I will call the meeting to order.

It is 635.

It is Wednesday June 10th, 2026.

This is a meeting of the Charter Revision Commission.

Um down the agenda.

I can ask everybody to please rise for the pledge.

And if uh Commissioner Putnam can lead us in the flex, please.

Our pledge allegiance is to the flag of the United States of America and stands with a nation under God into the vote with liberty.

Thank you very much.

Um if the vice chair would be so kind as to do the role, please.

Britain present.

Uh Amida is absent.

She is away.

Uh Armstrong.

Hernandez.

Yeah.

Jowdy is not here.

Uh Kerry?

Here.

Here.

And Rimbergos here.

Here.

Sure, we have two absences, Amita and Jowdy.

Thank you very much, sir.

Um next is public participation.

Um members of the public that wish to address uh the commission.

Now is your chance.

Please uh let me remarks to about three minutes and before you speak, name and address so the mic can pick you up.

Please, any members of the public?

Yep, Chief.

Uh Jeff Harold, uh 18 Foster Street.

Um section 63 um regarding appointments of officers and employees of the city.

Um it says when not otherwise provided, all heads and all officers of the foregoing departments, including departments created by the city council, and then it says all police and fire officers shall be appointed by the mayor.

Um this is language that's a little bit antiquated from the perspective of uh our current operations.

One of the things the mayor also appoints all firefighters also with the approval of the city council after going through HR and all those things.

And I I want to make the distinction, and police officers have that title, and the police officer is a police officer.

Firefighters are not officers until they promote up to a rank of command officer or lieutenant or above.

The language is not exact.

I'm not sure if it's it, I don't, I'm not gonna say it's a big deal, but it is an exact language in the process.

And I'm thinking that perhaps it should also say an all police and firefighters and officers, or something along those lines, because a firefighter is distinctly different from a fire officer.

The officers include fire marshals, deputy fire marshals, lieutenants, captains, administratively, as well as line officers.

But offices are distinctly different, as in the military.

I'm just thinking it should be should be addressed somehow.

That's the only thing I caught this time around.

That is less than two minutes.

Look at that.

Thank you.

Yep, sir.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, committee.

Michael Henry, Danbury, Connecticut, 11 Corn Castle Road.

This is about boards and commissions that we talked about last week and probably talked about over the last few weeks.

Um last week we heard that there were six individuals that were non-residents that are on board commissioners and of these authorities in Danbury.

To keep that number in perspective, or are not allowing any more in here because you could go from six to twenty to who knows what it is.

There is no control over non-residents becoming appointed.

They're making decisions, they're voting on committees or voting on issues for the city of Danbury, taxpayers.

My question to them is why don't you live in Danbury?

You want to work here, you want to be appointed here.

Why aren't you here?

There should be an application process, a review process, a vetting process.

There should be a board of ethics to look at the individual that's coming in to be appointed to any of these positions.

There could be another qualified Danbury resident that wants the same position.

Or overqualified or more qualified, and they could get passed over for a non-resident.

I'll be that's in the best interest of Danbury.

I think it's disingenuous to any resident of Dan Burr, it's a taxpayer.

Um vacancies exist for reasons.

We don't have any uh existing process in place to put together a pool of candidates.

That's a that's a failure point.

And you know, at this point, allowing them to make decisions for Danbrey taxpayers and voting.

I think it's I think it's wrong.

It should not happen and occur.

So I I urge the committee to look at this seriously.

There was um some discussion last week from the mayor about why an individual should be appointed, but there's many other reasons why we should be looking at Danbury residents first before we go outside of Danbury's qualified individuals.

I mean, we have a 90,000 hundred thousand residency.

Why are we looking outside of Danbury?

There are qualified people here.

So I urge the committee to take a look at this seriously and put this on the uh under formal draft, please.

Thank you.

Sir, any other members of the public that wish to address the commission?

Yes, thank you.

I'm here again.

I'm gonna talk about uh the legislative assistant language.

Uh in my mind, um, I'm obviously very familiar with what the legislative assistant does, and I'm familiar with why that language ended up in the charter back in 2007 and 2008.

Um I think it's important um that we have a legislative assistant that is a more permanent type of job.

The legislative assistant needs to be specifically mentioned in the charter because currently her job is to serve uh as a clerk of the council.

Um it's it's spelled out very clearly in the chart in section 3.3.

Um but in terms of how she's appointed and and how long uh she can serve.

You know, tradition has it in Danbury most of the time.

Our employees stay here from one administration to the other, which is good.

But a legislative assistant serves in a unique role where she touches all the departments in the city, and she has a good bead on what how the city works.

Uh she has a good institutional knowledge.

So there's a continuity of information that resides in that office because of her unique position.

And I I think it's important that we try to make that a permanent job, in a sense that it's not up for grabs every time there's an election.

Uh so that is that's my interest in in this.

Um the language at the very beginning of that section was specifically written to deal with a situation that existed at the very beginning when we when we transitioned from an elected city clerk to a legislative uh a legislative legislative assistant.

But now, you know, that time has passed.

It's 18, 19 years from then, and and we should just look at it.

Um, and I I do think it's important that position be named in the charter because it's important that the council has such a person.

Um and and it's also important that everybody in the city government respects that what those roles are, and they're clearly defined as they are right now in the charter.

So thank you uh for your attention to this very narrow point.

Um, I have a lot I could talk about, but I don't want to bring my conversation far afield.

So thank you.

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

Any of their members of the public, any other members of the public, see none out public speaking.

Uh moving on to number five uh the minutes.

So the minutes from last week are attached.

Thank you, Lisa.

Um, does anybody have any questions or modifications to the minutes?

I checked them, they looked pretty good to me.

Mr.

Chairman like to make a motion to accept the minutes as copies have been distributed to all members.

Is there a second?

Second.

Motion to be made and seconded.

Is there any discussion on the minutes?

Discussion.

Any discussion?

See, none I will try your minds.

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

Aye, any opposed, any abstentions.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Um roadmap for tonight.

This is our um last substantive red line session.

Um, so we're gonna go over the red lines from last week that we worked on, and then do chapter six tonight, which um are the offices and departments of the city, which is why we have so many folks in the room.

So that's gonna take us to the end of the document, and then next week we will work on the full draft report.

So that's the roadmap for this evening.

So kicking us off will be um chapter four and seven reviewing the red lines that our very, very efficient council has done for us.

Did anybody flag anything in the red lines from last week that they wanted to discuss?

Anything saved?

Not what we is this the correct spelling on um under 4.1.

The mayor shall be an ex O F F I CIO.

Ex officiation it's Latin.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, that's one of those uh it's one of those um legalese terms.

Okay, yeah.

Uh I guess we'll just go through each one.

Anything in chapter four to the mayor's office, it looked like it said what we wanted to see.

Um feel free to just chime in, guys.

If you uh are seeing something, uh chapter seven under finance.

Uh one thing that I did want to flag um I did talk to council about it, and Joe, if maybe you want to talk a little bit about the um the February date and having some sort of actual benchmark date in there and Dan too, if you wanted to chime in.

Okay, sure.

Uh through the chair, thank you.

Um so at our last meeting, we discussed whether we need to keep certain language under chapter seven regarding uh February 15th uh dates for uh for budget purposes.

Um February 15th was listed under section 7-2, and also under section 7-3.

Um a couple other spots.

So I looked into this.

Uh the statutes don't explicitly require that we have this particular date, however, um during the budget preparation you know process, uh it makes sense to have uh departments have some um sort of drop dead dates to get information together and and and brought through the appropriate channels because we don't want to create a situation where we're getting to the end of the fiscal year and budgets are behind or not you know not moving along properly.

So um if this commission wishes to change that date to some other date, there's no legal prohibition against it.

Um but but it is recognized.

I took it out because that was the request of the commission, but it would be proven uh in our legal opinion to have some sort of a date in there just to make sure that again the budget process is moving forward um so that not everything is being finished at the last minute.

Yeah, there's no there's no statutory requirement on that exact date.

Dan, is there a date that it that just would make sense to have in there as like a benchmark, you know, safe harbor deadline?

Yeah, but uh the February 15th or next business day um after February 15th makes sense for the schools um and also um 73E, it just seems backwards at me.

It's not like that.

Uh is it the the mayor shall present the capital by February 15th, and it it should be the planning commission should present the proposed capital to the mayor by February 15th, so I just need it to be kind of flipped around but where the February 15th date is otherwise mentioned in the charter, you would recommend it.

It's a good time period.

We we need it by February 15th to meet the other deadlines that are in there for you know adopting the budget by May.

And so for is everybody okay with that same perhaps adding the or next business day in case February 15th falls on a Saturday or a Sunday for or I think Gambry's case maybe a Friday.

Yes, okay.

Um but for that E section, so would we have to?

So I'm just gonna read it out as part of the budget.

The mayor shall present a program to the city council for adoption, additions, or deletions no later than February 15th that has been previous previously considered and acted upon by the city planning commission.

So do you want that to say as part of the budget, the city planning?

So do you essentially want that paragraph to begin saying the city planning commission shall present to the mayor no later than February 15th?

Okay, yeah, because the mayor presents the council at the at the April Capitals.

So then the flow of the paragraph would be the planning commission shall present to the mayor no later than February 15th, and then the mayor shall present that to the city council for adoption pursuant to the budget schedule's charter, something to that effect.

Okay.

For my commissioners, are we okay with that?

Um four duties of the city council on budget.

Um changes there besides uh cleanup language to make it say city council.

Same for emergency approbes.

Um, just moving along.

Um borrow, all right.

So I'm up to borrowing.

So yeah, sorry.

So nine speech.

I'd like to have that little group uh work on.

Um couple things I'd like to see changed or at least modified.

So the first sentence, every payment made in violation provisions of this charter could be deemed.

I don't want to make it that uh definitive that it shall always be.

Or extenuating circumstances and to place this high level that you could once again, as I mentioned last week, be fired for something inadvertent.

I think it's an undue burden on the the staff of the city.

So I'd like to see that to be could be deemed as opposed to shall.

And then the last sentence, such action may be clause for disciplinary action.

So are you you're in section eight, right?

As anything?

Okay.

So I think so.

You don't like this, was it the shall language?

I don't want it to be automatic.

So I think when I think last week we had we kept the shall in there because I think no matter what its cause, like the shallow makes it cause, but you don't necessarily always have to.

You're already predisposing that there's a viol uh that it's that something is in violation, and you're already kicking in a severe disciplinary uh actions.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, please go ahead.

Um my only concern, Mike, is that this language, even though it's a charter is taken directly out of 7-348 of the general statutes.

Okay, which which expressly says every expenditure made without an appropriation.

It shall be deemed.

Um violation of the charter.

Well, illegal.

A law in violation of the state statute.

Illegal covers it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, so I'd be I'd be a little hesitant in because when you say could be deemed who makes that determination and and how does that get adjudicated?

And there's a lot of case law that talks about uh what happens when you know uh appropriations or expenditures are are incurred uh and the courts are uniform and saying that the the statutory language should be followed, which is it shall this happens a lot on a on a you know year-year basis.

It does.

And I don't think having lived under this for 22 years, where I had to sign a form saying what you just did can get you fired.

Um there are a lot of people in the city department as I've spoken with and said this is way too extreme.

Um a lot of them will not here to talk about.

A lot of times it appropriations don't happen in the world we like um in terms of public buildings, in terms of you know, public works, you know, there are decisions that are made we where you buy something with a requisition.

I buy it with a recognition, that is a violation of the charter, and I can be fired.

You know, I need something for a lawnmower.

So, you know, no disrespect meant to finance, but right now purchase orders are cut off.

I need something, it's not an emergency per se, but if I buy something, let's say at Bethel Power for my lawnmowers and lawn as broke, I can be fired for that under the statute.

If there's something of a bit of a compromise, that's great.

But I'm looking for something that's a compromise that you know that that's you want to say if for example, like accepting cases of emergency as determined by the mayor.

I but I would I would even be hesitant to do that because the way that we have in the red line, such action shall be cause for disciplinary actions as determined by their department head and or the mayor and human resources.

So that I mean like just but you're presupposing it in the first sentence that it's that's automatically all we're pre all we're saying is that it it can be cause.

We're not saying that it's going to be no, it shall be deemed.

It shall be deemed illegal.

Illegal is so if anything is illegal is automatically disciplinary.

No, no, not according to the language of the desire.

As long as that's your opinion.

This is what I love legislative intent.

Yeah.

Because three years from now, you know, it may be determined something differently.

And and and I mean, like just in practice when I'm dealing with when I have to help in HR matters, there are forms of discipline that aren't that.

We all say that now, but you know it could be.

Well, if it's something egregious, I would hope that reason should be terminated.

You know, but if it's an honest mistake, innocuous thing, something like a coaching, something like that.

I hate to think an innocuous thing be so detrimental that that person could be fired or used against them in a you know, disciplinary action.

That's all I'm you know, and there's a lot, there's a lot of other departments that are in the similar situation.

And also depending on the employee too, which is not in here if they're a civil service employer, if they're a union employee, it would also trigger the collective bargaining agreement, which has the grievance procedures and arbitration eligibility, all that.

So I don't I agree with the concern, but I don't think the way that the language is okay.

As long as it's predicated on a state statute, so then then we have to go with it.

That's fine.

I didn't know there was a state statute, and I thank you for bringing that to my attention.

We have lawyers.

We have many of them.

Dan, to the chair, would you mind commenting a little bit with your thoughts on?

Yeah, there are there are you understand where I'm coming from?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I'm gonna be in left field.

I never like that language at the very end.

Shall we cut it?

Thank you.

We're not we're not on automatically going out and firing people.

We'd have a very thin staff if not we knew that.

Um at least department head.

Um so uh yeah, so I I've never liked that shell, you know, that that last part.

Um but um we do have uh workarounds on that in the purchasing policy, so that you know if it's an emergency, you have the next business day after you've after you've dealt with the emergency, then you have up to the next business day to get away up to my emergency may be different than what someone thinks at in a different level, and that's what you know the departments like myself have to deal with sometimes, you know.

With machine breaks, we got to fix it.

Is it an emergency?

Maybe I think it is, but you may not, you know, because you're not there cutting the grass or you know, built paving the road or whatever.

Right.

That's the only thing I would wanted to put into it is very extreme.

Yeah, under the language of the mayor, whether the department have would would have discretion and HR would have discretion.

So you assume that they would exercise their discretion for the.

How about instead of shall be called maybe or maybe cause the last sentence?

I don't this is my so this is my rationality.

It shouldn't be May, because then who is deciding whether it's from wherever whether it's clause or not.

You might have on Monday, you might have somebody that says I wanted my one of my case made it and we got it.

I guess and then you'll have one employee bringing that it was unfairly applied to one created a class, and then you're you're running.

As long as I understand where the rationale is in where it's based upon.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Dad.

All right.

Um section the next section bonding.

Um so we have the five million dollars in there.

Um I know there was discussion over a higher amount.

Um I slept on it for a week.

I'm comfortable with the five million.

I think anything higher than that right now was a little bit.

It's a big ask, I think, in one jump.

Um just want to take the temperature of commission again.

And Joe, if you want to maybe opine, because I know we talked about potentially indexing it or something to that effect.

I I know you researched a little bit on what some towns do if you want to maybe start with that.

Sure.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, so through you uh just again, there's a state statute on uh bonding limits for municipalities.

Um and there's actually limits on the there's a total uh bond limit, and then there's a limit by the based on the bond itself.

Uh there's like five different categories the limits based on uh based on also what the tax receipts are of the municipality.

So it's a certain number um beyond the city's own tax receipts.

So we don't want to um inadvertently create a situation where um we're benchmarking or indexing and and running a foul of the statute.

Um I've gone through a lot of other town charters also, towns comparable in size to Danbury.

Um they don't implement that system either.

Uh so this would be kind of a unique approach to bonding.

Uh and for those reasons we think it's appropriate to start at the five million dollar number.

Um just again, we don't want to risk a violation of the statute on bond limits um and or inadvertently create that down the road if we don't revisit this for 10 years.

Uh so I think I think five million as this commission thought is reasonable is is also reasonable.

Go around the room.

Any thoughts on that?

I think five is fair based upon what the statutes and requirements are.

Are we okay with that?

I would like just a little bit.

So last meeting we talked about the 500, it turned into a multiple of six times that number and whatever it is.

You can't do that now because it would be 18 million or something.

But was there a mechanism we talked about over and above what you just spoke about the state statute or well we I mean we generally discussed whether we could index, you know, have some kind of like a sliding scale almost on the bond number, but um I just think that creates a slippery slope when we have to comport with the statutes also.

So we don't know the statutes may change.

Uh somebody just pull that number out of a hat.

Yeah, was there that's what I was thinking about the 300,000 or no five hundred with the three million.

Good.

Oh, how did that happen?

Some tool that they use uh like uh we'd have to go back to uh so Joe and Commissioner F.

I'm gonna I'm gonna call on the same since he was here if you want to maybe give some context of what happened.

So this this was a hot discussion for us in 07 and 08, and and we arrived at the three million dollar uh amount by looking at the cost to replace a bridge and a picking up.

Like the Franklin Street extension bridge.

And the going rate for a bridge like that at that time was about two and a half million dollars.

And so we just picked a number because we thought it was ridiculous that you'd have to go through this complex and lengthy bonding uh period.

And that's that's how that was derived.

Sure, you know, the $500,000 at that time was unworkable first.

So thank you.

Sure.

I thought it was a roof, but now I remember the bridge.

It was a bridge, yeah.

I did receive a phone call from a concerned citizen with that topic, and I thought I was sure to bring it up and find out why it was the reason.

And I add some a lot of color to it.

Appreciate that.

Thank you, Peter.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Are we okay with the five round table?

Anybody have any objections to that?

Okay.

Very good.

Um that was that takes us to the end of chapter seven.

So we will add that to our living document that we'll go over next week.

Um, but next we'll start chapter six.

So these are the administrative departments.

So starting first, we'll do what we usually do.

We'll just go through each paragraph.

Um I do know at the public hearing, mayor's office gave their presentation on some changes.

They had a few um for this chapter.

Um a lot of it was cleanup language, some clerical things, so I'm gonna try and track those as best I can um since they couldn't be heard tonight, and chime in when we get there.

Okay, so starting first on chapter six dash one office of the treasurer.

Does anybody have any comments on that chapter?

There was one small clerical suggestion by the mayor's office, um, about halfway down where it says each such check shall be based upon a voucher or payroll duly audited and approved by the director of finance, and they recommend it adding or their designee to that sentence.

I think that makes sense in practical Dan, is that any objecting to that?

Um any other comments on that section?

That one looked pretty good to me.

At least yes, one six six one.

Yep.

The only thing the only question I have is no disbursement shall be made from any funds of the city except by check.

Shall be that unbalanced magic book.

But I'm asking in today's world of Venmo and everything else in the electronic uh is that adequate.

That's a that's a very good question.

Actually, I didn't how does that work in practice?

Um yeah, so it's what we're signing off on is actually a voucher, and then that either becomes a check or a um or an ACH transfer.

So um I guess if you had a definition of a check to include both of those, that would work.

Um financial instrument.

Or comparable instrument, yeah.

Now that worked or comparable.

Something else comes along that that's uh and it and the treasurer signs the vouchers.

Is that how that works generally?

Yeah, we we used to sign off on every single voucher.

Now we we sign off electronically on the on the voucher.

Okay, so I think that's thank you, Glenda.

That's a good catch.

Um six-two, administrative departments.

This is the section that just names all of the different city departments.

Um I'll just say the suggestions were to change the name of the department of civil preparedness to emergency management, which is what I believe we call it now anyway.

This is just to codify that in the um the actual charter.

They would like to change the department of elderly services to the department of aging services.

Um I think that's a pretty common name for the department now.

And then they would like there later on in the pitch, Taylor had mentioned she wanted to create a uh IT department, so a department of techno technology services.

So those were the suggestions from um the mayor's office, and I think they they make sense.

Um does anybody have any comments on the names of the departments or suggestions?

Um there are a few departments that are not listed at our departments, and I'm wondering why.

Like um, I'll be on biased to one of them.

One is uh the library veterans' affairs or the airport.

Wondering why those were excluded and all of them were not.

And like I said, I'm biased because I work for the airport too.

Um but library and veterans' affairs, those are very common, and they're not in the the charter.

I would my guess this is my guess is that it at the end of the sentence it says um such other administrative departments as may be from time to time created by the city council.

I wonder if they just created it after the charter was revised.

Maybe at least maybe for the other ones.

Okay, but um I mean, do we need the names of the charter?

I think the catch-all language is best because there might be other departments created after this charter.

Okay, and what happens if it's not listed in the charter, you know, what kind of issue does that.

We single out some.

Why not?

You know, all the rest of my so I was just curious as to why these were signaled out.

Yeah.

And IT is being renewally created.

So we are creating new.

I I actually think we're substituting.

I think if I remember how she had it phrased, was there's I think it's yeah, there's a manager of information technology position that we would be striking to then create the director of IT.

When we get there, but uh so six that six-three appointments of officers and employees of the city.

Um there was one recommendation when not otherwise provided, all heads and all officers are foregoing departments.

The the recommendation was to strike all officers of the foregoing departments, including departments created by the city council and all police and fire officers to replace it with when not otherwise provided, all department heads shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council.

Is there any I guess this is the question to council?

Does that flag anything on your end by changing it?

Kind of streamlining it.

Well, I I guess do the chair I go back to Jeff's Jeff.

I guess he left.

He made the point that firefighters are not officers.

So how is and we also, you know, the title it says appointment of officers and employees, so it'd be good.

Yeah, pick out employees in the title.

Um I mean I don't see any legal prohibition.

Is that the intent of the commission that uh I mean I you know uh all officers of the police department, you know, as we know, every council meeting we get um uh confirmation of appointments.

Um I mean, I yeah, you're right on that.

I think I mean I personally have no real appetite to eliminate the council confirmation of the police officers and firefighters.

I think I do think the intent in that sentence to to Jeff's point during public speaking was including all police and fire officers.

I think the intent there was all police officers and firefighters.

I think they I think they just probably didn't use the right term when it got put in there.

Um because I don't think it would make sense to appoint all fire all police officers and not to appoint the introductory firefighters and only have promotions to fire officer.

So I mean, if the commission wants, we could do all department heads and police officers and firefighters shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council.

And then what about the land all officers of the foregoing departments created by the city council?

That that that we want we should want to struck.

If we change it to department heads, what the catch-all in the first paragraph still I mean, the other option is, and I'm okay with this too, is we just leave it as is, which still covers everything.

I think the intent in this language was to make the document a little more streamlined.

I think leaving as leaving it as is doesn't change the power of the mayor to appoint a department head if the council created a new department.

Let's come back to it.

Sorry, if you if you change it, says it shot they shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council.

Is the intent that with res except for department heads and police and fire all police officers and firefighters, all other um officers do not get uh do not have to be confirmed by the council.

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand the I I think the intent was to this is me trying to read read and interpret what the presentation was at the public hearing, but I think this was just cleanup language to make department heads appointed by the mayor and which I would which is already the case, and then keep police and fire also appointed by the mayor and conducted by the city council.

I mean, I like after talking this through, I am almost inclined to leave it as it is, because I think it still does what the mayor has the power to do.

But we can always come back to it.

But I do think if anybody has any objection, we probably should clarify that language about police and fire officers and all police officers and firefighters shall be appointed by the mayor.

I say eliminate officers and put fighters and should be indicated.

Say that again.

Sorry, what was that?

I'm agreeing with what you're suggesting to eliminate officers and put, you know, I don't have a read council and all police and fire fighters shall be appointed by the mayor, confirmed by the city.

Can I ask a hypothetical?

So let uh the HR director is a department head.

Is there language in an ordinance that says that she shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council?

And if not, are we are we?

Let's see.

How does that change things?

If we if we eliminate that language, I think the charter already talks about the HR directors.

Well, and it also says when not otherwise provided.

Okay.

So the mayor shall appoint the mayor shall appoint and maybe remove a director of human resources.

So I mean, I'm just thinking from a time in the council in practice, the department planning the council to I think the council did.

I think you're right.

So the question is do we want to eliminate that?

I don't know if I'm crazy about that.

Does anybody have any thoughts one way or the other on that?

I I personally am of the opinion of keeping it as is.

I think it's a good practice, it's a good custom.

I think that there's also still that little bit of the check and balance on certain pointed.

So the chair, just to make sure that we are capturing this correctly.

So the only language you want to change is uh at the um respect to and all police and fire officers.

Yep.

And you might remember everything.

Police police officers and firefighters.

Right, right.

Whatever, whatever, whatever the language is, and maybe um the fire chief might have to chime in.

Yeah, this is all yeah.

I think that that's the only change that we've talked about right now.

But whatever the language for fire that would encompass all of them, yeah.

The sworn the sworn personnel.

Um other comments on that one for the commission.

Um yes, yep.

Uh, in light of the fact, and I know my thousand years old, but in light of the fact that the city has been too many, many, many, many years ago.

And we just kind of mentioned that when we said she and and that kind of thing, assuming that that position would be a she uh that we do need to have some language to us about equity and equality in the in the language, so that uh we had been accused, and that's why I'd say use this section because when I first moved to Dan Bay, there was a big uproar that women were uh had equal uh appointment to fire and department and and then people who were on the volunteers got an extra point in their head if they were uh in order to get appointed, and I know that was a major lawsuit in the city of Dan Bay.

And so my point being we need to have some language in here that does make sure because of our history, um they make sure that these appointments are made with a system equity for whether it's female equity or other particular classes of folks that are in here.

So thank you for that question.

Is HR here?

HR is here, um so I because so for our charter, there's obviously the states state law, federal law that has protections for what you are speaking about.

My question that I'm gonna do, I'm gonna direct it to HR on like the actual practices because what you're suggesting, Glenda, I believe is most likely already incorporated in either the civil service rules or the city's just HR practices.

So if you want to maybe talk a little bit about that process and like how that is maybe factored in.

It is incorporated in the civil service rules.

Um it's also um you know, we follow an EEO policy.

Um that covers all of that as well.

So and those, I'm just trying to clarify it.

So like those rules that are in place, that doesn't just apply to a certain group of candidates or positions, that's the city's policy on the whole.

So that would apply all the way to the any position.

Correct.

So does that answer that?

And that's why I preface it by saying because of the language and because of our path is issues.

I I still am saying that nowhere in this document is pretty silent if in weight to the duties that that exists, and so I'm I'm um thinking that maybe if that's gonna be referred or in line with the policy of the state, the federal, but you know, that's all pursued now.

Uh, but it should be some language that says it will be silence there, and when it is um important, and not just assume, because it doesn't state it.

I mean if you say you're gonna refer to it, I got you, but it doesn't state it, and sometimes when things are not are not stated here.

Sorry.

So actually, you know what, Glenda?

I was I was reading ahead, and if you go to the HR section, so if you go to 614 under Department of Human Resources, it's on page 31.

So if you go to the next page of that section, it talks about the duties of the department, and if you go to the bottom, it says, and the administration of equal employment and affirmative action programs.

So that's that's that's it.

So that that's your directive to the office that that office is going to administer those pro those programs.

It's my job.

So does that does that work for you, Glenda?

No.

And I was too fast.

Sure.

Are you okay with that, Glenda?

It says that they will do that.

My my fear is that's because the HR department does that.

Does that mean that the council or the city would affect somebody uh based on that?

That's what it is.

I understand the HR department is following state and federal guidelines.

My my fear is doesn't mention anywhere, but the council or the Madam Mayor has to follow has to do that.

Oh, if it if it's implied, I understand.

I I think it is implied only because the names that would get brought forward through that.

So let's assume it's through the civil service process.

The civil service process was administered through that following those protocols.

So that the list of eligibles or whatever the appointing authority would choose from, the names have been vetted and it's been administered following that protocol.

So I think it would be covered by the time it would get to the council, and then whoever they pick is properly brought forward.

Because your your list, your name, the person that was brought forward was done through that, the administration of the of equal employment and affirmative action.

Therefore, when it gets to the council, it's been it's been done, so to speak.

Would you another question?

Yeah, is every position that the council appointment goes through the uh the HR department?

Is that that happened?

Is every appointment uh framework through the HR?

My guess is the ones that get to the council where it's a civil service position, yes.

But the ones where I don't know, this is a question for you.

So, like the the at the pleasure of the mayor positions where they have the discretion to appoint basically whoever they want to that position.

Do they work in consultation with your office?

They do.

So like you help them with the applications, the vetting of the candidate, so to speak.

And so in that process, are you still applying the same procedures you would do for other candidates?

So I'm trying to think of an analogous position.

I corporation council, so like the attorneys are all appointed at will.

So when you do a job posting for assistant corporation council, do you have like the disclaimer on the application?

The city is an equal opportunity employer for those.

Okay.

So the answer to your questions, yes.

I just want to know who it's fine.

All right.

Good to go.

All right, uh speak of the devil.

We're now up to corporation council.

Um I didn't have any changes for this one.

Um it's been working fine.

I do know there was one change that I would like to see just because it's it's how it's done in practice, and it would just be nice to codify it in the charter.

But we we do have a deputy corporation council, and I think the charter at the end says, yeah, there shall be an assistant corporation council, which is to be the deputy.

So I think we should change that to there shall be a deputy corporation counsel who shall devote full-time to the office.

Just because that's the title of the current deputy.

That's Robin's title now.

So I think that would be good to clarify in the charter.

Yeah, yeah.

So um since we're making this deputy language change, the second to last sentence says assistant corporation counsel shall be attorneys at law admitted to practice.

So since we're changing, I mean actually we actually have assistant corporation counsel.

Sorry, we do.

So I think though, you want to want to explicitly acknowledge them.

Yeah, so I think what in addition to the deputy.

What my suggestion would be is that we clarify the language that the the sole number two managing attorney is the deputy, and then the mayor can appoint such other assistants like we normally do.

So if the mayor wants to hire another assistant corporation counsel, I hope he does because I'd love to see that office grow more.

Um they can I want the language to still give him the ability to do that, or she had the ability to do that.

So I think basically it would be so like so.

The next sentence, such assistant shall be appointed.

So that one should say such deputy, probably.

Such deputy shall be appointed and confirmed.

And then the less the rest would stay the same.

The mayor shall appoint such other change.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Shall prescribe from time to time.

Everybody okay with that?

Any other suggestions for corporation counsel?

I have a question.

Yes.

Um my question is um when you when I read through this, and I don't know exactly where we are.

But what rise is to interesting a person has to be um a resident of the city for certain positions, in certain positions, they don't have to be a resident of the city.

So I'm I don't I don't know what the difference is between with the pay grade or whatever, but what uh or safety, whatever, uh whatever the criteria is, it says that some positions have to be resident, and others don't rise to that requirement.

Are you I'm just saying with the qualifying I gotcha?

Now I I understand.

Are you are you pointing to any specific position?

No, when we talk about like corporation council and these are pretty uh upward uh positions on the supervising people and uh fire department, police, chief, buildings director, whatever.

I I want to know what where is the where's the language or the qualifications that say people A or P a person B has to be or don't have to be.

Well, I think the charter is probably the doc the governing document that would firmly tell you whether there is a residency requirement for the position.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of fire and police chief that have one in there right now.

Um I think superintendent of schools doesn't have to, but the board of ed hires the super, not the um mayor.

Um but I don't think any of the other departments require residency.

But I don't think anything would stop the council or either civil service rules from doing that when they post positions, but as far as the charter goes, the only two that I can think of that have the residency requirements are police and fire chief.

I didn't see I'm sorry, I didn't say the defiant department, but I'm sure it's kind it's it's not in the same spot as it is in police chief, so it's like a little in the bottom third of the paragraph, but it is it is in there.

But that's does that give any guidance to your it it just doesn't I I I understand this there, that's what I'm saying.

Is how do we why do you say the fire chief if you see us here?

I don't see it, but if the fire chief, the police chief, but not the the not head of the traffic.

I think the rationale for those two positions, because they're public safety positions, you might have like God forbid some terrible catastrophe at 2 30 in the morning, and you need your police or your fire chief on scene, it would be nice to have them 10 minutes away instead of an hour and 10 minutes away or two hours and no doubt, but I'm just saying.

Um technology expert yeah, um, it's a point well taken, right?

So there's this thing in the charter, there should be something where it maybe says some qualifying language that says that um that if we should hire somebody else.

Um what decides?

What decides if that person has to be a resident and somebody else doesn't have to be a resident?

I would say in absence of the charter, an ordinance or some other wellsy point.

Yeah, or whoever is hiring the employee at that point, provided of course it doesn't go against whatever the rules are, like if it's a civil service, it's a whole different ball game, right?

But we do offer um points for residents, right?

Like on the police test, you do get an extra, I think it's five points if you're a resident of Danbury when you take the test.

So there's ways where that's incentivized and incorporated, just not through the charter.

That makes sense.

Oh and as we get to each position, we can talk about that too, Glenda.

Okay, okay.

Uh so moving on, 6.5, Department of Civil Preparedness.

That was a name change.

Department of Emergency Management.

And if any when we get to the departments and if there are any folks from your department that are here, and you want to chime in, just raise your hand or we will.

So the most powerful important man in emergency management directors doesn't have to live in the city, but the fire and police person does.

According to the charter, yes.

Just a thought.

I mean, it's a we're a team here, right?

So it's funny the fire and police emergency management director is actually supersedes all of them once he's activated under state law.

And you know the ordinance that creates it.

Just thought you know, made a very good point.

You know, the fire in chief, you know, but this man is actually above them.

Or this person, I should say, sorry, is actually above them, but doesn't have a residency requirement.

Something I think we should just at least talk about.

Something I think we should just at least talk about fire and police.

Yeah, this is a good point.

I think it is what happened.

I guess this is a question for legal.

Let's say we put a residency requirement in a position, and we already have an employee there, and they don't live in Danbury.

What's the practical effect?

It's grandfathered then.

It's moving forward.

Making changes for moving forward.

I have the same question.

Yeah, um can you maybe take a look at that for that for next week?

We do have another one more meeting to look at changes because that would be my worry is if we put in residency requirements on positions where we already have very very good employees.

What happens after because legally the charter takes effect 30 days after the electors approve it, presumably in November.

So if we have something that says within six months you have to be a resident, what happens if you're not a resident?

I think it's uh except for those officers or employees who the effective date of this chart of this chart.

And it won't it won't apply to existing um employees.

Would it be okay if you made a comment?

Yes, is that gonna be yes, please?

So the only thing I would check is the state statutes because it's very specific as to who a municipality can uh mandate living in their town.

So um I didn't I don't know off the top of my head what that is.

I think I remember it just being police and fire.

Um that's but I think we would have to look at the statute to see who we can actually answer.

So that being yeah, thank you.

I appreciate that because I that was where my gut was going with this, and I just want to make sure before we make any decisions on residency.

If the appetite is there to consider it, right, we would have next week to do it, but I would just really like to confirm that if the commission even wanted to, can you it's an illegal practice?

Yes, I don't know.

Okay, are you everybody okay with that?

I just want to make sure that we're doing it right if we're gonna agree about that.

That was a qualified language then that I was seeking.

What in terms of that if it's in state statute and that then that determines it?

Yep.

Yep.

We don't have to, but those are the ones that we can.

So good to know.

All right, thank you.

For that, um, Department of Finance.

Um I don't think in this section.

I had anything that I wanted to propose just to flag um the manager of information technology was this was a suggestion from uh Taylor at the public hearing to redline that so to strike that section because she wants to create an IT department that that would be six-six proposed new six-fifteen.

Dan, anything in finance that you wanted for this section?

I know a lot of it was in the chapter seven, but as far as your actual department, is that okay?

Yes, please.

I'm just wondering on page 22.

I mean yeah, maybe well, they say the appointment may be disapproved by a vote of three.

So it wouldn't be an approval, it's a disapproval.

Correct, yeah.

So it's yeah, it's if the mayor makes their appointment, if once it's delivered to the council, if the council says no, we don't want to confirm that person, they would have to act on that at a meeting later than 14 days after notice.

So you read it right.

Um to public works.

There was one suggestion from the mayor's office, and that was at the bottom of the first paragraph here, changing superintendent of highways to superintendents of public services, and then construction services at the end there.

I think those are just name changes to match what they're called now, I believe.

And the same would go to section B, Superintendent of Highways would change to superintendent of public services.

Yes, sir.

Um I I just had a few uh grammatical issues, you know, misplaced commas.

I don't really think we need to go through that here, but is it the commission okay was less putting in grammatical like changes?

This is my like the same standing edict that we have for the gender neutral language.

If council, when they're going through the document, they find any grammatical errors that are non-substantive, like a missed proofreading.

Yes, proofreading.

Are we okay with them making those red lines?

We're gonna see, we're gonna see it anyway, right?

So we'll be able to look at it.

So yes.

Planning and zoning.

I have no changes this one.

Um see no comments, police department.

So the only thing that I flagged for conversation, if we want to talk about it, are the um since we already spoke.

Um I believe there's an appetite to talk about residency requirements.

Do we wanna does anybody feel strongly one way or the other on residency requirement for the chief of police?

I I personally like it.

That's my opinion.

They're currently it's that's what it's it's in there now, sure.

That he has to live in within six months of getting the job.

Uh I think it should be mandatory that he does.

I believe it should be too.

Um that are explicitly designed uh and dictated in the charter would be those two.

Mr.

Sofranic, any opinion one way or the other on that one?

Nope.

Uh fire department, same thing.

Only thing I wanted to flag was um residency requirement.

Does anybody feel one way or the other?

I think if we were doing it for one, we should probably do it for the other.

Uh I know she she stated earlier that is in a statute of who you can that I'm just like to point of information.

Uh no please only this.

I know we don't do it.

No, we're looking at this.

So for it for next week, if we can if our council can work with HR to maybe get us what the statute says that we can put that requirement on it who we can't.

It it might explicitly say the only two that we can is police and fire, which would make our job really easy.

But those would be the only two that we can even discuss.

So fire department, health and human services.

Um I didn't have any changes when I read it.

Um in the version that I receive through the mayor's office, there is a request under section 610.

Uh it says recommend reviewing, and then there's language saying among the officers of the fire department, there shall be a fire marshal.

Shall be answerable to the fire chief.

Um looks like they submit to request to examine this.

So I I already think that's already in.

That's on the uh residency, the proceedings.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's for the proceedings.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Gotcha.

Okay.

Because I'm looking at the the current charter, it's in there.

So yeah, I think, yeah, that was, I think that was just a flag for the prior, not for the supplement.

Yeah.

Uh parks and rec 6-12.

There's just some gender neutral language in there.

I think the only thing I saw.

Yes.

All right, go ahead.

Yeah, please.

There's no way to hear about fire marshals.

Yeah, I do have news.

It's at the so at in section A, the fire department, which says the fire chief powers and duties.

If you look at the last sentence, it says among the officers of the fire department, there shall be a fire marshal who shall be answerable to the fire chief.

But whose office shall be a separate one and who shall be appointed and removed in accordance with and shall have the duties imposed by the general statutes as amended.

My only um question is in another world that I live in.

So they they can operate they have to go to the file chief, but also the frown marshals and that.

But this one asking.

Do they have that qualify as well?

I I think they do because if just reading the sentence here, it says they're answerable to the fire chief, but their office is separate and shall have the duties imposed by the general statutes.

So if the state law says their duties are X, Y, and Z to do what is it, whatever it is that you know you're describing here.

I think the language covers that.

Like they're answering, like they need a boss, right?

Day to day.

So they answer to the fire chief, right?

But their duties are what state statute says their duties are, is how I'm reading that sentence.

Okay.

Uh we like to call it the Department of Aging Services.

And then we probably have to just change the name in that sentence to reflect the name change of the department.

And then there was one recommendation from the mayor's office.

It looks like it's just a uh softer a term.

The department of aging services shall act as an advocate for the elderly.

They would would like it to say for older adults.

Which I think is just softer language.

So I'm okay with that if anybody has any objection.

And that was the only one in that paragraph.

And the HR department.

There was one clerical suggestion for HR and 614, where the Department of Human Resources shall be responsible for the administration of the city's entire employee and labor relations would be the suggestion there, which makes sense.

That's what HR also does.

Um, this might require um a little bit of a legal research question, but there was a suggestion from the mayor's office for where it says in the administration of equal employment and affirmative action programs to swap affirmative action for opportunity, so it would be equal employment and opportunity programs.

I don't know if that is because of the Supreme Court ruling that they struck down that's my suspicion, yeah.

So um we can double check.

Yeah, can you double check that and see if that's gonna be an issue having that language in the charter as it is right now?

HR is here.

Do you have any questions on that section if you're a department or anything?

Um informed us that because of our equal employment opportunity program that we didn't necessarily have to have the affirmative action.

So Ford Harrison.

No.

But as far as like this paragraph and the charter all together, was there anything that you flagged that you wanted to maybe have the commission look at or um not necessarily the the only thing I mean benefits programs can incorporate many things, not just health insurance, um but health insurance, those programs come out of finance, nothing.

Um like I said, benefits can also be EAP, which comes out of HR.

So it's the only thing I flagged, but like I said, benefits can also be EAP, which comes out of HR so any other comments on HR.

Um team official bonds.

Is it Glenda?

Yeah, yeah.

It says the chief to achieve, I guess that's a civil service examiner.

Yeah.

It doesn't talk about that price.

It talks about the chief examiner in the civil service calls.

I didn't know if there was definitely gamma.

615 official bonds.

Yeah, sorry.

Department of Technology Services.

Yeah, are we gonna that is that gonna be 616?

Are we gonna have to be 16?

Oh, I see.

You know, oh, you're right.

Yep.

So in the suggested language, that would be 615, and then we would change uh just for readability.

Yeah.

So there um was a suggestion to move the management manager of technology position and create that into a new department of IT, which most municipalities have an IT department.

Um, I think it's a good idea, um, especially in the municipality our size to have that.

Um they did Taylor wrote up some language for the IT department.

Um we can get that circulated, but just generally speaking, is the commission okay with moving that position to creating a department of IT?

I believe right now they're located under finance and they do a lot more than just finance.

I think it should be have its own department.

And then we'll come back with red lines for the next meeting of the actual meet of that paragraph.

Is there just one person that's would be the director of IT?

I imagine there's IT tax.

Okay.

I was gonna say one person could be a board here.

I would hope I hope there's more than one IT person.

Yeah.

When you say we'll come back with the exact language with the the suggestion, the language that uh the mayor's office submitted, which is yeah, the 615.

Yeah, I just don't think we have it circulated.

Oh, I see.

Yeah, got it.

And then section 1615 official bonds will be section and 616.

Right.

And this would be now a good time.

I put them in your packets uh proposed language for the board of education.

So my and where it falls in the charter, we can talk about, but I just figured this would be the time to talk about it.

But um I had brought up it might be good to have some fiscal control language regarding the board of ed, just considering things that have happened in the past with the finances for the board of ed.

So I took a stab at some language, random by our council, and it looks like it is in line with the statutory requirements of boards of ed who operate pretty independently of municipalities.

So I'll just run through what I propose.

Um at the top is just stating what the law is that the board of ed shall be under the control or the public school district shall be under the control of a board of ed.

There's 11 members that are elected, they have to choose a superintendent of schools per state statute.

I put in language here that just reiterates that the board of ed shall possess all the powers that they get via state statute, just to be clear that we're not imposing on anything that they are expressly authorized to do.

Um and then I have language in here, and I will just read it out loud for the group.

Um the financial affairs of the damage public school district shall be administered in accordance with such uniform municipal accounting, auditing, purchasing, reporting, and fiscal control procedures as may be established by ordinance charter or lawful directive of the city applicable to municipal departments and ages generally, provided that no procedure shall be construed to impair the statutory authority of the board of education over the educational policies, programs, and internal management of the school district.

So what I'm saying there is that if the city, Department of Finance, City Council wants to create some procedure when it comes to doing the actual finances.

Can they put that in effect and will can that be binding on the board of edit?

We're not telling the board of ed how to spend their money.

We're not telling the board of ed this is what you have to buy.

If you want to spend $100 on a stapler, you can do that.

We're not telling them that that's what they have to do.

This is just allowing the city to have some oversight on the money that we're giving them and how they're spending it and the mechanisms that they're using.

So that was my intent with that paragraph.

Yeah.

The city allows to them.

So that so it would be over, so like the city obviously appropriates that money to the board of ed and they spend it however they want to spend it to operate the schools.

This would just allow the city to administer certain procedures and protocols with how that money, the way that that money is spent, not what it's spent on, but how that they do it.

So like if the finance department has to do it a certain way, the board of ed also has to do it a certain way.

But it's not saying we have to, it's a it's May language.

So the city may create administrative protocols and put it on to the board of ed to follow is my intent there.

Yeah, yeah.

Please on the board of ed.

And so my question is what happens if it does not.

Like if the if the board if the city does not?

He says you said you just said the language you use, you said it may do it.

The question is, what happens if it does not?

Then whatever protocols they have or what they're doing.

This is it's May language for the city by ordinance, charter, other regulation.

So it's not May language for the schools, it's May language for the city to implement certain administrative protocols and um accounting procedures, things like that.

And the next sentence is the Board of Education shall provide the mayor and the department of finance full access to the financial books, accounts, records, contracts, financial management systems, and expenditure data of the school district for purposes of fiscal oversight, auditing, budgeting, financial reporting, and ensuring compliance with applicable law and municipal finance procedures.

So my intent with this language is not to have the Department of Finance or the mayor's office to go in and direct how those systems are used.

It's just if the city needs to go in there to run an audit or to look at the books to help make sure that the city's not violating any laws, it gives them the access to do it.

So that's why I have the four purposes of oversight auditing budgeting.

So when the mayor is creating his budget, if he needs to see what the numbers look like to get a forward look or a back look, they have the authority to do that.

Um, do they at this time don't we or do we audit uh the school systems money that they get from the city?

I will if you want to vote.

The city's annual audit includes the the board of ed.

So same auditors go in and audit the board of ed in conjunction with our audit.

So my question is how is this different?

Or does it have more gravity in what we currently practice?

So is it this a new kind thing?

So this is this would be fairly new.

My understanding is that the board of ed operates on their own systems, they have their own mechanism by mechanisms by which they do their finances, and what this would do is this would allow the city access to look at those numbers since it's the taxpayer dollars, and right now I don't think that's the case.

I do believe that they're more cooperative now than they were in the past, but historically speaking, the city would not have access to the systems without permission being granted by the administration, school administration.

So this just requires cooperation between both departments, really, is what I'm getting at.

And back to my original question.

What if they don't if they don't cooperate, then they're in violation of the charter, essentially would be would be the practical result, right?

Yeah.

Um, and then the next sentence or the next paragraph here, I researched some other towns, and a few of them actually do have this, but um, I put in that the board of education shall submit to the mayor and the city council not later than August 15th each year, a complete annual financial report setting forth all receipts, revenues, expenditures, encumbrances, liabilities, grants, and such other financial information as the mayor or the department of finance may require from time to time for purposes of fiscal oversight and municipal financial administration.

My rationale for the August 15th date, um, I I work for a school district, and if you were to say do the fiscal year, that would be right when school ends.

And at the end of the school year, the district is not worrying about finances, they're worrying about getting the schools, the kids out the door and into the summer.

So August 15th is somewhere right in the sweet spot over the summer break where I think it would be fair to the district to have the time to put together a report like this.

So that was my rationale for the date.

Yeah, Glenda.

For this year, um the school system is opening on the 20th of August.

And to do that, and the school district is opening up five days later, is it may be a hindrance.

And that has to be I I would think that would be um burdensome.

So the good news for your concern, because I agree.

Um this wouldn't they wouldn't have to do it.

Let's assume that this is in here.

Let's assume the charter passes and it's in effect come December.

They would it wouldn't be until August of 2028, right?

I think it's my calendar right.

No.

27.

August of 2027 would be the first report.

So it wouldn't be this year, it would be a year and a half from now.

It'd be the first report.

So they would have time to get ahead of it.

And it says not later then.

So if they want to do it earlier than August 15th, they can do it in July.

Just the deadline would be August 15th each year.

We'll talk about it on later.

All right.

Sounds good.

Um, and then the last sentence is just the catch-all to further just say like nothing in this paragraph is meant to direct the district on how they do their operational education operations um or other lawful exercises of their powers that are vested solely in them by state statute.

So these are just some controls to put in place that I think are good to have.

Um, and it still keeps the board of education autonomous and doing everything that they're authorized to do via state statute.

So I propose this to the commission, yeah, council.

Uh Matthew, the chair.

Um, one thing that I just want to quickly discuss.

So there's a general statute, section 9203, which discusses boards of ed.

It says Board of Education, each town shall consist of three, six, nine, or twelve members of such town, except as provided under section nine two oh five.

Um, I know we have 11 members on this board.

Um so I just want to we just want to double check and make sure 9125 doesn't allow us to go.

So we think this is we've always had 11.

Yeah.

So why don't you let us take a look at that?

Yeah because I don't five says any time may by ordinance make number of its board of education five, seven, or eight.

We'll look at this, we'll look at this.

I just want to make sure we don't put the wrong number.

Yeah, this is Arms.

It's almost been 11, I know.

Sure.

This is Armstrong.

How long is uh the board been 11 members?

But not out, as you well know from the statute, not all of them.

Okay.

Does that issue ever come up for your uh not to mind?

When I was on the state board of ed, they uh different boards uh had a reason for someone with you know well know like different different jurisdictions uh of a city like warts and stuff like that.

Uh but not DMB.

All right, is that all has me thinking because Waterbury has 10.

10 board of ed members.

Well they're in violation to maybe, maybe, maybe there could be is maybe there's a special act that said does this board of that have alternates?

I mean, like our one or two.

Now it's 11, it's 11 members, but there might be a carve out.

There could have been a special act that was passed like 80 years ago that said this town Danbury can have 11.

And you can make an argument that because this is a charter, it's our it goes to home rule and what we can do even in the face of statutes that may be inconsistent.

Yep.

So um we'll we'll take a look at that.

But thank you.

We're not gonna um upset the apple card on necessarily.

Appreciate that.

Appreciate that.

Um so if you guys want to take a look at this or you know read it over for next week.

Um, I did want to propose this to everybody.

Um I think it would be good language to have in the charter.

It's new, it's not unheard of in other municipalities, but I think um, especially considering I don't the board of ed doesn't have its own section in the charter.

It would be nice to have some language in there for the so we uh gets us through chapter six, but we have two outstanding issues um to discuss tonight.

Yeah, so uh I have um a reflection on this micro as it is if it relates to uh staffing and that kind of thing if we do more of this over site and structure structurally what's gonna happen if we if we impose something not basically something similar to there and gonna have an impact in the department and what we have and both sides of the school on the board of interest and the city side.

Yeah, so my design for this is just to give the our the city side the ability to if Dan needed to do something in his department relevant to his department and he needed to look at some program in the board of ed system, it would allow him the opportunity to do that.

It's not shifting responsibilities, I would say it's more so allowing access and allowing the ability for the city to impose um procedures or protocols related to the financial oversight.

So it's it's not shifting responsibilities, so I don't think there would be sort of like a uh a workforce power issue.

Um but I see your point.

Yeah, and I would just if the if I I was thinking that it's going to what would what would what would trigger this?

What would trigger this?

What would cause this to happen?

Just in general practice, or would there be triggers along the line that would cause the person the city to do this was a regular practice?

Like what was like why I wanted to propose it.

You said that second that third line said may.

So my question is if it's may, what what may have may be it?

What may not be it?

Uh if it's maybe what would be the trigger?

It may it I mean, well, I can just from practice a recent history, could be the surpluses that went kind of until that would be the trigger, right?

Historically, could be something else.

Yeah, it would be ABU could be right.

But but that's like not that's not a trigger that they would create something.

I'm saying that's historically an issue that wrote that came up that would trigger something like this to be in place, right?

Like had there been a protocol or something in place that they might have could have learned about the surpluses earlier, right?

Where on the city side they could have avoided it's for planning purposes, it's just because we're dealing with a lot of money.

The board gets a lot of money, so I think having controls in place or the ability to have controls in place is good, it's good business.

I'm not defending.

Yeah, no, no, no, I and I see your point because that's why I made it May, right?

Because they don't have to do it, but it gives the opportunity to should something happen.

Do other towns do it?

I a couple towns have this language.

So yeah, so that's why I said a couple.

So I said a couple.

Well, I think everybody should be accountable.

That's any given money.

I mean, if you really want to get in the weeds, Waterbury, the Department of Finance oversees the Board of Ed Finance Department, which I don't that's a little a little too far, I think.

But um, the money that our school system uses is state is city flat.

Yeah, yeah.

A period A piece.

I hear you.

But um the two things we have left, so that gets us through chapter six.

Um that we've kind of been waiting to get to the section to talk about.

Yeah, yeah.

There's one in 65, it's not 56 bonds.

Oh, yes.

So that's all you don't have.

Do you have any suggested language for that one?

Yeah, there's so there's there's one position in there that just doesn't exist, and I don't know if it goes back to the time of consolidation, but talks about um the bonds that that will take out one of them is the agent of the town of deposit fund.

Okay.

Position doesn't exist.

We've never said we never went back to 1981 to research this, and we've never taken one out with this.

Okay.

Any and that position.

Fair enough.

Any objection to taking that position out since it doesn't exist anymore?

No.

Do you anticipate ever adding that position back?

Uh I guess if the charter doesn't say it, you could always have.

Maybe if we open up the town again.

Okay.

Um, and then we'll have to renumber that section.

But that's all I had for official bonds.

Um, so the last two outstanding um items to talk about, and then that'll get us through the entire charter.

Um, town clerk and legislative assistant.

So town clerk, we had talked about this issue a little bit in the past.

We've had time to look at, you know, do our own research on the subject, where the commission is leaning.

I I think there is value in it being an appointed position or move moving that way, but that's just me as one commissioner.

So I want to hear the rest of the rest of the group on that.

So it should be appointed as well.

Feeling strongly one way or the other.

And um how does that operate?

I think we should probably look at it sort of like a department head position then.

If we're gonna be going based off of qualifications, there's gonna be hiring involved, interviews, um, HR department will be involved.

So I think maybe having it mirror something like the planning, how we would hire like somebody like the planning director, right?

Where is it?

Does it have to go on like as a question?

You know, when the elections come in November, is that a question that's going to be on there, or that's something that's that I think technically the council commission can propose and discussion.

So we would we would propose the ballot question, I think, but ultimately the council, I believe, has will approve the okay.

So they make the deciding.

But usually it's done as one ballot question.

Okay, where it's like, do you approve the changes to the charter as reflected and whatever?

Um, but I think we probably should have it look like something like the plan how the planning director is appointed, how other how the HR director is appointed where there's qualifications that are required to be that position.

Um just to make it do what say what we want it to say, right?

Like we obviously want the qualified the public people came out to say is like we want somebody that's qualified in the position, right?

We want to make sure that that position is incentive for people to stay in that position.

Um so I think mirroring the language to how it's written for other department heads, I think would be appropriate, making it sort of an appointed that will position that other department heads are, I think would be so the requirements would have if there's a degree involved and all that would be specified in the job description if somebody were to apply for this job.

Yeah, so I mean like I'm just thinking being appointed.

I'm just thinking like if you look at planning states the bachelor or vital arts degree, I think it says it as an example.

I'm trying to find like a compartment that has good.

I think the planning department is a very important thing.

What's that?

Do you are you looking at the planning?

I can't find it, but I think in the planning department referenced something about a qualification.

Yeah, so it would be something not necessarily saying they have to a master's degree, but I think like the position should say that there is experience in that position, or they like I think the way that the description is written, right?

I'm not saying we're writing it tonight.

I think the decision tonight should be whether we want to go appointed or not appointed, and then um next week we can as we do the final draft, we can look at the language for what we want it to say.

Um so step one, I guess like is there a consensus to make it an appointed position rather than elected.

We can do straw poll or is that a hand for a question or yes, go ahead.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um I remember when you made a presentation to say something about these folks become certified.

Yep, uh, which is another kind of quantification as opposed to what we talked about as a degree or something.

I think it would do certification that can is a is a key here.

The other question is because it has no a lot of language here, and we talked about the scope of this position, this particular department, and now how it has grown over the years, and what you have to be mayor's licensed certified and people can create there and babies.

Or you see our lunar next.

It's the luminous.

So I'm thinking that uh we need to take a date, not a deep dad, but at least some kind of dad.

If you're gonna have three people to superman, but you need to also know what the scope of the supervision is.

So just to place somebody to say this, but without put putting enough um sailors in the boat to row it.

Lori's here.

So you are just waiting to see if you have the question.

Yeah, does anyway Lori's here?

So this is the opportunity to ask questions about the office day to day, what it looks like, what the type of experiences are, and like us in three seconds in bad measures of what goes on in the office, or Lori, talk about talk about the role.

Do that in three minutes.

Uh you know, I have to say it was uh very enlightening to have this position, and there is an immense amount of tasks.

I said this before.

Uh I mean Jennifer is one of my assistants here.

Uh she's certified, and I have another assistant who's certified at this time, and the land records, the vital records, the license things.

Each thing has programs and uh the statutes and the state changes things, then oh, I didn't forgot the elections and the notary and the it's just it's just oh yeah, not vital records.

Um, yeah, that's the vitals.

You got the death, you got the marriage, you got the death block.

Each one of those has a certain amount of, I shouldn't say a certain amount of a lot of different aspects to it.

So um my view is at this point that if it wasn't a four-year elected position, and it was an appointed position.

If somebody is going to be uh hired, let's say, I don't know if a master's degree is gonna cut it.

I do think that if I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think that you should be looking at the pool that you have in the building, the people in the room, or somebody from the town clerk association, you should be guiding your your scope as somebody who already knows how to work in an office like this.

You might have to have administrative experience or college degree doesn't really help or hurt.

It's the certification that you're speaking of that the state gives, but it takes two and a half years to get uh and with that also experience because you can take that test and not pass it after the two and a half years because you need the experience.

And you might need more than two years for the experience because the this the amount of things you have to learn.

There's people who are in this position who might do uh you know certain things like the land records where other people are more vitals, and then they start to learn all the other things, but it takes a long time to grasp all of these different things.

I I really can't stress enough how many different tasks there are to learn.

Um it's an amazing department, it's it's a lot of things, it's a lot of people, there's a lot of things going on.

Um, I don't know how you're gonna make that decision.

Um but I definitely think if there's going to be an appointment, you should look at the people uh and think about what they already know.

Because if you pull somebody from the street, no matter what they think they know, I don't know what kind of test if they would have to take a test through you guys or not, through uh HR or not, but the the test wouldn't, I don't know what the civil service tests do or anything, but they would definitely probably not have anything to do with the position.

I'd say then there's the political aspects as well.

I said the election uh stuff, the absentee ballots and else.

There's too many things.

So there's a lot to consider when you're making this decision.

So I think maybe some some language that we can think about without having to get into the specifics of like certifications and that like specific certifications, right?

Like the town clerk's license that I think Jen mentioned.

We could do something to the effect of that they shall possess like certifications, licenses, qualifications, or other job-related experiences, right, as determined by a matter of time.

Because you're not going to walk in with that.

Right.

And you can't get it right away.

So but I think that we should probably have language that says that there are like there needs to be certifications, but I don't think we should get specific as to what exactly they should be.

So there'll be certifications that are created sort of in conjunct in conjunction with like HR, civil service, um, mayor's office, since they're technically the appointing authority.

Um that way they're creating what they want that position to have the certifications for, would be my suggestion.

Like we shouldn't lay them out specifically in the charter, but say that there should be qualifications as determined by HR.

Yeah, Jenk.

If I can just make a comment, if if you're appointing it, if this position is appointed, like the other department heads, civil service would not be involved.

So there wouldn't be no testing.

Right.

So I guess so.

I guess my where I was going with that would be like just in consultation with your office and helping generate like the job description or the posting or the application.

Because even for those the non-civil service positions, right?

Those are post, like do you do the posting, like does your office facilitate the posting and the interviews and things like that?

Um how does that work generally?

It it really depends for the most part.

I would say the majority of the positions we do post.

Yeah.

Um and collect applications and do um and do interviews.

Um matter who we hire follows the HR process.

It doesn't matter how they're hired, they still follow that process.

Um there are a few positions like the mayor's office, where um, you know, obviously it's not posted.

Um they still follow our process.

It's still applications and reference checks.

That's so that would be my suggestion is that if we're making it appointed, we should put language in there that there has to be qualifications, but those qualifications are determined by their like a conjunction, and maybe we can workshop the language over the next week and get something back to the commission next week as to how we want that to look like, but I think for sure the appointing authority should be the mayor and the council confirms just like other department heads, and you know, even to Peter's point, there's continuity, right?

So like that person continues to serve into the next administration if there is one.

Um I think that's how I think it's how we should structure it.

Anyone have any objection to no at least taking that path?

I have no problem with it being appointed.

All right, so that takes care of that.

Um moving lastly to legislative assistance.

So we've kind of pushed this one to the end since we had um HR in green.

And I think there was still there were questions as to um how the legislative assistant would be appointed, what how they're classified, um, that sort of thing.

So I'm sort of of the opinion of leaving for the most part the position as it is.

Um the same classification.

Um the only thing that I would think of is maybe, and you know, we can workshop some language, but we have the appoint the appointment procedure laid out that the mayor appoints council approves by two-thirds.

Um, but maybe we should clarify the removal language.

And um, if the council's involved in the appointment, maybe the council should be involved in any potential removal.

But that's my that's my um my thoughts on that.

If anybody has any opinions on that matter, but for the most part, I think um it's working the way it is.

Lisa, I don't know if you want to opine at all, but you're the one in the position.

Um two of my main concerns were uh making sure that if someone who's in the position is qualified and doing the job well, that a new administration doesn't come in and remove that individual simply for political affiliations or to put someone in that is of their political affiliation.

Um so that's my one of my biggest concerns.

The second was kind of in conjunction with that, the dismissal.

So if they're appointed, I think the council absolutely should have a say who's going to serve them.

And then with their dismissal, I think the council should also have a say in whether they feel that person's being dismissed for the right reasons.

But isn't that contradicting the mayor appointing that person?

Um I don't necessarily think so.

I think like other department heads, the mayor appoints who he thinks is going to hopefully he appoints the person that he thinks is going to do the best job.

Right.

Um as long as I don't know if there's language you could put in there to to make sure that that happens, but anybody that's not um an elected official, let's say.

So they usually all stay in in the position.

I mean, I'm I'm being honest here, you know, as you know, um politics is not my thing, but uh, I'm very in you know, very concerned about the city and all that.

So I'm just trying to get my wrap my head around and comprehend everything that's being proposed.

Someone who is appointed and does not based on merit, I think, can be dismissed for without cause, right?

When a new administration comes.

Correct.

I'm not an attorney, I don't know how you would word that.

I think it would I think I think it could be language something, how it's phrased in like the corporation council, like provided such removal may be disapproved by a two-thirds vote of the council.

So it mirrors the appointment.

So you're doing the same thing on each side.

So at least there's not two-thirds of an appointment at each different administration, or two-thirds of an appointment, and now I have the chat.

Um I'm I'm sorry.

So it would be so when you're appointed, right?

Let's say there's a vacancy in the office of legislative assistant and the mayor's appointing that person, they would appoint that person, the council has to confirm by two-thirds vote.

So that way the council, it's a high threshold, so the council has their fingerprints on that person.

And when the person is removed, if the person is removed, the council can elect to disapprove that removal by another two-thirds vote.

The council at least has a say.

Okay, so if a new administration party comes in, you can also be removed regardless of the qualification.

So I would say the difference is because the legislative assistant is technically the council for the clerk.

Right.

Whereas the town clerk, I would say if we're making them a department of the city, they would be reporting to the mayor who would be the chief executive.

So there would be no real connection to the council.

Right.

But I mean, for the hired, if you're appointed, are you just appointed or are you hired?

Like which is it?

Like if we're appointed, I think most of the department heads, if not all of them, are at the pleasure of the of the mayor.

Okay, if if they're not civil service.

Some are prop, I think some are civil service.

Finance director is the only civil service department.

I'm sorry.

What did you say?

I thought you said that's the right.

Yeah, the only thing is department is correct.

I mean, everybody else is at wheel.

Okay.

Um you're saying that burger phone is the only department in entire city that's civil service, everybody else is at will.

I believe so.

Is the airport director in it?

No, we're using civil service.

Absolutely.

Tax and assessor and all the role that will.

Um that's why I wasn't sure.

So I'm thinking like um, it's just we can't really hear in the health.

Health department.

Are you guys sidebaring or are you?

I just I don't I want to make sure the mic's picking up.

That's all that's okay.

Um health department planning, um public works, they're all non-civil service.

Uh HR or council.

Um so like tax collector, tax assessor, they report into the director of finance.

Right.

So I mean the department heads, but really the director of finance is the department.

Understood.

Okay.

So it's like the for analogy, it's like you have the department of finance, but you have the office of the tax collector, basically.

Yeah.

And your department head is still the department of finance.

I mean, they are a department head, but they're reporting into a department head, if that makes sense.

Yeah, that's kind of why I like did the analogy of an office, because you have it's it's an office within an office.

Kind of more confusion to add to the confusion.

Okay, so back on point for umledge assistant.

Are we okay with those?

At least at least to get us to the draft for next week to at least look at some language so then for town clerk too.

Okay.

And then next week um might be a long one because we're gonna go through the whole document.

So just bring your bring your country.

Bring your copy.

Uh when we when we get to the meeting at the end, um, I'm gonna talk about the scheduling for it because we might have um some scheduling um issues, so we might have to change the time anyway.

So um we'll get to that at the end.

But I just want to make sure we're still going on the agenda.

So that gets us through the red lines for the whole charter.

Okay, so we did it.

We made it through the entire document.

Um next piece of business.

I have nothing for chairman's report.

Um other than a thank you to my colleagues on the commission, our attorneys for doing a crazy amount of work over the past two months and getting us thread lines every five days, Alisa for um helping us facilitate all of this, and the department heads for being very helpful in walking us through a very complex document and the members of the public who have showed up week after week um and have been involved in the process as well.

So a huge thank you to everybody involved.

Um piece of business we have to take care of tonight, too, is before we finish.

We have to have a second public hearing.

That is the commission has to have another public hearing.

I'm going through dates to stay on track to get this in front of the voters in November.

There's really only one date that will work, and that is the 25th of June.

So that's the end of the month.

It's a Thursday, uh Thursday, it is a Thursday.

So Thursday the 25th at a time.

Um I think we did seven o'clock the last time.

So I think seven we'll keep it at seven so we don't confuse more voters.

Um but that is the date we have to be done and finished with the public hearing.

And after that public hearing, we're gonna have a um meeting right after on the dais while we're up there to approve the draft.

So we're gonna hear from so procedurally, this is how it's gonna go.

We have to have a public hearing, and then we'll hear from the public, and then we'll have a meeting immediately after to either make a last-minute change that me we may want based on what we hear from the public or anybody else on the commission that wants to change something, and then we approve the draft.

And then once we approve the draft, we physically have to hand it to the town clerk, get it stamped, so it would be next Monday, and then they'll give it to the council, and then the council will begin their duties, and then we will probably have one meeting or two in July, depending as a commission, but um, we won't know those dates until the council gets the document and does their work.

So we'll stay in touch when we get to July.

But um, that's the date for the public hearing.

So yeah, go ahead, I think clearly on the night of the 25th, we have the public hearing.

Yes.

And no matter, and then after the public hearing, uh, we're gonna have a discussion and approve the draft.

Yep.

So the draft we're gonna so next week is when we're gonna finalize the draft.

So we're gonna go through the document.

Council's gonna get us work product, we're gonna have a draft next week.

So the meeting next week is to go through the draft, make sure everything that's in it is what we want it to say, and that's going to be our commission draft.

The reason why we have to have a meeting after the public hearing is because we can't approve the draft before the public comments.

So we have to hear from the public.

We're gonna attach the draft to the notice, and then if there's any changes we want to make, we have an opportunity to do that after the public hearing.

But that's when we would approve the draft.

I think if you're gonna approve the draft the same night.

I know one of the things we talked about.

Um I don't know, maybe two meetings ago because when the uh secretary for the commission was here, was to look at what people had said from the from the hearing.

Yeah, and then you see whether we dealt with it or not, it's it is but to make sure that we had um looked at it and not to ignore the the city.

It's it is but to make sure that we had um looked at it and not to ignore the the city.

I mean the resident of what they had said.

I I'm not sure if we I thought it was gonna be more of a formal process to do that.

So that's my vision for next week, because I think it would be hard for us to do that before we have a full finished draft.

So I think next week when we're going through it line by line, we'll have next to us maybe the minutes from the public hearing.

Um the first one that we had just to make sure that you know comments that were made.

Did we at least talk about it?

Is it in the draft?

And then I will also bring next week my draft just historically the chairman submits a cover letter with the draft, so I'll bring that next week too.

And that you the usually the one that was done in 2007, 2008, the letter talked about what the commission discussed, what they opted not to not to talk about, not to take up.

So it does that letter did a lot of what you were mentioning, Glenda.

So but that's just my vision is to do that next week when we have a draft.

It can go.

And I think at that meeting, the the public hearing, the big issue.

Because I looked back at my notes is you know, ethics review, ethics brought that was like the big that really was what the city people that came that night brought forth.

And we did talk about it.

I mean, yeah, we did.

No, we absolutely did.

So but I'm telling you, I went, you know, I went back, that was the main thing that so we did I mean, we did we did a lot.

Like we I'm very proud of everybody here.

So that's the vision for the next week.

We uh as I stated earlier, we see the phone call from a concerned citizen.

And I think we might ended the discussion at the last meeting, complimented you with how you're running the meeting, and I had mentioned that the people feel maybe it's being rushed or take our time, and you said we could do things to be efficient was the way you you responded.

And I think the phone call also considered we're glossing over items, but I think it's important to have the public feel that we're not going fast and we are being detailed and have comfort and care that they understand that what we're doing is not just sloppy.

You know, so one of the items as an example was the four-year term, and I think when all the department heads, especially Lori recommended the voluminous amount of work it is for her department and a couple other lawyers spoke in chairman had that spoke about it takes a lot of effort going every two years and having four-year term for valuable.

I think it's important that we don't just say that night when you were went around the table that it was a vote or consensus that was just a common theme.

It was from the support that we got to hear from why the department heads have all that experience and needed that we didn't just we had a lot of detail that gave us the answers.

Thank you.

Um do we have um, I think we've just to keep it formal.

Um is there a motion to approve June 25th at 7 o'clock at City Hall as the commission second public hearing date?

Somebody just so moved.

I I would vote, but on this um, I want to make sure I don't have to bring my NAPSA and I can't control how many people are gonna show up, but what if like after that you said we have to come in and make the changes, right?

Is that what it is?

So we're gonna do we'll do it from the diaspora.

So we'll just do there.

The idea hopefully is to just approve the draft.

Do one last go around.

Is everybody okay with how the document is presented and then approve to transmit it to the clerk?

So the draft is gonna be circulated to the city how it'll be attached to the the um probably to the notice of the public hearing and the backup to the notice.

Okay, and we'll finish the draft next week.

And then we'll notice the public hearing after that.

So is there a motion for June 25th, 7 o'clock at City Hall?

So moved, seconded, second, seconded.

Any discussion on public hearing date?

None.

I'll try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Any abstentions?

We have a public hearing date number two.

Um anybody else have any comments for the good of the order.

Did you want to I think someone brought up the the idea of potentially moving the next week's meeting up a little to a little earlier if that's doable?

Yes.

So I I think for next week we have a conflict, and we can, as we get closer, we can change, we can modify it, just making sure we're in line with FOIA and the notice requirements.

Um but there to make sure everybody's in the room, we potentially might have to make it seven.

I don't know yet.

I will confirm seven as opposed to six thirty.

I don't know.

Neither do I.

I won't call day amount at five o'clock in the morning.

Neither do I, but I want to just make sure that everybody that everybody can get here.

They do.

Because I think if we move it to six, I don't know if we're gonna get everybody here in the room, at least not for the beginning part of the meeting.

And I want to just make sure that we have good attendance for the final draft product.

So but I will be in touch on the final time, but I think I'm leaning more towards seven o'clock because we do have a few with conflicts that can't get there till seven.

And I want to make sure more we have full attendance there.

So I will reach out to you guys and we'll confirm the time.

I'll work with Elisa to finalize that.

So stay tuned for that.

Um, but any any other comments for the good of the order?

Okay, is there a motion to adjourn?

Moved, is there a second?

Okay.

Um any discussion on the motion to adjourn?

No.

All right, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

We are adjourned at 8 37.

Thank you all very much.