.

Second.

Second, any discussion.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, any opposed, any abstentions?

Motion carries.

We are adjourned at 72.

Wow.

Thank you, everybody.