All right.

Sorry.

It is seven o'clock.

I am calling the meeting to order.

We could all rise Pledge of Allegiance.

And I'm gonna ask Superintendent Casimir if you could lead us in the pledge tonight, please.

Yeah.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which we stand.

One nation, a Gugger God, indivisible with Liberty and Justice Role.

You madam Secretary, welcome back.

If you would be kind enough to do the roll call, please.

My pleasure.

Chair Britton.

President.

Commissioner Safranic.

Here.

Commissioner Armstrong.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Yes.

Commissioner Jowdy.

Commissioner McCarry.

Commissioner Putnam.

Here.

And Commissioner Rivero.

Here.

As we've been doing at every meeting, the first part here is going to be open for public speaking.

I'm going to ask that if members of the public do wish to speak, if you would just state your name and address so the mics can pick you up and can get you into the minutes.

Try and keep your comments to three minutes or less.

We have a packed room tonight.

So I'll make sure everybody can speak and we're not here till midnight.

So that being said, are there any members of the public that wish to address the commission councilman Henry?

Thank you.

Chair of the Commission.

Michael Henry, 11 Castle Road, Denver, Connecticut.

During discussion last week, the member of Board of Education.

Number of Board of Education elected officials came into question as far as 11 under section 2-2.

Under the general statutes 9-203205, it mandates local boards must consist of 369 12 to be in compliance.

Also, has the commission addressed all public hearing comments from public speakers in this uh commission.

As to date, I don't think they have because I've listened to the public speaking.

I don't think all have been addressed.

Also sent an email to the chairman and the committee.

References 6-12 on parks and rec section.

Who controls park and recreation?

I'm asking for a review of this section park and recs separate from public works with their own maintenance division.

So legislative assistance section 3-3.

There was a discussion on how to craft language for protections.

If there's a change of administration, I suggested a potential majority minority leadership title for a newly elected position.

And if uh there's any other discussion or any change on the elected officials for the Board of Ed.

If it does fall into the home run or home rule act, or if it doesn't, I'd like to see this section of the charter recommitted for more discussion.

Thank you.

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

Ms.

Britton.

Um I'm Louisa Britton, uh, 14 Fairfield Avenue.

I'm also board chair of the Board of Education.

Um on behalf of the board, I just want to thank the commission for allowing us to um again re-uh discuss the portion uh board of education that was uh adopted last week.

Um, and for allowing our superintendent and uh to also work with you to draft language that we can all uh work to it with.

So I just wanted to thank you for everybody giving us this opportunity.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

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

Pete Canetta for Topfield Road.

Um appreciate the opportunity to to participate in the process.

Um I just wanted to uh acknowledge the information that was brought forward at the last meeting around the board of education.

Uh I know that the city and the board have been working hard to build a positive relationship and to work on uh some of the challenges we've seen in the past.

Um, and my only comment would just have been I wish we could have had a conversation um about the proposal before it hit the table here.

So thank you very much.

Any other members of the public speak?

Madam Clerk.

Uh Lauriet Bosito, 45 Pine Trail, Countler.

Um, I just wanted to bring to everyone's attention and thank you for letting me do so.

Some of the things I looked through, and I don't know if it's too late, um, uh through the charter.

Uh that has to do with the two-thirds council uh disapproved if the mayor wants the removal, right?

So it says here the mayor shall appoint and may remove subject to the mayor system and affect the city and all assistants and employees of the office.

But those people generally are union, and I'm just wondering what the protections are for those people.

Um whether it has to do with the merit system or will the um all the other department heads, most of them, a lot of them have the two-thirds councils.

Um I just wanted you to take that to consideration for whatever you're gonna do next because I don't want the people in the office to be affected by some of these decisions.

If it was a four-year uh it's gonna be as uh appointed, but if it was a four-year elected position, then you'd be in the same position.

If a new mayor comes in, if they're appointed, he could at the will just remove either the town clerk or the assistants or the employees, and so that is my concern.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Any other members of the public?

Mrs.

Cooper.

My name's Beth Cooper.

I live back one southern blah blah blah.

My remarks are very short.

I don't know how long this commission has been in operation, but it's been less than a month or two.

My only understanding was this board of aid has been through the struggles with the previous administration over 12, 13, 14 years ago.

And I was under the intention or instinct that you will be working with the board of A and his administration in a positive way.

And I know all the changes that you wanted didn't come when you want it, but we have made great strata.

So the other thing, the first thing that I'm really sort of upset about, and again, I don't know every in the outs of this committee to start a committee and not invite the leadership of the Dan Bear Public Schools to that first committee meeting to initially set the tone for what you were planning to do.

So I and I thought that was very uh disrespectful.

And that's all I want to say.

Ms.

Cooper.

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

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

See, I don't know if I'm separate from what you're agenda agenda item number one, superintendent.

Um, seeing no more members of the public, we will now close um public speaking.

Thank you all very much.

Um next item on the agenda is the minutes from last week.

Um, does anybody have any comments on the minutes?

I I only had one comment.

Uh and I think we can fix this.

I didn't see the conversation of the board of that that happened at the end.

So I think um we should take a look at that and get that put into the minutes for for the next meeting.

So any anybody else have any questions?

Question Mr.

Sherman.

Are we accepting the red lines with if we accept the minutes, or we just accepting that they are being presented as such?

So we're going to accept the minutes.

Not about the actual we're gonna accept the minutes with the comment that I just made to add in the comments about the board of but not every not all the red lines but we haven't we're not accepting that as such.

No, okay.

That'll be a set that'll be a separate separate item.

Okay.

So is there a make a motion to accept the minutes as copies have been provided to all members with with the changes with the changes duly noted by the chair?

All right, motion has been made to accept subject to um the changes.

Uh is there a second?

Made by uh made by uh Commissioner Strange, seconded by Commissioner Putnam and discussion on the minutes.

Seeing none, I will try your minds.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The ayes have it.

I will abstain because I wasn't here.

Do we noted one abstention?

Okay, moving on to meet of the meeting.

Uh so roadmap for tonight.

We're gonna follow the same playbook as we've been doing for the past two months since we began.

We're gonna talk about last week um review the red line chapter.

Well, that'll be where we have the opportunity to hear from uh superintendent and her team on that language, and then on the second part of the meeting, we're gonna go through the whole draft report that our uh corporation council has very thoroughly gone through and provided uh for the commission of over tonight.

We will tweak the language, make sure it says everything that we want it to say, and then that'll be what is um presented at the public hearing next week, and ultimately after the public hearing, the commission will adopt the draft report to then transmit that to the town clerk, who will then transmit that to the city council, and then the process will continue on from there.

So, any questions on the roadmap for tonight?

Make sense so far.

Okay.

Uh so we'll move on to chapter six.

So um I wanted to give an opportunity for the superintendent and her team here because we did propose um language last week, and just for the context of my commissioners, I know I sent this out uh to you guys that we did.

Um we can't pretty much come to a meeting of the minds.

I think it's accurate to saying everything but one word that we'll probably hear uh comments about.

Um, so I do want to give the floor to the superintendent now to speak about the language.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

It's okay if I sit here.

Yeah, please.

Okay.

Um, for the record, my name is Kara Casimiro.

I'm the superintendent of the Danry Polk Schools, and I'm here with some of my members of my cabinet, and of course, our board of ed, because we are a team.

And um I am here uh also in concurrence with some members that have already spoke regarding the proposal for section six-17, uh titled Board of Education, which is also almost an entirely new section added to the charter.

And um, before I get into some of the matters that concern us as a board, um, I'll say that one of the reasons why it is a new section and the charter has been silent, is because the state statute already defines what that relationship is for us.

Um, and that is common and and precedented uh across Connecticut.

Um, in addition to the concerns, um, further stating what our members have already stated before.

We have been in amazing uh levels of communication with the city.

We've established a new partnership.

We've been through a lot of um conversations with concerning our audit, um, our financial history and our financial future.

And um I feel really good, I'll stick on the right really good about the relationships that we have right now.

So this is nothing to do with any of the players that are at the table, and I have a tremendous respect for for this commission and all the members involved, as well as our council members and the mayor and his team themselves.

Um, my concern with 6-17 is that it's proposed specifically to establish financial authority over the board of education.

And the concern I have with that is is many.

One, the state statute defines us separate, we have separate authority.

There is a defined relationship in terms of our appropriation, but the city does not um dictate how we spend our money.

And I don't believe that that's what this is asking in the language that's been proposed.

Um, but my concerns are one of privacy, my concerns are one of um need to know in the system, and also some of the language that was proposed, which assumes that our financial systems could and should be the same, um, is inaccurate given the sense that um the complexities that we have in our district are uh in terms of financial reporting, federal and state obligations with our grants are very complicated and perhaps maybe more complicated than the city unintentionally uh realizes.

Um just a couple of items that I'd like to point out.

Um, general statute section 10-222 provides that money appropriated to the board of education for the maintenance of public schools shall be expended by and at the discretion of the board of education.

A local charter cannot override state statute, and the critical distinction in the law is that the city controls how much money it appropriates to the board through the annual budget process.

That authority is appropriate and unaffected.

Once appropriated, how those funds are spent by the board, exclusive statutory authority subjects the boards and subjecting the board to purchasing and financial management to municipal procedures, crosses the line at the straight that the state has already drawn.

Um, specifically, additional concerns as a superintendent, and again, my um my concerns as a with dealing with people under the age of 18 are are different than perhaps the cities.

And so I wouldn't assume that everyone might um might know that, um, but we are bound to different laws uh in confidentiality and privacy that um defines what we do.

My credentials are staked against those things, as well as the teachers and my cabinet team as well.

Uh district financial management systems contain far more than budget data because DPS is self-insured and manages special education services directly.

Those systems hold health insurance claims, payment records for students and staff that are protected by HIPAA.

Individual student education, special education expenditures, including IEP costs out of district tuition placements and contracted support services are protected under FERPA and IDEA.

We have specific safeguards for physical, technical, and administration administrative compliance with regards to need to know and who can see that and access that information.

It is very strict.

Student service records are and care records are also maintained on a strict need to know basis as well and can be accessed through these systems.

The mayor's office and department of finance do not have a need to know under FERPA, HIPAA, and IDEA.

Granting system wide access as a matter of charter would expose the city and district to financial compliance risk, and more fundamentally could place sensitive information about children and disabilities and health conditions into the hands of offices with no legal basis to hold it.

No charter provision can override federal privacy law.

Further, with regards to the system and the urgence to transform and combine systems, municipal and school system financial systems are purpose built for different institutional environments and serve different district functions.

School district systems are designed to manage compliance reporting across dozens of federal and state funding streams with distinct eligibility and expenditure rules.

Student level special education cost tracking is tied to individual records.

Self-insurance and health benefits administration and categorical grant accounting under Title IDEA Perkins and other federal programs that do not exist in municipal budgeting.

Our systems do not align.

Further, I have some ethical and governance concerns.

And again, I repeat this has nothing to do with the current administration.

Ongoing city or mayoral access into district financial management systems create governance risks that even though the intent is not to control, still causes issues.

School district spending decisions on curriculum vendors and services reflect educational priorities that belong to the board and the professional staff under state law.

Real-time access is a problem.

Now, I say this that I do not believe that anyone is asking for that at all.

However, what gets written is intended in what gets written and interpreted down the road is what I'm concerned about.

Okay.

And this is this is something that I have already addressed with some of my folks.

If you've been here, I've been here.

This is my 29th year next year, I'll be here 30 years.

And I went to school in this in this town.

I don't live in Danbury, but tons of family members and have a long established relationships here.

And I have seen the patterns that have played out over time, and I also have seen them in other districts and how those have played out.

And the current administration and all the people involved are the most upstanding, wonderful people.

The boards, the councilmen, everybody's here for the right reason.

My concern is not the current state.

My concern is what happens when administrations change.

Okay.

And you know, goodwill, collaborative spirit, and all the intentions go out the window when things change.

And so my my I don't have an issue in the current moment, but it doesn't mean that down the road when when when things change, um, that that could not be an issue for the district.

Um we are not interested in creating a structural permanent position.

I am, however, very interested in time to time access for the timely completion of audits, let's say, or special targeted projects where we need to collaborate in the best of mutual entrance interests of the city.

And I think that that's a fair provision currently.

Right now we have such uh such a relationship.

Um Joanne from the city has been a tremendous partner.

We have been behind audits with you together, and we're getting out of those uh that whole with you together.

And I have allowed through shared uh data privacy agreements a very um specific access to a person with which to help us to uh complete our audits and to create a better organizational structure that helped the the our board of ed um kind of be able to create a roadmap for the future with finances.

And so we welcome that collaboration.

We welcomed that the the knowledge that that person has brought to us.

Um we have a relatively new young, certainly Mike is a like a master CPA over there, but educational systems were new.

Our finance office was already all uh was also new.

Um Mike is our sixth CFO in a short period of time.

Those of you may remember Joe Martino, who was with us for quite a while from Joe to here was six CFOs.

The financial turbulence that the district has experienced is is tenfold, right?

COVID, accelerated money, uh uh ARPA SERGES in an ECS create volatility uh and unpredictability in the district.

And so we've had some trouble maintaining that in the particularly with the business office changing over from time to time.

So I will say this.

I know that there is a need uh for us to get our house in order, and we're working on that, right?

We know that.

Um, and I know that taxpayers have been upset um at times because it's like, hey, uh I'm a taxpayer here.

Is it does the school district have their have their act together, right?

So we earned we earned that reputation, and I don't I don't make any bones about that.

Um and so the collaboration is intentional and targeted so that we can achieve better a better state um intergovernmental collaboration for the benefit of the city and the school system.

That said, and and again, I have no issues with that, and I completely trust the person who is involved, and uh intentions are all there.

Um, but it is about providing unfettered access in real time all the time as the future state of the relationship is my concern.

And with that, um, we have suggested um some ideas around ways to satisfy the city and the city's need and the taxpayers' need for more accountability, more transparency, more reporting opportunities, um, and we are suggested some language um to that effect on increasing all of that, which I think is what the true need is uh for the city and to ensure that they're also solvent, right?

So if we're behind on our audits, the city can't complete their audit and vice vice versa.

So that relationship really does need to be there, and at times there should be some access uh to complete that uh to complete those those important tasks.

Um we have gone back and forth on some of the language, and as councilman Britton mentioned, it comes down to shall and may that we shall provide full-time access or we may provide full-time access.

And uh where I sit and you know, with my uh position, my um due diligence in protecting the school district in the future.

There's no threat right now, but in the future, um, that we may grant access for targeted purposes for the benefish beneficial beneficial needs for completion of audits or other special projects that are needed to um to keep our relationship and our finances whole that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, superintendent.

Uh commissioners, are there any questions for the superintendent while she's here?

Uh any other commissioners have questions on the language that's in the house.

I I have a question.

Yeah, so is are the red line changes what have been recommended or yeah, so the packet I can at least give the posture of the so the all the language is new, right?

May I see the red line?

Packet.

Yes, that's it.

It should be it should be in here.

Okay, page 42.

41.

Um here just to so the all the language is new because it's a new section, obviously.

Um, where you see the red lines in the document presented tonight are the ones that were suggested by the school district.

And there's one counter uh suggestion, which is the shall maybe so that's in that fourth paragraph where it says um so for the very targeted purpose of the audits.

The way that it's written right now proposed to the commission is that it shall grant access to a designated city department of finance employees.

So it would be the one person basically codifying the relationship that's in effect right now with Joanne.

So that's what that language says.

So it wouldn't be 10 people as it was originally presented by the commission would be unlimited access.

It's one person designated on the finance for the purpose of the timely audits.

So that's that language.

Getting the uh paragraph four.

What pages on what's section six-17?

Page 42.

Sorry, for I just found it on 42.

I think you know, one of the things that we've suggested is that you deserve to have access to the financial books, accounts, and records, and expenditure data.

We'll give that to you.

That's not a problem.

Um and we'll we are willing to you know codify that in the charter.

That that's how we operate.

It's the it's the other pieces.

It's the space being subjected to the regular access um through all of our financial databases and systems, and then having to conform to having to conform to specific uh you know procedurals and policies and procurements that may differ from our school system and what we need in terms of our reporting it as well.

So again, for the commission to sort of branch on to what the superintendent is saying.

What what the language is in front of us is codifying that relationship that's going on right now.

So it's one person for one purpose that'll have access.

So it's just you know, to the superintendent's point when administrations change on either side.

This just ensures that that relationship continue or that procedure continues long after we're all here.

Um so that was the intent behind that language.

And as far as the concerns around purchasing and the control procedures, that language was struck.

So right now, what it says is that the financial affairs shall be administered in accordance with audit accounting, auditing, and reporting.

So it's access to information that's codified in the charter.

So this is nothing that is going to take control from the Board of Education and how they want to spend their money.

You know, I I like to use the analogy if they want to spend 10,000 dollars on a stapler, they can spend 10,000 on a staple.

We can't tell them how they spend their money.

But what this does is we'll codify that the city in order to do their business will have the access to the information that they need.

Commissioner Sfranick.

Okay, so just I want to kind of boil it down.

So in the entire section 6-1-7, you're worried about the one word of paragraph four that goes from May to Shall.

Is that correct?

Is that what the gist was, just so I understand?

Generally, yes.

Okay.

So I I do want to make a few comments.

May I, if just about what was presented.

Okay.

Yeah, sure.

So um former councilman Warren Levy shared.

I'm glad Warren is here because I sat with Warren many, many times when he asked over and over and over again of your five or six CFOs to please present us with the information so we can do the audit.

And they were stymied every time.

And Warren would get up at every meeting and say, we are not able to close our books because the board of ed is not.

There was money that was wasted, there was money that was given back, there was money that that the board of ed didn't even know had it in a line item.

So all of a sudden that's magically perfect now.

I believe that shall shall be in there because there was many problems of millions of dollars over a course of several years.

And I think it is the taxpayers' money that they should know where it's going.

Now, the other thing I want to make a statement with there's a difference between codifying the board of ed and state statutes and the administration.

You are correct.

The board of ed is an elected body, but the administration is the what spends the the money.

So there is a difference there.

When you say the board of ed, the board of eds is the elected body, but the CFO and your cabinet is the ones responsible for the taxpayers' dollars day to day.

Because the board of ed, those that are elected, they have the trust.

And this doesn't relate to you because this is a previous CFO that caused all these problems.

But when you say that there's a privacy and not a need to know where taxpayers' dollars are going, if there's millions of dollars in ARPA funds not being used, and Councilman Levy made this point over and over again, and he was correct every time he made it.

At one point, our the finance director for the city of Danbury, they would say the Laird had to come to the board of ed and drive out to the board of ed to try to get the numbers because the financial systems didn't meet, and there was tons of money that couldn't be accounted for.

And line items that were given back.

If I'm not correct, I think three million dollars was unspent one year when there was it was supposedly underfunded.

So an institution that has that kind of discrepancies should have the word shall and not may.

And there is no privacy.

Everything is off a liable except for students' individual records and so forth.

We'll talk about finances.

Talking about what's being spent on pens and pencils and union contracts and things like that.

There is no privacy in that.

So for you to claim that there's a need to know and a privacy, and there's certain financial records you don't want to disclose.

I'll be honest with you, I find that very arrogant for you to say you're in front of taxpayers and in front of a charter commission to say you don't have the right to know this.

Need to know replies specifically to FERPA HIPAA ID.

But that's but that's different, but that's not financial.

It is explicitly financial.

Really?

So let's keep it.

Let me just let me just I didn't say where it's so I just don't find that too.

For example, okay for example, if I may.

Well, no, well, I'm just child's tuition bill that identifies that they are perhaps in a psychiatric.

Would it be child X?

Guys, I want to go just keep one at a time.

So let's just, if there's a question asked, we'll do that, we'll get an answer from the question.

Okay, I retract my question then.

Okay.

Um but the fact that you even stated you had six CFOs presents that there was a problem over the years.

So I think maybe let's go ten years of perfect auditing, and then maybe we can remove this and the next charter commission should remove it.

But we're barely out of the woods with the audits.

We were on this close to being placed on the financial um uh regulatory from Hartford because the audits weren't done.

And I see Warren Levy here every time he'd get up and say, what's going on with these audits?

And every CFO, five or six of them would say, Well, working on it.

And the city was almost in in dire straits until this was rectified.

And that was only a couple years ago.

So we're not out of the woods.

I would suggest maybe the next charter revision in 10 years or so can change that to shall to make, but I would be adamantly against it in this charter revision commission.

Thank you, Mr.

Sherman.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um I able to respond.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Um, just to if I can.

I don't disagree with your concern whatsoever.

And me being here tonight is not uh just to be uh obstinate and in the way of progress.

I have demonstrated that I'm here explicitly to partner with the city in the spirit of progress, and we have made progress and we have ways to go.

My concern is not now.

My concern is protecting the rights of the district from fiscal oversight.

The state of Connecticut has the right for fiscal oversight over the Board of Education.

It is not the city, although we're here collaborating.

We have provided access, we're having routine meetings on a regular basis, uh, and we're thankful for that collaboration.

And I believe that the SHAO belongs in a mayor's contract and the superintendent's contract that we should be working together on a regular basis and establish good communication lines.

But I have been here in this district when our budget and success was weaponized against us.

It was a period of time when we would come.

We had zero flat funded, didn't get enough money, um, and success or uh a misinterpretation of any of our financials led to us receiving no increases, which dramatically hurt the system.

I live to that, and members of my team have lived through that.

So again, this is not about the current administration.

Um I agree, agree wholeheartedly with you uh about the the needs of the city.

Um we have been more than collaborative in demonstrating uh and and and demonstrate demonstrative of our efforts in that direction.

Um this is this is not about that, you know, that the the Aaron Stewart's happen, okay.

Um this is about protecting the school system, and the need to know is really tied to student special education data, Medicare data, and that billing.

And and that is that is that is the that is the concern.

The need to know specifically relates to those students' rights because we work with children under 18 years old.

And I think uh I do have one follow-up.

Yeah, um, you you mentioned the previous administration weaponized that.

Was that Mayor Bowden you're claiming weaponized it?

No.

Which administration was that?

The the CFO, former CFO.

No, you said the administration weaponized the board of it with zero or flat.

Was that was that Murboudon's administration you're talking about?

Perhaps.

Well, you said administration administrative.

I did say administration.

There is a person in specific that would, yeah.

It's it's a it there's a long history of what the what the raises have the uh thank you.

I'm good.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner.

And just to clarify some comment you stand to it.

Some of the um you know, comments about the student debt privacy.

I just want to point the commission, just so we're still tracking you know this debate.

That if you're on that paragraph four, where we're talking about the one-person access for the financial system, that is what Joanne from the city is doing right now.

There is language in there that does protect the board of ed.

So where it says subject to safeguards, including student data privacy agreements to assure compliance with state and federal law.

So that that's language that was proposed from um the Board of Ed as language that could um cover the data and the privacy issues, because it is an it is a fact that student data privacy is paramount, and there are extreme safeguards that are in place for that information.

So we have language in there that would satisfy that.

Um so I just wanted to point that out for the commission as as we're we're hearing um the comments um back and forth here, and just so we're again I just want to make sure because I I don't I also want to echo you know uh the superintendent's earlier points that the relationship is very good right now between the city and the school district, and nobody is discounting, nobody is saying that's not the case right now.

Um this is just something that is in place to just make sure that that continues indefinitely in the charter.

And it is unusual that there is no provision in our charter about the board.

Other municipalities have them.

Um Hartford has them, Waterbury, a lot of the other bigger cities have um language in the charter for the board of education because at the end of the day, the board of education is a part of the city.

It is the largest expenditure of the city's taxpayer dollar.

So to have language in here that at least puts on paper and affirms that relationship, I think is important to have for the city, and it's been vetted through several lawyers that it does comply with, I think it's 10, uh, was it 10-220, 222 or 220, the those ones where expressly gives the board of ed their statutory autonomy to operate the school districts, and we have language in there that carves out saying that nothing in here is stepping on the toes of the board of ed to operate the schools, they waive the way they want to operate the schools.

It's not saying that the finance department, the finance director of the city is going to now oversee the finance department for the board of education, it doesn't say that.

All it is is codifying the relationship that there is going to be this bilateral access of information from the board of ed to the city when the city needs it for the important things like the audit.

And it's a protective measure just to make sure that you know superintendent's doing a great job, right?

Mayor's doing a great job.

It's just to ensure that that relationship continues through to the next administrations.

And personally, I'm never a fan of May language because it really doesn't mean anything.

You can you might as well just not have it in there at all if you're gonna have May language, shall at least puts it in there that the city and the board of that are serious about having that relationship continue and having that one per that one single person.

Um that basically what Joanne, like I said, is doing now in the charter.

So I just wanted to sort of make that comment um to the rest of the commission here as we continue um our debate here.

And I guess I'll um just run it by counsel one last time.

In your opinion, the way that it's presented right now with the red lines that came from the Board of AD and our pro original proposed language as it lies right now.

Do you see any issues where it's running a foul with state statute?

No, I do not, and I would point out that uh as you mentioned, Mr.

Chairman uh attorney Mortality and I spent a substantial amount of time uh yesterday with attorney Mooney.

Uh and we got to the point where uh as the superintendent says that it it came down to Shaw versus May, and he didn't have any um substantive objections to the remainder of the language.

So at least from the attorney's perspective, I think we're we're all on the same page on that.

But again, not nothing.

I mean, I I'll just go to the last paragraph of the section.

Nothing here shall be construed to authorize the mayor or department of finance to direct or control the educational operations of the school district or the lawful exercise of powers of the board of education under the Connecticut General Statutes.

That's a that's a critical provision, and I think it it it works uh to safeguards every everyone's interest.

I would also just quickly note um the second paragraph of section 618 does uh it's similar to the final paragraph.

What paragraph two says is that um the board can actually shall exercise all powers and duties conferred under laws at the Connecticut.

I'm paraphrasing, but it's it's effectively saying the same thing that nothing in here is uh bridging or curtailing the board's uh statutory authority.

Um we we tried um in this draft and in discussions with attorney moone, we did try to be sensitive to ensure that the board's uh rights were not being uh uh you know infringed on in any way.

Um I could envision a scenario where if there's a FERPA or have a concern that would be discussed between the city and the board um the good relationship that this um that's been building on recent years.

So I think that just as we uh organically talk to each other, um if there is that concern, I'm sure the superintendent and her staff will raise it and the city will address it to the extent that there's laws that uh that govern that issue.

Um and that'll happen or that'll happen organically, regardless of what um regardless of what we're talking about right now.

Thank you, counselor.

Um commissioners, while we have the superintendent here any other questions for her and her team on this language.

I don't have a question related to the language, but um acknowledging the public comment related to the 11 members.

Oh, uh good catch.

Um, so we looked into that.

Um, and there's actually a statute that was passed later on in that line of statutes that says that uh cities, I believe, can elect anywhere between five and I think it's 13 or 5 and 12.

I think it was uh section maybe 203a or something.

There was a different provision.

206, I think it was.

It was following 203a.

Yeah.

So it allows municipalities to adopt a number in between a range.

So it looks like they just didn't repeal that statute, but they just passed a statute that supersedes that statute.

Understood.

Okay.

So we're good with the 11 from a legal standpoint.

Thank you.

Um questions for our superintendent.

We're gonna go through the draft, so we're gonna we won't do a consensus until we get through the whole document.

So you know, we'll as we get to that later on in the meeting.

But for now, um, there's no other questions for the superintendent.

We'll excuse her from the hot seat.

Thank you.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

We appreciate the work the commission is doing.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so we will now go back to the beginning of uh chapter six, just so we can go through um the rest of the stuff from last week.

Did anybody else have any comments on the red lines from last week?

I think I have one little comment.

Yeah, please, Commissioner.

Three million dollar number was increased in this one.

Do we ever find out what the bridge costs or why we went that number from 500 to 3 million just for discussed, I believe.

Um, the current cost of one of the bridges.

I think it was three.

Yeah.

And then they may have increased three, but originally I think it was proposed as 2.5, and that was kind of uh the load star, sure.

They uh rely on and then it was a school that needed a roof.

Yes, and the roof one of those put us over and it's a listen.

We can't even build a roof, yeah.

We need the roof now.

And I think that's what triggered it all.

So was it was Park Avenue?

We can I think yeah, there that was Peter.

It was Peter Busade who commented on it.

It was um the reason they went to three was they used the bridge as sort of a benchmark as to what the bonding should do as like a run of the mill project.

Thank you.

And then our logic for going up to five was five million is what three million was worth when this went up.

So we're just factoring.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um, I did have one checked on 6.2 for the town clerk's position.

I think um we alluded to it too.

Um, but the language we have currently in the charter related to the assistants because they are union employees, so there does have to be language in there where it says the mayor shall appoint and remove subject to the merit system in effect of the city, all assistants because they are union positions, so that language does have to go back in there.

So I'm gonna ask that we put that in.

I think that was just inadvertently um left out.

Um there was um on page 32 that we changed the um part B title of superintendent highways, but then that opening line does not adjust accordingly.

Yep, good catch.

Okay.

I believe also um in chapter six, there was a request, and like we were talking about name changes in some of the departments to just bring them up to speed because some of the departments go by different names now.

One of them was the uh partisan recreation department.

I believe they go by the department of recreation.

So that was a suggested change, so I'm gonna ask that we put that in there.

Yeah, I was actually gonna say Sean Sean's here, is that right?

We have the director.

Is that correct?

Is it part is the department of recreation?

Department of Records I hold the little change.

Okay, yeah.

Very good.

Um I didn't catch anything else in chapter six.

Um we just board a bed.

Um okay, is everybody good on chapter six?

Are we good to start from the top and just go through the whole draft?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So again, thank you.

Everybody on the commission, our attorneys, Elisa, for how thorough we've all been on going through the charter.

We have gone through quite literally every word of this document.

So I want to just make sure that everybody appreciates the efforts that we made by everybody at this table and also everybody around this room.

So I want to thank you for that.

So we will start at the top, and we'll just we're just gonna go through each check each section and just look at the change.

And if anybody has an objection, we'll just shout it out and we'll we will uh talk about it.

So preamble, we wanted to change one thing to make it every citizen and resident.

Um that is in there.

And then we're some technical changes to refer to the city of Danbury.

Um, and then we don't see another change till page five.

Um, under municipal elections, there's a change there to make them four-year elections, so starting in 2027 and quadrannually thereafter.

I have a question.

Yes, of comment.

Yep.

I had uh discussed earlier uh where it whether it be in the preamble or where the rights and obligations uh to have some kind of over writing statement that is regarding high ethical something, equal uh equality, some kind of standard language to embed in it.

I know we talked about it being in the human resources, uh, equal opportunities, but it seems as a city who's who is trying to be a big tent city.

We want to make sure that we have some general language that is overriding uh to express express the fact that we will uh not only with appointments through the EEOC, but in general speaking about the citizens treat them in an equitable way in some kind of standard.

I had brought that up before and to have some kind of statement.

We were mainly being talking about the hiring and appointment of people, but I think just in general to have a statement about equity and ethics and high standards is important.

It's kind of everything else is border, it's kind of uh not high standards, but um border plate kind of thing.

Um looking for something that gets us uh provides us with an aspirational um treatment of all the citizens if we don't need it.

So I mean in the preamble to you to your to your point.

I mean, I I agree with you that those are paramount um principles to have, but I'm just looking at what we already have, just in the spirit of minimal changes to get the mission completed here.

Um we did make the change that include that was a little more inclusive that said the right of every citizen and resident.

So that I think there's an implication there that we are being more inclusive, but then to your comment about having sort of ethics language in there.

We do have I mean the last sentence.

We insist on high ethical standards, professional management of our human resources.

Um, I think it says that.

I mean, did you have like language you would propose?

That's not my thing.

Uh, but I do think it should be included.

Uh, is that um ethics and equality and equity are not the same thing.

Ethics is one thing, we're all e-words, but ethics is one thing, equality is one thing, and equity is is a different thing.

So I'm saying is we should strive, we should aspire to that, even if we should always have that in the back of our mind, and that should be uh put in a place that has an overriding uh meaning, such as in the preamble, or maybe in the um general statute as it relates to the rights and obligations.

So that everything that comes behind it is is um mirrored um from that part of it in general the big the big pieces.

I don't have any language, but these guys are um does anybody have any questions or comments on that particular point?

I'd be in favor of adding equitable and I mean my my only hesitation, my only hesitation on putting I want to call them buzzwords, but they are buzzwords.

Um the climate that we're in right now with federal funding and how municipalities are sort of being held hostage at the federal level with monies and language that they're throwing around.

I'm praying that we won't be in this hostile language.

You and me both forever.

And I think that it sets the tone for the city we live in.

We're not gonna be held hostage because we include language that is that we accept.

And then we find this part of our value system.

So I'm not gonna back down because of that.

I'm just simply saying it seems in the in the world we live in, we should be more um while we run away from language that we is part of that value system.

I I agree with you.

And this uh this is what I'll propose.

We'll have um because we do have a little bit of time until um because we're not approving the final draft or the final draft report um until after the public hearing next week.

So we have a little bit of time to put in some language.

We can't go crazy right now, guys.

To be honest, we we are um at the point where we can't make a ton of substantive changes because frankly, we don't have the time to do it to stay on track for um our goal here.

So um I'll I'll work with Dan and Joe to maybe find something that could work, um Glenda, and then we'll we'll bring it back and put it.

It's not my first time, so that's what I'm I'm bringing it up again.

Yep, no, I gotcha.

I got you.

But I will I'll I'll work with Dan and Joe and we'll put something together that can get that point across and to Commissioner Almeida's point two.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so elections, we had the four years um terms.

Quick question.

Yes, it takes effect in 27 or has to go one full cycle and it takes effect in 29.

What takes effect the new four years, the four-year term.

So under the the charter would become effective at this with this coming election, the referendum.

So the first election.

Okay, I wasn't sure if it had a wait a full municipal cycle before it comes out.

No, so it will be 27.

Okay, thank you.

I believe the wait by statute is 30 days.

Okay.

So the changes that are presumably passed if it was passed the same year, then it would have to be the next one as this as the election.

Like if we pass this in 27, it would have to be 29 then.

Not necessarily.

Yeah.

Okay.

As long as we're good on that.

But the way that but the way the text is written is that it would the four-year terms would be in effect 2027.

Okay, perfect.

Yep.

Thank you.

Um we had the language on electing the board of ed.

All right, so since the board of ed's in the room, I should probably clarify the board of ed language for the election.

So um, as they know, they're staggered right now.

So every two years you have half of the board up, and then two years later you have the other half of the board up.

So since the entire city is now going to four-year terms, we have to unstagger the board of ed terms.

So what that will mean practically speaking is in November of 2027, there will be six board of ed members elected to four-year terms.

So that's the same as it would have been ordinarily.

But then in November 2029, two years after that, there's gonna be an election for the remaining five members that will be elected for two years.

Um so that way in 2031, you will then have the whole board of ed up at the same time for four-year terms.

So that's the language for the board of ed.

Yeah, Commissioner.

I I thought we had a discussion that uh left nobody to carry over.

You at some point you'd have a whole brand new board that's elected every year, you're gonna elect 11 members.

Is that is that what you're saying?

Or maybe I'm well, yeah, no, it would just be all 11 or up at the same time.

I guess in theory you could, but statute lets us um dictate how we elect our board.

There's no there's no I mean you could let 11 in theory you could elect 11 brand new people.

Yeah, and have no history uh left to that that uh I mean to to sort of just not play devil's advocate, but the city council, they're all elected at once.

You could have 21 new council members in theory that are brand new, so you lose the history there.

Same with the zoning commission, so it would it would be mirroring every other elected office in the city.

It's just it's from a practical standpoint.

If we're gonna go four years, we have to go, we have to do this, Commissioner.

Um the if someone leaves the board of ed, do we eliminate the two-year position completely?

And it's just a direct appointment by the council and the mayor.

Nope.

So it would be so we're by charter saying that those five members in 2029 are gonna be serving two year terms.

So that way in 2031, you'll have all 11 up for four years.

Right, but if one of the 11 leaves, that's what the two-year term used to kick in.

Correct, it would be for the remainder of that term.

So then you're just appointing like any other position would be appointed.

It would be the same, so we're not touching the vacancy.

Oh, okay.

Because the way it's written right now, I believe I think it's actually the board bylaws that dictate how they do their vacancies, and I believe it says until the next municipal election.

And you go into a two-year position, I think.

Isn't that how the two-year it was?

So the two the two-year kicked in only when somebody had just got elected to four years and then resigned before the next election.

That's when that would be the two.

We're all good on that.

Okay.

There's no conflicts.

I'm gonna try this one more time and back to, I think an uh memory um, but um at the state board level, are all the people on the state board have had appointed at the same time.

I've I have no idea.

Like at the at in Hartford, the agency?

Yeah, yeah, I'm not very sure.

I don't believe so.

I don't know.

Um the same as a reason about any other comments on that for your terms, okay.

Um just movement.

I'm on page eight now.

Um page nine.

Um reapportion.

Um I'll defer to Commissioner Sefranic since reapportionment is your passion project, or is everything here?

Uh what section is that again?

Sorry.

On page nine is when the substance starts.

Okay.

I I read it quickly.

Three out of the four.

So there's an ambition on the third edition recently.

Fifth member, third is the fifth member should be appointed by the member confirmed by the council.

We're gonna read only for submitted third advisory commission shall submit a plan and see.

Yes.

Perfect.

That cleans up all the issues we've had in the past.

That makes it equitable for everybody.

Four, yeah.

So there was just a clerical, I think it was just an inadvertent strike.

So at the very bottom of page nine where the is struck, it should read honor before the September 30 next occurring, it should say the commission.

Um just bear with me, guys.

I'm just reading because this is a pretty important section.

We have the catch-all language to make it comply with all federal laws.

Okay.

Um for the date at the top, my question, we changed it to 2031.

Is that because the last time we did reapportionment?

It happened to be a good one.

So was on 2021.

Okay.

So it takes in 20 years, in 20 in the three.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we're gonna end up so just because so okay, I see now.

So because the last reapportionment kind of took a while, and it was uh probably a couple years.

It lingered longer than it had to.

So when the sentence comes out in 20, it's published, and then as soon as it's published, we create the reapportionment commission and have to rebalance the wards out.

So 2031 is gonna end up being less than 10 years since the last one, but to go back to our normal structure.

Right.

It was all one.

And right after the census, that's that date.

Okay, so that makes sense.

Okay.

Um question request.

Yes, please, Commissioner.

Uh, does that require two-thirds vote of the council and the reappointment?

So for the commission, I believe that's appointed by majority and minority leaders.

Majority leader appoints to the minority leader appoints to that creates four, and then the four create the fifth.

Yep.

I'm talking about when it goes to the city.

If they can't do it, and it goes to the city.

Is it gonna require two-thirds vote of the council?

Four to to pick the fifth member?

Yes.

If the commission fails to submit a plan.

Right.

Okay.

So we have it.

So the way it's written is it's a majority vote of the entire council.

So they would they would appoint a an impartial qualified expert to do the maps.

So that would be at least 11 votes.

My my personal opinion is two two two-thirds there would be unnecessary.

Because they're there's just I mean, I'm just it's just because they're appointing somebody to do the maps.

So to have the threshold that high to hire somebody to get the maps done would be a little tough.

I mean, reapportionment is important, and that's why I'm asking uh that question.

This is if they fail to submit.

Well, the reapportionment advisory commission plan is also advisory in nature, so um the council doesn't necessarily have to adopt the plan that the commission puts forth.

It can modify it, create its own plan.

Um sometimes there is no plan, and then the council just has to create their own.

A simple majority is enough.

Yeah.

That's right now that's what it's are we okay with that for the commission?

I think it's pretty okay.

Um so next change we had was I'm on I'm on page 12 for those following along.

Um we had the recommendation there was case law out there to take the so help you god out of the oath.

Um so we have under penalties of perjury in there now, so that was a legal technical change.

Um changing the time of the organizational meeting on the bottom of page 12 to 7 o'clock.

Um I'm on page 13 legislative assistant.

We did a lot of work there.

Um there was um language that needed to get put in there, so for the appointment, just so it mirrors the disapproval language, so where it says the mayor shall appoint and by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those present in voting, that should read two-thirds of the entire membership, so it mimics the bottom side there.

So we can change that uh bottom of 13, the mayor with cause to keep it consistent with all the other department heads removals and stuff.

So um removed by the mayor with cause, provided the dismissal.

Any objection from the commission on that?

No objection or is that Mike?

I'm sorry.

Um, the bottom of page 13.

Uh it's the legislative system, maybe remove by the mayor with cause.

Okay.

That keeps it consistent with all the other departments that you need calls, you can't just be I don't like the color of her shoes, that kind of thing.

Is it that's the jet are you sure that's true that that it has to be with cause for doesn't have to be, but I think it's I think the other departments have it in there.

I thought it would be that's what I that's my question.

Do the other departments.

I thought they said that's that's where I came up with that.

I just wasn't sure.

I'd like to ask the legislative assistant.

Is there with calls in the other departments?

Is that where this came from?

I I don't I don't believe it specifies with the Oh, I thought it did, I apologize.

The reason for that would be again one of my concerns was for the individual individual to be removed based solely on personal preference or politics.

In a position that we're trying to make non-political, yeah.

And permanent.

Is that not proper to put that in?

I mean, we do have not improper, okay.

I mean, we do have language in there that sort of acts as the bot the two-thirds dismissal or the two-thirds disapproval language too.

So the council can disapprove it if the mayor did decide to remove the legislative assistant.

I mean, it's the commission's will.

So I will anybody have any thoughts on it or Commissioner.

I have another comment.

Uh we two-thirds.

And I understand that.

And he said we can't.

And if we go back over and talk about reapportionment, when we talk about reapportionment, is who's gonna vote where in the city and what they're gonna vote for, we say majority.

I just think I want us to be what has the gravity.

Am I making that?

Yeah, I think you know I I do understand your point, but I think they're a little bit different because when you're talking about a personnel hire and with reapportionment, you also don't want to run into a situation where it's impossible to do the maps because then you're triggering you're you're you're starting to you know flirt with federal law and having maps done.

I totally understand.

So that's why I'm saying two thirds is a high bar for a lot to do.

That's that's my opinion.

I I I think a majority of the whole council is a high bar in itself because you have to need at least eleven.

So if you have 12 people show up, you still need 11.

Um documenting all the changes.

Um was there something else then under three three that were adjusting besides besides that opening sense about the two thirds?

Yeah, I I mean it's the clause line.

I mean, no, I remember Peter Bijet when president was here.

He had said that also.

That's maybe that's where I came up with.

I don't remember.

I had it in my notes that Peter say it.

If there we can removing with clause, but it wasn't in there.

No, it wasn't in there.

So we would be adding it.

Can we can we come back to that and refer to it?

We can come back at the end of the council president.

At the end of the meeting.

But we are changing of those present.

Yes, we are.

I just want to make sure we're by the board.

We're changing the calls.

Okay.

Sorry.

I could have sworn Peter to recommend it.

All right.

Um flag that we had technical changes on page 14.

Um thing that was struck um that I don't think it was meant to be struck was on the bottom of page 15 where it says including all roll call votes.

I believe that should stay in there because that's an important document for the council to keep.

So if we can put that back in.

And then we did have um conversation about this.

I do remember um just modernizing that last sentence.

Um the archives so kept shall be authenticated for each meeting by the signature of the president or the legislative assistant.

I I think that can just be the attestation.

We did change that for instead of signature, so that just modernizes it.

Um page 16.

The notice language we reference our kind of our ongoing edict on this one was we just want the notice language to sort of just mimic whatever the state statute is at the time.

We have that change on 16 page 17, similar language for publishing and notices on the state statute would apply.

Um page 18, uh city council committees.

We tweaked the language there that would allow the city council by resolution to establish standing committees.

But they can still do ad hoc if they so choose for that one.

Can I acknowledge um in public statements?

There's been um a lot of conversation about residency requirements for committees and commissions.

Um I know we I can't remember where, but I know somewhere we added some language to that effect.

Um, but should that also be included here?

So we did talk about it again, and I think it was when you were out.

We reverted back and decided to keep it as it is now.

So that the residency requirement for the appointed boards and commissions wouldn't there wouldn't be one because we we had gotten the information from the city that there were only a handful of people that currently serve that are not residents of Danbury, and we got testimony from the mayor and um other people at that meeting that sort of limiting a pool of people that may otherwise want to serve Danbury.

So the consensus then became we'll just leave it as is, and because there's only a handful of people that are currently serving that don't live in Ambury.

And that would be for appointed appointed boards.

So this committees, council committees or committees of the council, you have to be a resident okay to be on the council.

Is that just understood, or does that need to be stipulated?

I'm pretty sure that's yes in the chart.

Yeah, because it's because it's because it's committees, the city council shall establish ad hoc committees and/or standing committees.

So it's talking specifically about the committee of the council.

Is that a resident or taxpayer?

It says residents.

To be appointed or elected to the council.

No, to be appointed to a commission.

Is it resident or taxpayer?

There's no language.

No language.

There's no residency requirement for appointed boards and commissions.

Now on page 21 is our next substantive change.

Maybe up to the threshold for accepting donations on behalf of the city of Danbury.

We upped the value before it has to go to the council to $5,000.

Page 20.

On page 22, um the chief of staff, we heard testimony.

Sorry.

Yep, sorry, but just because I wasn't here, so I apologize if these things were addressed.

But why did we remove the language that the mayor shall report the acceptance of these donations?

And on page 21, okay.

I think didn't Taylor indicate that that any donation made to the city automatically goes through and it's documented and log, so it can be accessed and seen.

Because it's automatically recorded.

Okay.

I do there's no donation that can be made that's not going to be recorded and go directly through the whatever that account is through the city.

Okay, so it's seen invisible.

Apologies for my own think about it.

Um page 22, chief of staff.

We removed the um disapproval language there to mimic.

Um, I think the mayor testified it would mimic other municipalities for his chief of staff.

Um next substantive change page 24.

We put in the language for the town clerk being appointed now.

Um the will of the commission was to remove it uh from being an elected position, make it an appointed commission where um mayor appoints council confirms, similar to how other towns do it, and then we're gonna tweak that language so for all the assistants and other employees, since they're all unionized, um, they'll be subject to the merit system.

So they'll follow whatever their union contract is if there is for whatever reason removal in that office.

Um we do add um because conversation for the town clerk in making it from elected to appointed, um, we wanted to put in qualifications and certification requirements, things like that.

So we have language in here that pretty much spells out the town clerk's duties from state statute, um, and then we have language in there that there's condition qualifications, compensation, terms of employment, um, or the town clerk um shall be established by ordinance personnel rules, applicable law law, or other regulations.

So um the city can establish the credentials if there's a requirement for um the town clerk or things like that.

So it leaves the door open for there to be those requirements imposed on that position too.

And you would maybe mention of merit language that needs to be added back earlier for the yes in the section.

Yep, it would be um in section A, the mayor shall appoint and uh remove subject to the merit system in effect of the city, all assistants and employees of the of the office.

So the language is gonna get tucked in there for these for the assistance um page 25.

We have the name changes for the departments, um, and we flagged the one for parks and recreation to just be recreation, and then we have the technology technology services department before you go 25 testimony um that was quite lengthy about the town clerk's position.

I know we move past it real quick.

You say the duty's power of the provocation competition, all that kind of stuff.

You say the duties, power, the provocation competition, all that kind of stuff established by shall be established by this charter.

And where does this charter speak to those qualifications?

Well, it says by this charter and by ordinance personnel rules, applicable law, or such other regulations.

So it can be any of those things.

So the charter says the town clerk shall possess and maintain throughout their tenure all certifications, licenses, qualifications, and other job-related credentials required by applicable law, the department of human resources, or the mayor.

So it would be that section F right above it.

That answer your question, Commissioner.

Kind of um anything else comes back, just in the commissioner.

Um page 26.

We have the cleanup language for uh six-what's now gonna be called six-four, where we had to clarify police officers and firefighters, um, because we had a subject matter expert tell us that fire officers are different than firefighters.

So appreciated that clarifying comment.

Um 27.

We had name changes to modernize um what's already currently the position for the deputy corporation council.

So we're just making sure that position title is now reflected in the charter, and currently the deputy is called the deputy.

Um name change for department of emergency management at the bottom of 27 to bring that up to what they're actually called.

Next substantive change.

Real quick.

Yeah, we had talked um no we talked about firefighters and that kind of thing.

Maybe this is not the point, but it was asked um why are certain positions here, why what is just the what's the uh point that certain positions are here and certain positions aren't?

What's the qualifier to put certain positions in the charter and and take some positions not be your I thought it was for I think they said department heads, but I thought that the HR person was going to check that.

And we also asked about police residency clause.

Uh somebody brought up the emergency management person uh as uh uh being a resident, and I thought that the HR person was going to qualify that as well.

So I know so in six- I just want to make sure I understand your question correctly.

So are you are you asking why specifically police and firefighters are named in the charter and not other positions as being appointed?

The question was why are positions, certain positions appearing in the charter where other positions exist in the city, but they don't appear in the charter, or they don't they don't appear with the qualifying information with them.

And the other question was uh the emergency management person doesn't have to is not appeared as being a resident, but the five the five piece fire and the police what were important to be um mentioned as being having to be a resident of the city.

So I know because I I do now I I remember that conversation.

That was because they needed to get right to the to the locations, yeah, quickly.

You made the point that the emergency management person needed to be could that manage emergency is I don't know, but you said according to it is a person that manages the whole emergency, right?

And I think I think we and we will get a legal opinion as to whether we can because I think there was a concern that we might not be able to require a residency for that specific position because that one's fairly regulated by state statute, I believe.

Um, but we'll triple check with council to make sure that there's nothing in the way with that.

You could if not you should, but you could.

Um I hope I'm not quoting her incorrectly that you sh could, that you're not you should appoint those people do have to be resident.

So she was going to search it to see if it was still the same, or if that was a different language.

We'll get in.

Dan and Jess, they're gonna they'll they'll get us an answer on that as quick as I can, and I'll circulate it to you guys before um before next week, so at least we can.

I think the flaw why is the library not as is uh listed, but the tax collector is.

Right.

That's what we're the line draw.

There is the catch-all language too to to answer your question, commissioner, like at the bottom of 25.

Um such other departments as may from time to time be created by the city council.

So there's probably some that were created after this charter that are in there.

Um and as far as like for the employees that are in here that are not in here, um, there's the catch-all on page 26 that all other employees of the city shall be appointed by the mayor.

So there's language in there that covers those situations.

I just think it was the will of that charter commission at whenever these were drafted that they wanted those ones in there at the time, but we're pretty we're we're protected and covered with the language currently in there, in my opinion.

But in with that then, if that's the if that's the uh clarity of it, wouldn't that imply that the next charter revision committee would then evaluate those positions and bring them forward to be put in if some of them was created if the if they didn't exist at that point?

Wouldn't that be the implication if you if that's the rationale?

Chair, if I may um between this meeting and the last meeting, I did look uh through the laws uh on whether they're whether you could require or mandate residency uh for the Office of Emergency Management.

Or the Department of Emergency Management.

I didn't see any statutory that that compelled residency.

I mean, if this commission wanted to, they have the discretion, but we're not statutes are silent on whether residency is required.

I can check again, but I think that's why HR was saying you could make it a requirement jump.

I guess it is the will of the commission.

I don't know.

And this is just my my concern with residency requirements in general is you are you're you're eliminating a large population of otherwise qualified folks that want to serve the city.

So um that's my one of nine commissioners' opinion, but obviously it's the will of the commission.

I think we got maybe Farley uh sent a memo around saying that there were six um members of certain boards and commission that are non-residents.

I'm not sure what the numbers are, you know, for these other.

I'm sure we have a ton of employees that don't live in Dan, which would be my concern with res that's my my personal concern with residency requirements outside of what's currently in there.

I know the assessor doesn't want it yet.

I would not want to disqualify people for the same reason like you said, you know, boards and commissions.

So um Tiger Woods moves into Richfield and wants to be on the Richter board.

We're gonna say no because you live 50 feet over the line.

I mean that's an extreme example, but you know, we'll give them a parade if you want to go.

Sorry, yeah.

Um, just a quick question, it's certainly self-serving.

Um if if your department is not listed in here, that you still have the same rights and protections that have always been in place, I'm assuming.

Yes.

Okay.

Just want to make sure not to you know just getting rid of things.

Unless you want us to put in language that removes the airport and there.

And we can hire issue people on the on the aviation commission.

Sure.

Okay.

Um so we were on page 27.

Uh that was a name change for deputy.

Next substantive change is not until page.

Another name change on 32.

Um change on 38.

Some technical changes on 39.

And then we have substantive changes on 40 with the technology services.

That was a recommendation from the mayor's office to move IT from finance to its own section.

Um, and then page 41.

Obviously, we have the board of ad language, which um are we okay with how it was presented now?

This would be the time to quick question.

Yeah, is it section 617 or 618?

So I think it's gonna be 618.

If we're gonna I think that's gonna be what it is is going to be end up.

It's just official bonds become 17.

Yeah, because I think we're just gonna move that one.

Um are we okay with the language that's in there as it was presented?

So that would be the language that was spoken about at the beginning of the meeting and the SHA language.

Mainly on page 42.

Yeah, so 41 it starts and then 42 and it bleeds on to 43.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna work on that, TG really.

We talked about it in substance.

Okay.

So we're gonna propose that language as it is.

Again, for the record with the changes that were agreed to by um the mooney, and so there's a meeting of the minds there, and the commission's making the decision that we're gonna stick with the SHA language for that one person, just so we're all on the same page.

Um now we're on page 44.

There was um some technical language that just took out the April 7th date and made it the first regular meeting in April for the budget.

Um technical changes in 45 46.

There's some technical changes for um the notice requirements to mirror what state statute would be yes, commissioner.

And I may have missed it earlier in the mayor's um description.

Um, but there's I thought we had read about uh this the mayor reporting to the council, the state of the city.

I don't think it's in here.

I think it's just a practice.

It's not so there's no mandate or no guidelines that says so you know if they if they're silent on that.

Yeah, I think that so the state of the city, I believe, isn't even put on by the city.

I think that's done by the chamber, and that's just when the mayor gives his speech.

And that's usually in December.

And tells you what he expects to do in the next citizen.

We don't ever get to hear what the state of the city is, and it's that bad sixty-five dollars tickets from the chamber.

No, no, it's it's aired on its broadcast in person.

Not in person.

You have to watch a recorded.

I think, but you know, uh so in theory, you know, nothing is stopping a mayor from doing his or her own state of the city that's not the one sponsored by the chamber.

I just think that's how it's that's just been the practice at the chamber partners.

It went always this way from past from what I understand.

Yeah, it used to be, I think the um I think the mayor used to give a state of the city at the first meeting of the year or something similar to that.

If we go back in the to the minute and look at my right, Mr.

Shake.

I'm sorry, I was talking to the No, you're good.

I I yeah, I I don't I don't blame me.

I don't um yeah, I I I only remember it being done on by the the chamber, but I would I would defer to the mayor's judgment on when he or she wants to give the state of the city.

I I mean as one commissioner of nine don't I I haven't when I was doing homework on the charters, I read a bunch of other city charters more than I care to admit, but um didn't see state of the cities mandated in any ones that I read.

It's a good idea.

I just I don't know if just seems like something that would be up to the judgment of the mayor.

I was just gonna say, I think the mayor can make that decision.

Oh, sure.

The platform is that there's a lot of business people in the room at the at the um chamber event, and he's got a full room full of people.

No, but don't come to city hall.

I think I would want to know that.

I'm not just the business people.

That's all.

I'm only listening to it because I'm there.

So otherwise I would not be zooming in on the mayor's state of the citizen.

And the memory talked earlier.

I think I'm just saying it should be in the public forum.

And anybody can go to not if I have 65 to pay for lunch.

I thought listen, I agree with you, Commissioner.

Um is it published?

Uh it could be read.

Is it ever written after the verbal state is given?

I think he I think he records it.

Maybe that will help post it.

The public it's supposed to be in the I thought it's probably been the public square.

I I agree with you.

I just don't think that we can we can make it.

Yeah, I don't think it's mandatory.

I think they that's probably it's been going on for probably 30, 35 years, right?

I mean, the Private Award was created after Cecil J.

Private died in 87.

So I think the first year under Mayor Sauer, that came out in like maybe 88.

And then it just became a platform where the mayors, because he initiated it, was able to speak at it, and they just started honoring, you know, somebody that they felt mirrored Cecil J privity.

I agree.

I'm just thinking that at some point the the public.

And you say recording, maybe it does helpful.

It's helpful.

I think the business people go to see who's gonna get the to be at the Cecil J Previty.

No offense, but I mean if the mayor was there having a mayor's thing, I don't think everybody's gonna run over and I mean I like the mayor very much, but I I don't think you know he can pay speak at City Hall is where we would speak, you know, if the board comments.

And we gotta get him back to the square.

Okay.

That was square.

Okay.

Um let's keep marching on page 47.

I don't think we have any more changes until page 50.

We 49 has a change.

The 49 have a change.

Bottom of 49 did have a small change.

Um agent of the directory.

Yeah, or agent of the director.

I think that came from the finance department as a suggestion.

We had some changes on page 50.

The uh oh, we heard from the finance department uh in section E there on page 50.

Um, upon the request of the mayor, but only within the last four months of the fiscal year, the city council may transfer it unencumbered appropriations.

Um finance department gave a good um rationale as to why, but only within the last four months of the fiscal year should get struck because it jams you up that you can't make any emergency appropriations prior to that time, should something should something come up or unencumbered appropriations.

So that made sense to strike that language.

Page 51, we changed a bit.

Um we got rid of the three years um projects will be deemed abandoned if three years pass.

I I think the the rationale from finance was sometimes you have projects that do take a long time to do.

So having three years in there is not um entirely reasonable in today's day and age.

Um we did have some changes on the end of the uh chapter or section H there as far as uh I'd like to make that change from uh shop and for certain circumstitutions that like I spoke about before.

Yeah.

Oh so give your purchasing.

Okay, yeah.

I'll I'll give a perfect example of why I I'm kind of emphatic on this.

Friday afternoon uh instrument landing system piece of glass broke.

I had to get it repaired.

Finance and purchasing are closed.

This had to be repaired.

I called two glass companies.

One said he'll do business, he'll do it for me immediately, but the city hadn't paid him in four months, and he didn't want to take a city PO.

I didn't have a city PO.

I actually paid on my own personal credit card.

By this statute, I could be fired for asking for reimbursement for actually was installed by a DICON.

It was our lens landing system by this paragraph, though they don't deem it an emergency.

I could be fired from contracting and asking for reimbursement.

I think it's too heavy a burden to place on department heads and those who were trying to move the department through.

And that's literally a scenario that happened on Friday.

Well, especially if city hall is closed on Friday.

Correct.

That's an issue.

No, they're here, but sometimes they're working or not working.

So sometimes, and this guy at this particular uh vendor had said you guys hadn't paid me, you took me like five months to collect six months.

I'm not gonna take a city PO.

I said I need this class.

So I just put it on my credit card.

It was only a hundred bucks.

Well, suppose it was five hundred dollars, you know.

I could be fired for doing that and asking for reimbursement.

That's what this does.

It stops it from being an automatic.

And if we remember last week, even the finance director said, yeah, that is a little bit too much to ask to have it the words like that.

Is there any objection to I think it's the right thing?

It's you know, end of life.

I think, yeah, I think that it it'll it'll uh factor in emergency situations, I think, that are done in good faith in the best interest of the city, right?

So we can we can make that change there for the and I think it was written this way because I mean, granted, I don't think you're a union employee, but because if they're a union employee, there's certain you know, regulations you have to follow with with the unions gonna be involved, and so we really couldn't have certain terminology in there because you can't fire somebody just it also directly mirrors the state statutes right 7348, the shell language, or even the director of finance thinks it's a little bit too much, yeah.

It's home rule.

I think you could as a matter of budgetary concerns.

I think you have the authority to change that.

It sounds like there's a consensus, so no objection.

We'll make that maybe cause for discipline.

Maybe cause for discipline actions actions.

That's it, Mike.

That's it.

Okay.

And then throughout the document, we do have the gender neutral language that's been fixed.

Uh borrowing.

Okay, this is a big one.

Um bonding.

We are gonna go up to five million dollars before referendum.

Um, and I think um there's good discussion, good debate to settle at the five million.

Um so are we okay with that language in there?

Okay, necessary.

Yep.

Um next change isn't until um 54.

Um language, I believe is just um antiquated language on a previous revision that got put in there, so we are taking that out, and then technical changes, and then at the end of 55, we have a substantive change.

Um we're adding or codifying into the charter reference of the code of ethics of the Danbury Code of Ordinances, um, which takes care of the conversation that we heard from the public on um ethics conflicts of interest.

So we have that language in there now.

Quick question.

If ever will Article 3 Division 2 ever change, I could say as amended.

You could say as amended.

As amended the language for the ethics.

Yep.

Referring to yes, page bottom of page 55.

55 in the look.

Yeah.

And then technical changes on 56.

We're adding in the authorities.

And we're nearing the end.

Um substantive change on 58, second to last page of the document, um, where we just take the dates out for the periodic value and just make it at least once every 10 years.

The city council will do charter revision.

Um, so that they just keep changing it every 10 years to update the date.

At least once every 10 years, yes, the conflict piece.

Yep.

I we don't seem to we don't uh think ethics is such an important issue.

I say it's conflict and interest.

But that's not necessarily ethics.

Um I brought it up a couple of time.

Uh conflict the interest.

Uh to what?

Ethics um personal how person executes uh performs himself.

And not have a conflict and interest issue.

Well, we do thought we were talking about um well we do.

So in section F, we we say the provisions of the city of Danbury's code of ethics shall apply to this section.

So we're basically incorporating by reference into this section the code of ethics.

So whatever the code of ethics is for the city applies through in the charter through this through this section.

So maybe I mean maybe what we could do is we can just change the title of the section from conflicts of interest to conflicts of interests, and maybe like a dash ethics.

So that'll so that'll cover it since we're incorporating ethics into that section.

That's on page 54.

So the ref the so the code we have the code of ethics, right?

So we have all that language, so that's all incorporated into the charter by reference.

So whatever the code of ethics is now in the charter through section F.

And also by nature of having deleted section 8.2, um the all the sections need to be numbered differently.

Uh yeah, so 84 becomes a three, right?

And so forth.

So yeah, it looks like the track the track changes just didn't go through.

Good catch.

Okay.

Um I'm just gonna reaffirm this um to get this consensus from the uh commission for proofreading purposes, making sure the numbers are in order, the letters are in order, commas are in the right spot.

Are we okay with giving that authority to the attorneys to just make sure the document is tight when it comes to proofreading?

Yes, yes.

We don't want to we don't want to end up with a document with a ton of typos.

So one last quick question and this is to corporation council.

Um to create this commission takes two-thirds, but to pass this only takes majority.

Is that stated in the charter or is it by um resolution to create the commission?

It it's I believe it's stated in state statute statute.

Okay, yeah.

Seven one nine.

That was always a quote, that was a question several years ago, whether or not it takes two-thirds of the council to create this commission.

I believe it does.

Yeah, that's home rule.

Which hopefully they did.

It's uh it's two-thirds, two-thirds to initiate charters.

Initiate this commission.

And then okay.

Two thirds to initiate the process.

Yeah, but is that it's not part of that?

It's not part of the charter, that's yeah, state statute, right?

It's state statute, but we incorporate it in the charter by reference.

By referencing it's okay.

Well, we'll make that specific.

That was an issue uh four years ago.

Okay, all right.

So that I don't think we need a motion yet because we technically can't approve it until after the next public hearing.

So what we're gonna do now is um with with the changes we went over tonight, um, council are gonna work on getting those in.

Um, so we'll just do a consensus that we're good with those changes, and then this document is gonna get circulated with the notice for the public hearing, so that way the public can see the full draft before the public hearing, and then immediately after the public hearing, we're gonna we're gonna be in the council chambers.

We're gonna um adjourn the public hearing, convene into a meeting, and then we're gonna act on approving the draft report.

So it might be a late night, depending on how much um of the public shows up to speak.

I hope a lot of people do.

Um then what we'll do is the draft will then be formalized, transmitted to the town clerk, we'll then give it to the city council, and then we'll sit idle for a little bit while the city council does their work with it, and it might come back to us probably end of July-ish.

And then uh we might have another meeting or two thereafter.

But bulk of our work um is done at this point.

So I do want to thank again everybody that was here.

Yeah, commissioner.

Okay, um, and we have a secretary tonight.

We had said we want to look at the public hearing and see if we had touched upon uh the elements of the public hearing notes.

Yes, um to see if we have if we have digestion and if and the reason is that the reason we have it, and we should be able to at least have an explanation that we let this stand because XYZ or whatever.

So I don't know who you plan on doing that.

So we uh Alisa was very good, and she went through all of the minutes and pulled everything that the commission talked about.

And you know, I'm I'm just looking at it now.

We we literally discussed everything.

So we we covered the entire charter, we had conversations on the big items term uh terms of office, lengths of the terms, um, the city council representation.

Um I can circulate this um to the commission too, so we can you can take a look.

I mean it's really impressive just how much we we did go through.

Um but I I think we've got everything.

Um we at least discussed it.

Yeah, Commissioner.

This man who was an employee something about pension elections.

I know that's not uh territory, but that's like something that seemed like the employees of the city were very adamant about.

Yeah, and so I I that just stuck out to me that we didn't have that.

But our pensions controlled by I don't know if all the city employees are with unions.

Yeah, I think there was link, I think we did.

I think we talked about the case.

The unions, just like the insurance is yeah, a lot of technically I think a lot of the eligibility does depend on the case.

And there city is phasing out pensions for all new IREs that are not used.

Non-union solo service like myself are no longer pensioned.

It's uh 401k.

And we are given the option to buy out on a day of retirement.

Okay.

That's what the private sector has 401k.

I did I did think we talked about it, and I think it was some we had somebody from the city that mentioned that a lot of it is dictated by the CBA.

It's it's also part of our purview.

Yeah, so putting it in the charter.

No, I no, I know I know what you're saying, Commissioner, just making sure that we had the conversation, but I think we did talk about it early on, because it did because it did come up.

I remember the gentleman did bring it up at the public hearing.

I mean, you just mentioned in section eight-eight, and then um survival insurance system, which we thought uh, I guess uh I I don't know.

Uh I I think I thought we mentioned it with the HR function, but we may not have a what set what section are you on?

Yeah, yeah, section.

I think eight point eight.

Yeah, eight point eight, which will become eight point seven retirement of municipal employees.

At the end where it says participate in the Connecticut municipal municipal employees retirement fund.

Oh, I'm saying yeah, to elect to old age survivors insurance and social security.

I don't know if they but he's in it, don't he?

But isn't that like if someone was part of this?

Well, no, maybe.

I mean, my company has a 401k, so I I don't have these kind of intentions.

So no clue.

I think we're used to language, right?

May elect to participate.

And then at the bottom, I presume that's may by ordinance provide composter retirement.

I think it's covered it.

But it's in the chart.

So that's all I'm saying.

It's in the charter, but I think the way that it's written allows it to change a possibility that it could change.

Right.

I didn't know what was there now.

I think it is.

I think it's yeah.

I think it's changes by ordinance, doesn't it?

Yeah.

The city could change it by ordinance or um, yeah, it's just ordinance.

City may, yeah.

There's a there's a lot of like out language in here.

Okay.

All right, so that's the whole thing.

Um so is everybody good with the roadmap moving forward?

Uh next Thursday night, seven o'clock is the public hearing.

It's not Wednesday, it's Thursday the 25th.

Um we're next door.

So 20 minutes on fifth.

Yes.

Uh no, we we voted on the date last week.

Oh, we did.

So um the dates on the calendar.

Uh something.

So we'll notice it.

Sometimes there is the draft will get circulated.

Yes, and then we will adopt it that night.

You really think we're gonna be here?

I do.

Okay, anybody have any questions or comments for other yes, Commissioner Pop?

Excuse me, sorry, Mike.

Um, I think Commissioner Armstrong brings up some points.

I just think the public concern, I mean, Mike Henry brought up tonight that the thoroughness of the public comments if they were captured completely so that they're accepted and we're addressing them.

I think I just think it would be fair that they have that understand.

I think the main thing that the public brought up was the ethics review to put it in the charter.

I mean, that came up like three or four times at that first public hearing.

And the terms and the terms for the big thing.

How do you sort out what is important to one and not the other?

Right.

That to me, I mean, sensitivity might capture it all, or it's not necessary to address each item.

So the commission has the autonomy, you know, and like there's the commission is pretty autonomous in what they can elect to take up and not take up.

We I think I think it would be accurate to say we considered everything.

I I think we went through every paragraph and considered changes we had debate.

We went back and forth on a lot.

And changing the um the council numbers, we didn't change any of that.

That was brought up by the public.

They didn't want that change.

And we didn't I think it is accurate.

It's accurate to say that I think we talked about everything.

We talked about the residency requirements versus not residency requirements.

We talked about merit, not merit systems on things.

We we talked about we talked about everything.

And that alternate fifth person came out of it.

We we talked about all of that.

Uh we talked about that.

Line by line a lot.

Yeah, we did a lot.

So that's all I have.

Um so I I think we're good tonight.

Um, I just want to make a quick comment.

Uh Dan Joe, thank you.

The work you did was immense.

We never would have gotten this far with all the questions that I had and all the intricacies and so forth.

You you nailed it each time, and you know, you wrote everything off perfectly.

I know without you guys being so diligent, just never would have happened as well as it did.

I want to personally thank you.

I agree with that.

Good job.

And shout out to Elisa behind the scenes running the show and making sure that's a give this happens too.

It is a given, it is a given, but not to be taken for granted.

But uh, but yeah, seriously, thank you to everybody for your hard work.

We're almost there.

Couple more meetings, and then we pass the ball to the city council.

And wish them the best of luck.

Um okay.

Uh is there a motion to adjourn?

Both you're scaring it initially for the record, change that last meeting date.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, so we did, yes, thank you.

Um, so when we passed our working cat meeting calendar, we still technically have one scheduled for next Wednesday.

Okay.

So if there's no objection, I would like to change that to be next Thursday after the public hearing.

So Elisa will make that switch.

So any objection.

Do I keep doing it?

You guys want to go?

So the last working meeting will now be Thursday after the public hearing.

Well, is it a formal motion you want, or is it a friendly amendment to the existing?

I think it's just for information.

There's no objection, so it's the consensus we'll switch the we'll switch the calendar.

The meeting is long.

I know we also had a caveat of keeping it within the programming of the now.

You're talking about having a hearing and then having the meeting.

Um bring coffee or a sleeping bag.

I'm not sleeping bag.

We're talking about sleeping bag on.

So uh because we have to get it uh city hall's closed Fridays, obviously.

So the earliest we could transmit it to the town clerk would be Monday, and Monday is the agenda cut off for the city council.

So we have to stay Thursday until we finish our business.

So that's the direction.

Go on to Friday or no.

Listen, we we will go as long as we're gonna be able to do it's my grants.

We have a deadline.

We couldn't do that.

So well, like we yeah, we would have to we we have to finish it Thursday.

So that's kind of uh measured.

So bring a snack.

Pack a snack.

Okay.

Now is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second second.

Any discussion?

None, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor, opposed.

Any abstentions?

We are adjourned at 854.

Thank you all very very much.