Danbury Charter Commission Meeting Summary - May 27, 2026
Danbury Charter Commission Meeting - May 27, 2026
The Danbury Charter Commission met on May 27, 2026, at 6:30 PM. The meeting included public participation, approval of minutes, and discussion of Chapters 5 (Appointed Boards and Commissions) and 8 (Miscellaneous) of the proposed charter. The commission also reviewed red-line edits from the previous meeting and outlined upcoming work sessions and a public hearing.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Henry, a resident of 11 Corn Castle Road, Danbury, addressed the commission. He advocated for the creation of an application process for boards and commissions, noting that of approximately 300 positions, 250-60 are currently vacant. He stressed the need for a residency clause to ensure taxpayers make decisions, a vacancy clause to address quorum issues, and a review process involving the Board of Ethics. He also suggested exploring term limits for appointed members.
Discussion Items
- Red Line Review: The commission briefly reviewed the red-line draft from the prior week, noting that the meeting time for organizational meetings was set at 7:00 PM to avoid FOI issues. They also discussed a requirement to maintain two physical copies of proposed rules/regulations, which is statutory.
- Chapter 5 – Appointed Boards and Commissions: Commissioner Armstrong noted the charter is not user-friendly for the public and suggested bullet points or a table of contents. Commissioner Jowdy raised a concern about adding too much text to the charter, as it is difficult to change. The commission discussed whether a residency requirement for appointed boards should be added. Chairperson indicated a consensus for adding a residency clause, and the secretary will obtain data from the mayor’s office on current non-resident members. The commission also noted that the mayor’s appointment power is detailed in Chapter 4, not Chapter 5, and that the council has discretion to set appointment procedures via ordinance.
- Chapter 8 – Miscellaneous:
- Section 8-2: The mayor’s office recommended striking this section; the commission will revisit when department heads attend next week.
- Section 8-3 (Conflict of Interest): Commissioner Armstrong noted the section lacks clarity on enforcement. The commission agreed to add a new subsection (F) referencing the city’s Code of Ethics to specify that violations are handled by the Board of Ethics.
- Section 8-4 and 8-5: Cleanup language to add “authorities” to the list of entities covered.
- Section 8-8 (Retirement): Commissioner Armstrong questioned why only retirement is mentioned; the commission will flag for further discussion with HR.
- Section 8-10 (Periodic Charter Review): The date will be updated to reflect the current commission’s formation, with a requirement that the council consider a resolution at least every 10 years.
- Future Meetings & Public Hearing: The commission has four meetings scheduled in June (3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th) and will dedicate the 24th to a full draft review. One additional public hearing will be scheduled in late June or early July, avoiding the July 4th week. The commission plans to produce a draft report by end of June and a final report by August.
Key Outcomes
- Consensus on Residency Requirement: The commission agreed to consider adding a residency clause for appointed boards and commissions. The secretary will request a list of current non-residents from the mayor’s office for review at the next meeting.
- Section 8-3 Amendment: Directed staff to add a new subsection (F) referencing the city’s Code of Ethics to clarify enforcement of conflict of interest provisions.
- Section 8-10 Update: The periodic review date will be updated to the current year (2026) and every 10 years thereafter.
- Section 8-2 Recommendation: Noted the mayor’s office recommendation to strike; to be discussed further when department heads attend.
- Acknowledgment of Public Comments: The commission will include a summary in the final report or cover letter indicating how each public comment was addressed or why it was not adopted.
- Next Steps: The commission will continue chapter-by-chapter reviews, with a full draft meeting on June 24, 2026. One more public hearing will be scheduled.
Meeting Transcript
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.
openpublica.com