Good evening, everybody.

I'm calling the public hearing to order.

It is seven o'clock here on June 25th, 2026.

I'm gonna start us off if we could all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you all very much.

Um I just want to start it before we do the roll call.

Um, if we could please just have a moment of silence for those um affected by the earthquake in Venezuela.

So I'm gonna ask uh just for a moment of silence, please.

Okay, thank you all very much.

Um, before I read the notice, if we could do the roll call, Madam Secretary.

Certainly.

Uh I'll mark myself present.

Commissioner Armstrong.

Commissioner Britton.

Present.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Commissioner Jowney.

Commissioner McCarry.

Commissioner Putnam.

Here.

Commissioner Ribero?

Here.

Commissioner Safranik.

Here.

We have six present, three missing.

Thank you very much.

You're here.

Okay.

Um, before we start public hearing, I'm gonna read the notice.

Notice is hereby given that the City of Danbury Charter Revision Commission will hold its second public hearing pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 7-191, at which parties and interests and citizens will have an opportunity to be heard in relation to the following.

The proposed City of Danbury Charter Revision Draft Report.

Said public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 25th, 2026 at 7 p.m.

in the council chambers in City Hall, 155 Deer Hill Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut 06810.

Attest Alisa Echito, legislative assistant, and that was published in the News Times on June 17th, 2026.

Okay, um, so roadmap for the public hearing limited to residents of Danbury.

So when you come up to the mic, if you could please give your name and your address so the minutes pick you up.

We're gonna do three minutes per speaker.

So I will open it up.

Does anybody from the public wish to address the commission?

Uh good evening, everybody.

My name is Kevin Guidati.

I reside at 27 Topfield Road in Danbury, Connecticut.

Um, I'm here tonight to ask those of you in the Charter Revision Commission to slow the process of charter revision down.

Uh it's clear to me that the charter revision is important work, but this charter is not an ordinary policy document.

It defines how power is distributed, how public institutions relate to one another in our city, and how residents are represented.

The opening paragraph of the proposed charter says that we the people adopt this charter, and that every citizen and resident should have, quote, an equal opportunity to be part of the decision-making process.

I agree with that language.

In fact, that's exactly why I'm here tonight to express concern.

A charter that begins with we the people should be shaped through the process that truly belongs to the people.

Democratic processes mean engaging residents early, including those who may disagree, treating concern as educated dissent, not opposition, and giving people real time to read, question, and shape what's being proposed.

That kind of process should include community members, families, city departments, school district officials, and others directly impacted by the charter.

If those voices have not been meaningfully engaged, then the process is incomplete.

This process feels incongruous with the administration's stated commitment to community involvement and for doing their work for Danbury.

We often say that diversity is Danbury's greatest strength.

Diversity of perspective is a core part of that strength.

Bertrand Russell once wrote that we should, quote, find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than passive agreement.

He also warned that opposition should be answered by argument and not by authority, because a victory dependent on authority is unreal.

Section 6-18, the Board of Education language of the charter is a good example of why this deserves more time and scrutiny.

It says that nothing should impair the board's authority over educational policy, but it also gives the mayor and department of finance broad access to district financial records and the financial management system and allows additional financial information to be required be required, quote, from time to time.

This may be intended as transparency, which is appropriate, but in school governance, clear separation of authority matters.

And in my experience, working in public education, the strongest districts have lines, clear lines between municipal fiscal oversight and educational and operational responsibilities of the board and superintendent.

This revision appears to move Danbury further away from that norm, and it's not clear that there's been sufficient analysis or meaningful engagement with educational professional professionals about its possible impact.

And it's not clear that there's been sufficient analysis or meaningful engagement with educational professional professionals about its possible impact.

Oversight's not the same thing as operational control.

Change is not automatically progress, and charter language should not be written only for the people currently in office.

A future administration or political majority could use the broad language very differently than intended today.

If the intent is limited to auditing, budgeting, reporting, lawful cooperation, then the language should be narrow, specific, and protective of the board's independent role.

Our schools need municipal partnership, not a structure that can invite partisan influence into educational governance.

We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

And the same is true of our public institutions.

The decisions made here will shape the city, our schools, and the public trust that our children inherit.

So I have three questions for the commission tonight.

First, given the significance of the revisions, why this pace, and why not allow more time for public understanding and input?

Second, how have the public and agencies directly affected by these revisions been given an equal opportunity to be part of the decision making process before changes move forward?

And third, if the Board of Education language is intended to ensure transparency and audit cooperation, why is it written so broadly?

And where's the clear protection against financial oversight becoming operational control?

This commission has an opportunity to protect not only the substance of the charter, but the legitimacy of the process.

I'm not asking you to start over.

I'm asking you to slow down and include the people this charter is meant to serve.

Please broaden this conversation.

Invite dissent, clarify the language, separate oversight from control, and make sure residents can say that the process reflected the promise written into the charter itself.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

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

Yes, ma'am.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Lorraine Herger.

I live in Danbury on Southern Boulevard.

Um I'd like to preface by saying that since little has been shared, I am basing this on comments that I've either picked up from friends or uh in watching one of the meetings that was done.

Um I'd like to reiterate some of the points that were raised by Warren Levy and others recently in social media, where there is a lot of discussion.

I don't know if the commission has been reading that, but there is a lot of discussion on it.

And in some of the legacy media as well, such as the News Times.

So the process, and I also think I'm probably echoing what the gentleman ahead of me said, but the process seems to be uh proceeding based almost on a predetermined course.

For instance, changing the mayor's term to four years.

This seems to be heading for approval without full discussion and research and with little data presented as to why we would do this.

So for instance, Danbury is not as large as any city that has a four-year term for a mayor.

So why are we doing this?

There's really been no explanation.

Uh, with this change also, are there going to be any guardrails put in place?

For instance, do we really want uh a politician who sit in office for 50 years like they do in Washington?

Probably not.

So, what about term limits?

Uh also uh reiterating what I heard earlier, there's been little information provided to the general public about the process or where where the recommendations come from.

No agendas at public meetings, too many changes seem to have come from private communications within City Hall, which I don't think is the intention.

Uh and there's been too little time, again, with discussion of why are certain things being included for what appears to not have a lot of data surrounding it.

For instance, uh, what the former speaker said about the Board of Education changing the term limits.

What why?

So, in my opinion, the process seems to be hurried, incomplete, lacking in analysis and documentation, and let failing to show pros and cons and the repercussions that these changes will bring to the city.

So, my suggestion would be one the commission should be broadened to include nonpoliticians, people who are uh private citizens who work in private enterprise, uh, have no affiliation with City Hall.

I think that would be something that would be good.

And I also think it should be slowed down and follow what we would call good project management techniques.

Where's the data analysis?

Why is this being proposed?

What are the pros?

What are the cons?

And then at every stage, documented and brought to the public.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public wish to address.

If you guys want to line up at the microphones, it might be easier.

We can go back and forth.

My name is Jeff Harold.

I live on Foster Street.

You know, I I don't like the existing charter in parts, and I don't like some of the changes that have been proposed that are being included.

But I participated in the system.

And I'm I'm I'm very I missed, I missed the first meeting and I missed the last meeting.

Um I was at all the others.

And I don't think that the number of people that attended all those meetings would outweigh the people that are in this hall.

People didn't come to the meetings, and every meeting we had a chance to talk and present our statement to the to the commission.

They were kind enough to allow a public speaking, and that wasn't required.

And each time I spoke, every time.

Sometimes they ran out of time with me.

But the point is this.

Commission, you've done a job.

It's difficult.

Yeah, I think maybe it could have taken some more time, and maybe we should have taken some more time.

But I want to make it clear that everybody in the city had an opportunity to be heard.

Everybody.

And some of you did, but not as many as are in this room.

So I'm just disappointed in that.

I'm unaffiliated, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat.

I think we could have done better.

I think we could have done worse.

And I'd like to take this time to thank you for what you've done.

And I hope it's not over because I do think we have more to do.

But I want to make it clear that I think the system, as it was done, allowed for everybody in the public to speak if they wish to do so.

I want to make that clear.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

We'll go to Lauren next.

Good evening.

My name is Lauren Daly.

My address is 22 Spruce Mountain Road in Danbury, and I am the secretary for the Board of Education.

The following is a statement from the Board of Education formally approved at a meeting held on June 24th, 2026.

In response to the Charter Revision Commission's proposed language for section 6-17 Board of Education, we are offering the following.

We are concerned about the potential exposure of sensitive student data that is embedded in our financial system.

FERPA, or the Family Rights and Privacy Act, is a federal law that guaranteed student privacy by confining the sharing of data to the student, the parents, or guardians of the student, and immediate educational staff directly involved with the educational planning for the student.

School districts are federally mandated to protect personal data at an extremely high level.

Additionally, in the event of an accidental exposure, there are very specific and labor-intensive steps required to address the situation.

If sensitive student data were to be inadvertently exposed, it would diminish the trust that the schools have worked so hard to build with the community.

We value our relationship with the city and have worked hard to build trust and understanding.

And this continues to be an area of focus and commitment.

Fundamentally, state law establishes and separates the role of the local school board and the role of the municipal government as independent governing bodies.

We as a board do not support the introduction of language that stands in conflict with the existing state statute 10-22.

It remains our obligation to protect the interests of Danbury Public Schools and the operations of an independent board of education for the city's young people.

We are aware that the superintendent, the charter revision commission, and the legal representative representatives for both the board and the city spent considerable time and effort to find consensus on acceptable language to include in the charter.

We do not wish to diminish this work by asking for a withdrawal of the section.

However, we remain opposed to the use of the word shell in the first section of the fourth paragraph, and we request instead the use of May, suggested by our superintendent and legal counsel during these meetings.

We thank the commission for the opportunity to speak on this community process.

We appreciate the spirit of collaboration and consideration for maintaining stability for Danbury public schools, regardless of changes that the future may bring to Danbury.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lauren.

Hi.

My name is Lynn Waller, 83 Highland Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut.

I'd like to speak more than three minutes if possible.

You all did it in 11 hours.

I think I deserve more than three minutes.

Preamble.

I question why it says citizens and residents.

Citizens can be anybody in the United States and residents can live anywhere, not necessarily here, and nowhere does it say Danbury Citizens or Danbury resident.

I think that needs to be changed.

I do not agree with the Board of Ed's staggered term, because to me it has always worked well where four people run and the majority stays on.

They learn things that are going on with different things they're studying.

And if you replace the entire Board of Ed at the same time, it's going to make it very awkward for them to catch up.

They may as well lose a year just trying to catch up on what's going on.

I've sat in on their meetings and it's way over my head, so I can't imagine a newcomer understanding it instantly.

I wanted the town clerk to be a city employee and be under civil service and not beholden to one mayor or the other, whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

I just like the idea that they are here all the time and they understand the job.

They know what they need to do.

It gives them time to study and pass the test if necessary.

And well, it is necessary, but uh it'll give them time to do that, which I think is far better than the system that we're working under now.

Uh reapportionment.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble standing.

We do not approve of this correct.

I do not approve of this correction.

Uh I am uncomfortable with the mayor choosing the fifth member of the team, as it would tip the balance uh whichever side they were on, because there's usually two Democrats and two Republicans, and the mayor is whatever party he is.

There are more, and I told you before, more unaffiliated or unaffiliated or or independent uh members of the voters at the moment, and I think that you could find a member from there, even if you ask them to submit their names and they pick one.

I think that's a far better way than having the mayor be responsible for the third, fifth person for the reapportionment.

I went through it page by page.

Where will the publications be notified noticed?

I know it said in the charter that you were going to notice them, but it didn't say where.

I did not see any of the notifications for this public hearing.

I've been watching the meetings on TV after the fact.

It's the only reason I know that it's tonight.

So I'm not sure where you put them, but I can't find them.

The referendum, I know it's something you barely touched, but the number of signatures in the referendum says 10%.

I have tried to correct, collect 10% in 30 days.

It's impossible.

It has to be 10% of the voting population.

You all know that everybody isn't registered, so you have to find voters or registered people in order to sign them up.

I like that number lowered from the 10%, so at least if someone had had an issue to bring before you, it would have a chance to actually be done.

Somewhere in there it said the director of finance.

He would appoint his designee.

I don't know who the designee is or who he would pick or who would approve of his designee.

I said I wanted town clerk.

Um, one of the things I asked you to look into was pointing an ethics committee.

Uh you last you glazed over that completely.

It was hardly mentioned, it was not discussed.

Uh I would like to see an ethics committee for the public.

The one that is in the charter is for the employees.

I was told twice that when I wanted to make a complaint against something that I had to bring it to the mayor's office.

I could not do it to the ethics committee.

So you need a group in there that are the ethics committee for the public to come to if there's a problem and they don't want to bring it to a mayor, they need to have someplace where they can go and talk to.

So I asked you to look into that, and you never did.

So I would like you to consider that again.

Now I know I'm old.

I'm 85, okay.

I don't like the changing the name from the elderly services to the aging services.

Everybody's aging.

Once again, you'd be leaving the elderly folks out of things because everybody's aging, so it would cover everybody what you're saying in the charter.

I just think that's wrong.

They've mentioned the board of ed, so I'm not going to bring it up.

The only thing I was going to say is why is it in there at all?

It hasn't been in the charter ever.

Why all of a sudden are we putting it in?

I just think it's wrong.

Oh, I also asked you to look for a longer period of time from when the council gets the budget April 7th or whatever day you have chosen to change it to.

And they have one month to look through every item in that budget.

I think it's too short a period of time.

It is done without any of the public knowing what's going on or what isn't.

If it had a longer period of time, then the public might be able to come in, especially if you were talking about one of the departments that they were interested in.

And at the moment, because the ad hocs are run uh sometimes two or three in one night, it makes it very difficult for the public to be informed on what's happening.

So I think that's wrong.

Uh borrowing.

I'm concerned about borrowing five million without asking permission from anyone.

I guess I hadn't looked thoroughly into it when it was three million.

But there is no limit on this where it says that the mayor can borrow five million without having to go to the public for approval.

How often can he do that?

I mean, could he do it monthly?

Could he do it every six months?

It would indebt this city quite a bit.

I think there should be some kind of a restriction on the mayor.

And I'm not saying this mayor, any mayor, uh, any party.

I just think it's wrong to give them access to that month much that easily.

I mentioned the ethics committee.

I too am very sorry that you all have rushed this thing as quickly as you have rushed it.

You've done it in 11 hours.

I was on a charter revision commission, and it took us a year and a half.

People came in and explained what the department did, what what went on during that, what effect it would have on the public, and what it wouldn't have.

And it made a lot of sense.

And we listened and we changed the charter.

Now I'll grant you this was 20 years ago, it wasn't recently, but y'all haven't looked at it in 17 years, so it takes forever, I'm afraid.

I watched the meetings on my computer, and sadly I didn't hear much discussion on a lot of the charter charters or the pages and why.

The only answer I can think of is it was rushed to get it on the ballot for November.

Must keep it on, you all must keep it on a timeline.

Uh I know it's not an easy thing to do, uh having been on one commission.

I thank you for serving.

I thank you for speaking up as often as you did, young lady there on the end.

I thank Mr.

Putnam for asking a couple of questions.

I was quite surprised, and you too, young lady.

You asked a few questions also.

But for the most part, the lawyer seemed to have most of the push through, you know, any questions push through, any questions push through.

So thank you for listening tonight.

I really appreciate it.

I don't know if you gave me more than three minutes, but thank you.

Thank you very much.

I I round I rounded down for you, Ms.

Waller.

Uh, next, please.

Thank you.

Uh Karen Palanzo, I reside at 27 Middle River Road in Danbury.

I agree with most everything that everyone has said.

It's been a rushed process.

I think it's been a one-way dialogue.

I have not been able to attend, like Jeff said, the weekly meetings that you guys have had on Wednesday nights.

But I know when we come to these, the public speaks, we speak, and we get nothing back.

Um, so there's no dialogue.

And I think it has been a rush process.

Um, I don't agree with the four-year time frame for the elections.

I don't agree with having the zoning commission, the the board of ed, that they're all re-elected every four years, like she said, you lose the history, you lose what was going on.

There they need to be staggered like it is currently.

Um, as far as the town clerk, uh, only 11% of the towns currently, towns and cities in the city of of state of Connecticut have a town clerk appointed by the mayor of the town.

Um, it seems like it's something a new trend that people are looking at, and there's a lot of pros and cons to that.

I do like what you said about having a civil service position as opposed to appointed position or elected position.

I didn't think of that, so kudos.

Um, regarding the public notices.

I know we currently they're currently published in the newspaper, and you've removed that language and saying it you're following the state of uh Connecticut regulations, the state of Connecticut, the legislators looking at removing that because they feel it's a burden on the towns to publish in the newspapers the expense of that, and they may be changing their language.

So, what happens when that language changes and you no longer have to do that?

Regarding the town clerk, I did look up this the state of Connecticut regulation on that, and interestingly enough, the library director is also an elected position, unless it is um by charter.

Um appointed position by the mayor.

Our library director is something has to be changed in the ordinance to make that legal.

Um, it also has you remove that the mayor should report the acceptance of each donation gift request or device to the city council if it was like $1,000 and now it's $5,000, and the mayor does not have to report if any gift has been given below $5,000, only if it's above $5,000.

Um section 7.8 expenditures and counting, you're talking about that the mayor um shall ascertain the revenues for the year and general fund surplus from the preceding year will be less than the total compensations, and then you say you removed he and it says they, they, they, and I'm like, who are they?

It's not referenced.

If you're trying to reference, if we have a female mayor, then just say the mayor, you know, don't use the word um he.

Um, and I think that I don't know why the I know there's a lot of changes to titles and department names, and now the Department of Park and Rec has just become the Department of Recreation.

Um, and we have a director of recreation, but why is the director of recreation not the director of parks and regulation overseeing the parks that that person is responsible for because they don't have that oversight currently, and it's very important that that person has that.

But I agree with everything everyone said before me.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh good evening.

I'm Lori Esposito, 45 Pine Trail.

Uh, I'm the town clerk.

Um, anybody who knows me knows I could talk a lot, so I'll try to stick to the script.

Okay.

Um I've had a great privilege privilege to have been elected two times to be the town clerk of Danbury.

I've learned way too many things to list about the duties of this department.

I have learned all of these things, not from a book, not from counselors or politicians, but from the dedicated staff who patiently and continuously show me the ropes day after day.

We are here today to determine how the future of this position will be selected.

Will it go from a two-year term to a four-year term, or will it be appointed?

Likely, the words in this charter and the decisions made thereafter will no doubt change the course of the department for years to come.

So things to keep in mind are people who continue to work in this office serving Danbury's residents, regardless of who's elected or appointed, or however long their stay is, the staff remains.

It is disruptive to the office to have.

One moment, turn page.

A clerk show up every two years.

Two years isn't even enough time to become certified.

And the last quarter of your two years, you're probably gonna start to do campaigning yet again.

I thought at a time that the position should be appointed, but in the future, another mayor someday down the road may decide to remove a clerk or their assistance because there aren't enough checks and balances in place.

The point is who is leading the team is paramount paramount to the integrity, success, and reputation of the office because building camaraderie takes time.

I hope that in finalizing the charter, the commission will take great care and be very thoughtful of some of the vague language in the draft, and that you remember that how your choices affect the staff who work so hard with me to serve the residents of Danbury.

In the end, it's about stability and respect, no matter who the clerk is.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Councilman.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chairman Britton and members of the Charter Revision Commission.

My name is Ryan Hawley.

I reside at 18 Brighton Street.

I'm a Democratic City Councilman, and tonight I'm a private citizen, a lifelong Dambarian and a 13th generation nutmegger.

I support the modernized language, the gender inclusive revisions, the removal of mandatory religious language from the oath, and the structural improvements throughout the charter.

I want to specifically call out the recommendation for the four-year terms.

This is a milestone for the city.

Longer terms mean more stability, less time campaigning, and more time actually governing.

That's exactly the right direction our community should be heading.

But there's one proposed change I cannot support.

That is the removal of the town clerk as an elected office.

I will make my case in three brief arguments.

I had to trim trim these down, so bear with me.

First is the structural conflict.

Under state law, the town clerk manages absentee balloting, candidate certifications, nominating petitions, campaign finance filings, and the permanent certified results of every election the city conducts.

If this change passes, a future mayor holds direct authority over that office in which the same elections that mayor appears on the ballot.

When the town clerk is elected, they answer to the voters.

When appointed, they answer to the mayor.

That is not a check on power, that is a concentration of it.

Second, the data.

Eight of them elected their town clerk.

Every city larger than Danbury, with the sole exception of Hartford, elects their clerk.

Recently, we benchmarked our mayoral salary against our peer cities.

I asked this commission apply the same logic here.

Third, and the most telling, the proposal contradicts this commission's own recommendations.

You are recommending four-year terms because longer terms means stability, less campaigning, and more time to do the job.

Learn the technical nature of the jobs.

Why is the why isn't the town clerk getting the same opportunity?

Our current town clerk proved that being elected works.

She had no prior experience.

She inherited a great team.

Many elections were administered successfully, including a presidential election with brand new early voting.

The department was within budget.

Nearly 2.7 million dollars in projected revenue from a department of five people is expected in the coming fiscal year.

The data says keep it elected.

Our peer cities say keep it elected.

Your own four-year term philosophy says give the elected model room to grow.

There's no compelling counter-argument that survives contact with this commission's own recommendations.

These records belong to the people, not to City Hall.

The person responsible for these records needs to be accountable to the people.

Strike this proposal, preserve the elected office.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan.

Uh, Mr.

Chairman.

And honorable members of the Charter Commission.

I'm immigrant in this country.

Again, I raised two kids from this town.

It's a beautiful town.

I leave here last 48 years.

My name is Abu Karim.

I live in Lindencraft off Mill Plain Road.

Thank you for your time doing the charter commission.

Mr.

Chairman, we are sick and tired with two-year terms.

Every two years I see that there are signs and pests and banner in the town.

You are asking for the vote.

We need to have the four-year terms.

We need to give the stability.

The speaker just talk about it.

We need the more time.

Whoever is the mayor, whoever is the city council member, we need to have the more time.

I like to I like you to work for the four-year term, and I like you to do more discussion about this meeting.

Give more time.

Talk to everybody, but make sure we get the four-year terms.

And I want to thank you that I don't know any elected official is here.

The whole city is booming.

We have to agree with that.

Anywhere I go, I see a construction, our main street, our Downy Street, our millplain road, our people, our city people.

Everybody is happy.

I see the happiness in every hair.

So let's keep it up.

Let's make it four years.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Jan Maria Jagish, one coach Hill Drive, Danbury, Connecticut.

First of all, I'd like to thank this commission for their time and effort in working through this very difficult task.

I'd like to speak to two issues starting with the mayor's term.

There are several strong arguments in favor of changing the mayor's term in Danbury from two years to four years.

Whether it's the right choice is ultimately up to the voters, but these are some of the most commonly cited benefits.

More time to accomplish long-term goals.

Many major initiatives, downtown running redevelopment, infrastructure improvements, housing projects, economic development, and grant funding programs take several years to plan and complete.

A four-year term gives a mayor more time to see projects through without immediately shifting into campaign mode.

Less time spent campaigning.

Under a two-year term, a mayor is almost always preparing for the next election.

A four-year term allows more time governing and less time fundraising and campaigning.

It also provides greater stability for businesses and developers.

Companies considering investing in Danbury often prefer stable leadership.

Knowing the administration will likely remain in place for four years can make long-term planning easier.

Better continuity with state and federal funding.

Many grants and capital projects span multiple years.

A four-year term can provide more consistent leadership when working with state and federal agencies.

Lower election costs, fewer mayoral elections means lower costs for administering elections and less campaign spending overall.

Sometimes leaders avoid unpopular but necessary decisions when there's another election in only months away.

A longer term can encourage decisions that benefit the city and the long run rather than the next election cycle.

Consistency for staff for the city staff for department heads and employees often benefit from stability and uh with stable executive leadership, making it easier to implement strategic plans over several years.

That said, there are arguments, these are main arguments for keeping our or to to proceeding and having a four-year term.

For a city like Danbury, where there are ongoing projects involving downtown revitalization, infrastructure improvements, and economic development.

The second item that I wish to address is the Board of Education.

As a former teacher of 35 years, I see several reasons for staggering the Board of Education terms rather than electing an entire board at once.

Experienced members help new members understand budgets, contracts, curriculum, labor agreements, and legal requirements.

If everyone is replaced simultaneously, much of that knowledge disappears overnight.

School improvement plans, building projects, curriculum changes, and strategic initiatives often take five to ten years.

Staggering terms helps ensure these efforts aren't abruptly disrupted.

A superintendent benefits from working with a board that has some experienced members who understand the district's goals and history.

Electing an entire new board at once can result in sudden reversal of policies, creating uncertainty for teachers, parents, and students.

Staggering elections encourages more gradual change.

Veteran board members can mentor newly elected members on governance, ethics, state educational law, and board responsibilities.

Boards with a mix of experience and new members are often better equipped to evaluate long-term consequences rather than making decisions based solely on recent political issues.

Sometimes a single controversial issue dominates an election.

Staggering terms helps ensure that one election doesn't completely reshape the board based on one moment in time.

School budgets, capital projects, and collection bargaining agreements span multiple years.

Having experienced members provides continuity in financial oversight.

Balances accountability with stability.

Staggering terms still gives voters regular opportunities to change the board up, but they prevent complete turnover that could disrupt the district's governance.

Many organizations, not just school boards, use staggering terms for exactly this reason.

Corporate boards, nonprofit boards, and even legislative boards often stagger elections to balance fresh ideas with continuity, ensuring that experience is retained while still allowing voters or stakeholders to influence the organization's direction over time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, uh just raise it up a little bit.

My name is Will Sweeney, and I live at 19 Ironwood Drive.

Mr.

Chairman, the Charter Revision Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight regarding the proposed charter revision.

I first want to highlight the good and uh what has been achieved during this commission.

And in particular, I want to give a shout out to the uh four-year term cycle.

I believe that ultimately that it will benefit the city because it allows for greater focus on govern governing rather than campaigning.

And in that sense, I think it'll be an overall net positive in helping to limit the polarization which has paralyzed our country over these past few years.

However, a good revision deserves scrutiny in parts that I just don't think are there yet.

And one section in particular that concerns me enough to rise and stand to speak to you tonight is the new financial oversight language for the Board of Education.

I've been involved in school funding issues since I was in middle school.

I graduated Danbury High School two years ago, and my brother just graduated from Danbury High School this past week.

And I've been involved with many of my peers in school funding issues for a while.

And believe me, I understand the need for transparency, a need that the Board of Education and the City Council, I sure share that need.

But my concern is that the language that this in this charter uh does not necessarily fix that problem.

Instead, I think it overshoots and creates new ones.

The revision lays out new financial oversight processes for the Board of Education, and in doing so tries to guard against political leverage by stating that the council, quote, cannot directly cannot direct or control educational opportunities.

But that only rules out formal orders.

Leverage rarely shows up as a mandate.

It hides in conference rooms in carefully worded speeches and in slower cooperation with, in this case, maybe a board request.

Once the city has continuous visibility into the data, it can shape outcomes without ever issuing a directive at all.

Once the city uh in practice, the decisions that the board would normally make on their own merits start getting negotiated quietly and informally between two offices with very different incentives.

This doesn't even necessarily require bad intent.

It could be an upcoming election, a push to lower mill rates, or public pressure to reshuffle funds towards another area.

Any of it can ripple down into how the board is able to spend its own money.

And trust me, I'm going to speak from experience when I say this.

That when students and politics intertwine, it is not the students who will win.

And I firmly believe that.

I will also say something that I firmly believe, that if this language as it is now is introduced under a democratic administration, every single Republican will vote against this language for the concerns that I outlined earlier.

But I also firmly believe that if this language was introduced under a Republican administration, every single Democrat on the city council would vote against it.

Right?

Politics is not a static creature, as I think these this past decade has shown us.

And that while we can trust our current leaders right now, and I think I do, we do not know and we cannot know who will hold the reins of this city in the next coming years.

And by then, if this language passes, it will be in the charter for them to use and possibly exploit.

So I urge you, I urge you not to ruin a charter with many good provisions for our city by inserting language that is not only going to be detrimental for the future of Danbury, but will be detrimental to the students and the teachers of Danbury.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Diane LePine, 14 Lilly Drive.

Um, I'd like to thank Chairman Britton and the entire commission for your hard work, professionalism, and care in making sure to keep going back and considering the public input you received at both the first public hearing and the public present and the public present at your meetings.

I felt like you had taken notes and you made sure that you remembered to bring it up.

Maybe you didn't have a ton of public comments, which is probably what happened.

There were also eight or nine meetings that the public could have either attended or watched.

You can watch them streaming.

I myself watched seven so far.

I'm gonna try to finish that up.

So, you know, a lot of times, you know, you say we're rushing, and you didn't get a chance to figure out what they're doing, what they're talking about.

There was a lot of detail in what they taught, what the commission talked about.

And I felt like they worked really well together.

Um I would like to address um the section six-2a regarding the town clerk.

Um it's a part of the town hall that I personally use a lot.

Uh I'm 100% in favor of the town clerk position being changed from an elected position to an appointed position by the mayor, or even having it be a permanent uh position.

When you think about the scale, the importance and the difficulty of keeping the records for all of the births, deaths in Danbury and at Danbury Hospital, just and including the surrounding towns, marriage license, dog license, land records, mortgages, surveys, trade names, fishing license, food trucks, you know, uh municipal elections, uh, campaign finance absentee ballots, and I'm sure this list touches only the surface.

And then on top of that, the public is constantly there to get things that they need.

So there's just a lot to that job.

Uh I don't think we should continue to elect a new person every election who has to start from scratch to learn such a huge job.

So again, I think this position should either be appointed or a permanent part of City Hall.

Um, that's really it.

One thing that I heard tonight was uh, you know, about announcing everything in the newspaper.

Our newspaper has no circulation.

So I guess we have to go along with what the state uh statute says.

So I mean, the reason that you didn't see a publication is because you know, there's not much happening with the newstimes these days.

Um, and that's it.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you very much.

Um, Christina Sweeney, 19 Ironwood Drive.

Good evening.

Uh, first, I'd like to thank the commission for your important work on this initiative.

I'm here tonight to speak to speak specifically about the proposed charter revisions in section six-17, the Board of Education.

As an educator in another school district myself, as well as the parent of two Danbury High School graduates, I pay very close attention to what happens in Danbury schools.

I understand what a critical service public education is to our community.

I'm not only here as a resident and a parent, but also as an English teacher.

And I find the language included in this section is problematic, contradictory, effectory, and appears to be setting the city in the Board of Ed on a legal collision course down the road.

As you know, under Connecticut law, a city charter cannot override state statutes in Connecticut General Statute 10-222 explicitly grants the Board of Education the sole discretionary authority to expand its budget once it is allocated.

The problem arises in the first clause of the third paragraph.

Quote, the financial affairs of the Danbury Public Schools should be administered in accordance with such uniform municipal accounting, auditing and reporting as may be established by ordinance, charter, or lawful directive of the city applicable to municipal departments and agencies generally.

The Board of Education is not a standard city department.

It is legally an agent of the state.

The next clause attempts to soften or reverse this by saying, quote, no such procedure shall be construed to impair the statutory authority of the Board of Education over the educational policies, programs, or internal management of the school district.

So which is it?

You can't force the Board of Ed to surrender its financial systems to city rules while simultaneously claiming you aren't impairing its authority over internal management.

It's confusing.

The fourth paragraph is equally effectively and appears to be saying two entirely different things at the same time.

The first sentence states the Board of Education shall provide the mayor and the Department of Finance full access to the financial books, accounts, records, contracts, and expenditure data of the school districts for purposes of auditing, budgeting, and financial reporting.

And that's problematic on so many levels, especially with privacy issues, et cetera.

Then the following sentence appears to be an attempt to temper this by saying, quote, for the purpose of completing timely audits, the superintendent shall grant access to a designated city department of finance employee to the financial management system of the Board of Education, subject to safeguards, including student data privacy agreements to assure compliance with state and federal law.

So as a taxpayer, I completely understand the need for timely audits of the school district.

I think this is a win-win situation for the city, the school district, and for taxpayers because it protects our financial interests, safeguards student privacy, and allows the Board of Ed and School District to maintain their state granted independence.

However, the first sentence appears to grant sweeping unfettered access to all financial data and potentially use the data to actively influence school budgeting and financial reporting.

In short, I don't know if the language is purposely opaque and contradictory, but I do think it behooves us all to act in accordance with Connecticut law and clean up the language so it's clear to constituents.

Ensuring that audits are timely and accurate is important for everyone, but we need to keep the focus there instead of opening the door for potential political maneuvering.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Let's just see if the mic picks you up.

Good evening.

Warren Levy.

Warren, one second.

Mr.

Maloney's going to sit in there.

You're good.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and thank you for the courtesy of allowing me to one second.

It push the button on the microphone.

It's on.

Is it a green?

It's green.

Okay.

Excellent.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you for allowing me to sit.

I recently pulled my back out, and it's quite difficult to stand.

So I appreciate that.

Jim Maloney, 15 Worcester Heights, Danbury, Connecticut.

I would like to uh make three points in your discussion.

First, I want to thank you for your hard work.

Some people talked about 11 hours.

That's only the tip of the iceberg.

I know that.

There's been a massive amount of time and effort and attention drawn to these issues that you have debated internally.

I think you've done a commendable job.

I think it's thoughtful.

I think it's comprehensive, and I agree with large parts of it.

I also disagree with some other parts of it.

But that has to do with the natural, we're not all going to see things exactly the same way.

Secondly, let me start with the point.

And I could go into many points, but I'm going to do one positive and one not positive.

The positive, I do want to speak in favor of the four-year term.

The uh the two-year, first of all, uh, many cities larger than Danbury do indeed have four-year terms.

Many towns smaller than Danbury have four-year terms.

Um the root of the two-year term is the agricultural economy that existed in colonial and post-colonial days, where the issues that came up could be could arise and be resolved in a couple of years.

Plenty of time.

Uh as other speakers have said, and I won't go into great length, that just isn't the case anymore.

You want to build a building in in Danbury?

Uh, give me four or five, six years to do that.

Uh, you want to make a major change in roads, same thing.

You want to build a new school.

Maybe you need ten years.

Uh so the issues that a city like Danbury confront uh is no longer a two-year window.

It is a four-year window, at least.

Side point, just so that so it's clear, this has really no impact on the existing mayor.

Not because when it goes into effect, the existing mayor has already been in office for three years.

He's going to be in office for four years.

He's already had that ramp up the ability to get things done.

And given the uh the what I consider to be a very good job that the mayor is doing, he's going to be able to continue on for many years to come.

This change really impacts the next mayor of Danbury, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat.

I want that next mayor, he or she, to have two years to bring their mission, their message uh into effect.

And in the modern day, it takes at least four years.

So I would commend that to your attention.

A charter is supposed to be about the future, not about the past.

We don't need the agricultural age anymore.

We need the modern age that we live in.

Now, to the negative uh or the not positive point I want to make.

Uh, one of the things that you propose here is the creation of standing committees for the common council.

I think the common council would be badly served by that.

Uh I I think we should have a robust, strong uh city council, particularly because we have a very strong mayor form of government.

That's fine, that's a good thing, gets things done, but there needs to be a check on that.

And the check that we have is the city council.

Well, what's what's that got to do with standing committees?

I served as a member of the Armed Services Committee in the United States Congress.

Let me tell you, to an unhealthy extent, that committee was dominated by the Pentagon.

In social science literature, there's even an expression for that, which is the iron triangle, you know, of uh the way in which committees work.

I saw the same thing when I was in the legislature.

The insurance committee is on, I won't say is, was unhealthfully uh dominated uh by insurance and health insurance providers.

That's not the people, that's the industry that's supposedly being overseen by your standing committees, uh turning it on its head.

It I understand why you think it might be a good idea, or it's why some people might think it'd be a good idea.

It doesn't work that way in practice.

It works unfortunately the other way around.

And I will close by saying Danbury knows that.

If you go back and look at prior charters, Danbury used to have standing committees, but a prior charter revision got rid of them for exactly the reason I just addressed.

And we move to the system of ad hoc committees, so there's no iron triangle where the entity being overseen turns out to be in charge of the committee that's supposedly doing its overseeing.

So again, charters about the future.

Don't go back to the way it used to be.

It wasn't healthy and it was fixed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Warren, go ahead.

Good evening.

My name is Warren Levy.

I live in Pilgrim Drive, Danbury.

Off my uh normal records, I want to uh reinforce what um Jim Maloney just said.

Uh standing you have the council has all the tools necessary to uh carry out their duties by prolonging ad hoc committees.

Standing committees become a kingdom, and uh they just don't serve the community well at all.

That's uh my unwritten remarks uh that I must uh refer to.

Yes, they they shouldn't be in the in the uh we should stay with ad hoc committees.

The Danbury uh uh city charter is the public's strongest safeguard for transparency, accountability, and government.

It defines how power is distributed, how oversight is maintained, and how residents can hold their leaders responsible.

Any revision to the document must uh be show strength and not weakness for those uh uh protections.

Unfortunately, seven several parts of the current Charter Revision Commission's recommendations uh fall short on that test.

The proposal to extend the mayor's term for two years to four years is clearly an example.

Supporters claim it will improve efficiency.

Uh it really it reduces accountability.

A four-year term benefits the mayor and has no benefit to the public.

It delays uh voters' oversight, it uh it uh insulates the office that from the timely correction and concentrates power in a way that uh outsteps outsteps the uh the needs of a fast growing community.

Uh local government works best when residents can regularly uh evaluate leadership, stretching that window to four years weakens the uh the strength and the public control.

Uh the the uh the treatment of the legislative assistant um position uh raises similar concerns.

The role was created as the city council staff uh to support to uh replace the uh for uh uh the previous historical performance of the elected city clerk.

If the legislative assistance is going to function as a core administrative office of the city, then it should be a merit-based civil service position, accountable to the city council, not the mayor.

This was an office created for the legislative branch of government.

The mayor's office should not control both the legislative and the executive branch of government.

That is exactly why checks and balances exist.

One of the most troubling recommendations in charter is uh the uh revision uh proposed to eliminate the elected town clerk's office.

Uh supporters have not explained why this office should be taken away from the voters, while the mayor and the treasurer remain elected positions with exactly the same legal qualifications.

None of Danbury's top elected offices require professional credentials.

Our mayor came from a sales background, our treasurer is a funeral director, our town clerk works as a teacher's assistance.

All three earn the position the same way by winning the confidence of the voters.

So, what makes the town clerk any less important than the mayor or the treasurer?

Why should that office lose its independence and be placed under a political appointment?

The town clerk is responsible for public records and oversight role, precisely the kind of position that should remain directly accountable to the people, not appointed by the mayor.

A major city, all major cities have elected town clerks, as outlined in the Home Rule Act.

Uh eliminating it weakens actually transparency and not strengthens it.

Uh should uh actually uh should uh reduce the independence over oversight and weaken the checks and balances that uh residents rely on.

Charter revision commission uh responsibility is to modernize government when preserving accountability, the package of changes doesn't does the opposite right now.

Danbury deserves a charter that protects the taxpayers, strengthens institution independence, and ensures no office, especially the mayor, becomes insulated from public scrutiny.

Residents should re review their position carefully and consider what kind of government structure they want for the next generation.

A strong charter protects the people.

Thank you very much for your time, and I appreciate all of your efforts and time you spend in this committee.

Thank you.

Thank you, Warren.

Any other members of the public, Councilman Faye.

Good evening.

I'm Candice Fay.

I live at 31 Old Lantern Road.

I'm gonna join the masses this evening and say that I too feel as though this has been incredibly rushed, and that this document, which is our city's constitution, the most important document in the city is being crammed down our throats.

And I think that Lynn Waller was correct when she testified earlier that the purpose that this has moved more expeditiously, not just in our city's history, but in our state's history, is to get it on November's ballot and have the referendum at that time.

Brother Counsel, um, council member Hawley stated um in his presentation that uh it was a check on power, but a concentration of it.

And I think most of what the revisions that you've spent time, your time, your personal time, and I'll say thank you for that, um, doing is concentrating more power with vastly one single person, the mayor, regardless of who sits in that position during the tenure of this document.

Notably, I have to be honest.

I didn't believe that this commission passed the smell test when eight of the nine commission members had donated to the mayor's campaign.

Despite that, I would ask you to take the politics out of your current job and how you're serving our city, and to do what is always best in our city's interest.

I have an extreme issue with section 8.2, which is conflict of interest.

It only speaks to one conflict, which is monetary.

And as we all know, there are many different ways which conflicts of interest present themselves.

For example, I spoke out against Chairman Britton, who's chairing this commission, who requested the ad hoc from the city council, chaired the ad hoc on the charter revision, and then appointed himself chairman of that commission.

And concerningly, as you've heard many residents speak out against tonight, the Board of Ed revisions to this document that seeks extreme government oversight inappropriately over the Board of Education, is chaired by your mother.

I think conflicts of interest exist in many ways in this commission and in this document.

I would ask that the process does slow down, that we look at not just the two-year versus four-year term, because I understand just with the history I know in the city that when Republicans in power, they thought it was a good idea to have the four-year, and the Democrats were against it.

In fact, there's many, many quotes of still serving council members who spoke out against it.

Nothing has changed, and I'm thinking of one particular quote of our council president Peter Bizade, who said that two-year terms are better for accountability, especially when we don't have press, and that was in the year 2012.

Well, tonight we heard Councilwoman Lepine say that the News Times has no circulation.

So if that's true, we now have even less press in 2026 than we had in 2012.

What has changed?

There has been no presentation in the meetings that I've watched about what has changed to make this more effective for our city.

I I am not familiar with another city that allows one single person, the mayor, to borrow up to five million dollars.

And again, Lynn Waller was correct when she said, how often can he do that?

Is that a daily limit?

Is that a weekly minute limit?

When what are the parameters around that?

This document doesn't speak to that.

I also want to note that members of my caucus did request drafts of this document for at least the past 14 days, and those requests have been largely ignored.

We have not received anything.

So while we all want to believe in transparency and that there are no conflicts, we simply don't see that.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Any other members.

Michael Henry, 11 Corinthsel Road Danbury.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, Charter Revision Commission.

Uh starting with the preamble, and I'm going to speak about your red line changes that you've made from the existing charter.

I recommend in the preamble adding the word taxpayer.

Section 2-4 reapportionment, another language change to the red line.

The fifth member, if appointed by the mayor, should be an unaffiliated voter.

Section 2-6 vacancies.

Red line change.

Language to be changed to shall be made by the mayor and approved by the city council.

That should be added.

Section 3-3, the legislative assistant red line.

Remove that the mayor may remove the legislative assistant.

That's protections that she's wanted.

And I think we should be giving it to someone with institutional now, which stays in that position for a long period of time.

Section 5-4, other boards and commissions.

Language to be added for a residency clause, which I spoke about numerous times in every charter revision commission meeting that I made.

I was on the ad hoc committee from the start.

I made every single meeting.

And we are here now at the last public hearing or public hearing for this.

Section 6-18, Board of Education.

I encourage the commission to adopt a language requested by the Board of Ed that included May language rather than shell, as there are potential issues with state statutes to occur, possibly.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Henry.

Any other members of the public wish to Robert Mulillo, one Lois Street Danbury.

First, I want to thank you for serving.

I know some of you uh served under questionable circumstances.

I questioned it, uh, but I do uh acknowledge you for stepping up and serving diligently.

I will acknowledge that, yes, I was aware of all of the weekly meetings.

Unfortunately, Wednesdays, I can't show up to most, but I did uh watch or dial in.

I do know that you opened up to public comment for each meeting.

I would like to thank you for that.

Um, however, I still do feel like the the process was rushed, um, but I do rec recognize that you did give the due diligence to in the rush in the rush timetable, I think that you were given.

Personally, I feel like you were given a rush timetable.

Um, you did try to do the best you could in that rush timetable to get the job done that you wanted to get done.

With that being said, I want to acknowledge a couple things.

I apologize, I typed on my phone, so my eyes aren't as good as they were 20 years ago.

So I'm gonna try to uh read it hopefully um best I can.

I want to start off with the four-year term.

I am opposed to the four-year term.

I've always been a opposed to the four-year term.

Yes, as a Republican, I've been opposed to a four-year term under Mayor Bounce.

I know there's one of you up there who's who also has always been in favor of the four-year term.

So I know there's a couple of us who have been consistent, even though other people have been called out about that.

I'm curious though, when you're talking about the four-year term, when you're saying a valid reason for a four-year term is about is because you don't have to campaign.

I I am one of the few people in this room who had to campaign every two years since 2005, because my name was on the ballot every two years since 2005.

I personally, while I didn't like campaigning, I saw the value of it.

It put me in front of the voters' doors.

I can't understand why you would say a value for a four-year term is I don't have to talk to the voters.

And that's what you're saying when you're can't when you're saying you don't have to campaign.

Um, so there's less contact.

If no one, if no one else elected the representatives, um, you know, if if nobody else as elected representatives can contact the people, how do you know how you need to do what they want you to do?

I think about the importance of two-year terms.

US House of Representatives.

If anyone should have a four-year term, maybe the House of Representatives and say they have to travel to Washington, DC.

That's why the senators had six year terms, but they wanted the House of Representatives when they drafted it to return home every two years to know the will of the people.

Our state representatives, our state senators have two year terms.

Why should a Danbury representative be any different in the community that we engage and work in?

Also, I question if you're not able to get all the work done in two years, then how was Mayor Alves able to come to campaign on all those accomplishments that he did in two years?

Was he making it up, or did he get work done in two years?

I think elections prove it.

The only valid point I've actually honestly heard in favor of a four-year term is about campaign finance raising.

You know, saying you can raise more money in four years than you can in two.

I'd point to how much money Mayor Alves raised in the last election cycle, how much money both mayor alves and mayor esposito raised two years prior to that.

The finance capability is there, so I don't think that's the reason to eliminate the two-year term and take the way the requirement of elected officials being held accountable to the people.

Filling of vacancies after 60 days, Mike Henry mentioned it.

I know I'm hoping it's just an oversight.

You didn't mean to write in the council.

I understand why it was there.

If the if a if a town committee doesn't make a recommendation as to who fills the position, there needs to be a mechanism to fill it.

I think the way the constable was handled the last go-around is a good example.

Works, but I don't think the mayor should appoint an elected official.

I think it's important that you write in the charter that it still needs to be approved by the council.

You do not want a mayoral appointment of an elected official.

That gives the mayor too much authority.

Uh the town clerk, I understand the argument against an elected official.

However, if you're not gonna go with a civil servant appointment who is actually accountable to the people and has protections, then you cannot make it an appointed position.

Either keep it elected or make it uh civil service because ultimately, if you're appointed by somebody, you know where the loyalty falls because you you're gonna have fear of whether or not you're gonna be reappointed.

The legislative assistant, as Mr.

Levy noted, the legislative assistant was created to be the clerk of the council.

Go back to your set your civics class, separation of powers, checks and balances.

If the the executive branch should not have control over the legislative branch.

I know the mayor chairs the meeting, but the mayor doesn't isn't president of the council.

He just runs the meeting.

He doesn't, he doesn't handle the legislative aspects of it.

Keep it separate.

Do not allow the mayor to be the is the person who removes the legislative assistant from office.

If you need to have a mechanism for removal, remove the mayor, just make it by two-thirds vote of the of the city council, but remove the mayor from that process.

And then lastly, regarding the education language, I'm against it.

I understand why it's there.

I as a teacher, we've often wondered about the fiscal responsibilities where the money is being spent.

But I do have some strong um some some some concerns regarding whether or not it violates state statute.

Uh I can pair with my turn my phone back on.

Um, I'm I'm one uh where was that?

If it does, if you feel like it does need to be there, then please revert back to the language the Board of Ed asked.

Put the word may rather than shall.

I can tell you as a school teacher, there is information that is not appropriate for me to know that you may accidentally see.

It can happen.

Allow those those precautions to be made to protect privacy, not just of our children, but of our families.

You don't need to know what families are going through difficulties, what families may be having counseling services, what families you know may you know, maybe struggling, maybe homeless, things along those lines.

That there is need to know information embedded in those records that should not be open for public knowledge.

And I also have to question if it is appropriate, is it in the right section?

You have it less listed in the charter section dealing with departments.

Earlier in that section, you know that no city department can have legal counsel other than the corporation council.

How would that apply to the board of ed?

Would the board of ed be allowed if it existed under there to have separate legal council?

So you need to go back, I think, and look at that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Is that a hand?

Mr.

Business was that a hand?

Come on.

No, I would like to speak.

All right.

I'm gonna do Sir, do you want to go?

I mean, is it okay if we defer?

Sure, he can go.

He could go first if he likes.

I'd ask if you please come to the microphone if you're able, but Mr.

Busy, please.

Good evening.

I'm Emil Bazid.

I live at Seven Wilders Wood Way in Danbury.

And I'm hearing a lot of good comments tonight.

I'm also looking at all of the people here.

We're all Danbury people, friends, relatives, people we do business with.

So I don't see Democrats, I don't see Republicans tonight.

But I'd like to make a couple of comments just to piggyback on a few things about the city council.

Um a successful city council person is always engaging with the constituents, not just at campaign season.

So every two years is fine because if you've been doing your job campaign season, they know you because you've helped them.

Uh I know this because I won seven times.

So I don't see a reason why that should be changed.

Another reason why I don't see it should be changed is due to the fact that the city council is part of our system of checks and balances.

30 years ago, I was on the city council.

We had these discussions then.

We've had these discussions every now and then.

Um, one of the things that I've noticed over 30 years off and on and being the city council, how many people in the city don't realize the city council people are volunteers?

They are not paid politicians.

Yet they devote so much time and so much effort to do the job right, and the responsibility is enormous.

The city actually relies on the city council for its success.

Uh due to the fact that they are volunteers, it adds to the credibility and it definitely enhances the system of checks and balances.

Uh mayor's office, those are paid politicians, they're paid, they're paid elected officials.

City council, by choice over many years, they're volunteers, uh, dedicated volunteers.

Uh this these proposals that are being presented in front of us now.

Um things sound good, but when you actually think about it, successful people who are in office, if they're campaigning, they've been can they should be campaigning every day anyhow for the last two years.

And the people should know where their constituents are.

So I I don't see where the idea of taking time away to campaign is relevant.

So uh I wouldn't, I would not be uh I would not be in favor of this.

I I think there's too many features here that would um jeopardize the relevance of our city council, which ultimately would be our system of checks and balances.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Go ahead.

I'd like to say good evening to the members of this charter commission.

And I know you've been at it for a long time since April.

You're probably sick and tired of coming in every week, but that is not a reason to rush it.

I think things it's quite obvious to me that the rush is because Mr.

Alves wants to have a four-year term.

But let me speak to that also, and I will not try not to cover what has also been brought up before.

He started off with I have a quote.

This is for the excuse me, I have to find it.

Basically, he said, I want this process to be seen by all eyes.

And then he turns around and said, who's delaying this simply to be opposition and grandstanding?

There are things going on here that don't pass the smell test.

I'd like to know.

How many of you were appointed solely by the mayor and are registered democrats?

Raise your hand, please.

No.

Sir, it's an opportunity for the public to address the commission.

The commission doesn't.

I see.

Okay.

We're not going to answer.

Um I object.

Let me start with the positive.

I'm glad to see that the words of for oath of office are has been changed from so help you, God, to I do solemnly swear or affirm on the penalty of perjury that I am a resident, uh citizen at Danbury, and that's me, and I am a registered voter who is unaffiliated.

I have no politics involved here.

The mayor is getting too much power.

Appoint this one, appoint that one.

No, it's not right.

He's I see a parallel here, which really disturbs me.

It looks like what's going on in Washington.

Only the people who surround him are in his camp.

And as Ms.

Fay said, not you rejected the appointment of a Republican on this commission.

What's going on here?

Okay.

I oh uh section 289, which is up for approval ultimately by the voters.

Well, as I just said, uh I'm a little nervous.

Um it seems that everybody who steps up here has to give their name and address, except the mayor and the people who work in his office.

Uh-uh.

There is no double standard here.

He is not special.

He came up with uh no details of the death threat.

He went to the uh courthouse and asked for special permission.

He wanted to overturn the court order about probation for whoever this is.

Was it a credible death threat?

So he gets himself a bodyguard.

Who's paying for the bodyguard?

This bodyguard has now been transferred to the police department, even though we don't know who he is, and if he has call it.

He is a policeman.

Chairman Point of Order, this has nothing to do with the charter.

We need to focus on the charter in and of itself.

Okay, I'm I'm gonna direct the member for the public to please make their comments about the draft charter report.

Okay.

289 has gotten rid of God.

I would like to propose an ecumenical prayer, such as we pray for the safety of the United States and all its inhabitants, including all of our civil servants, especially our brave police and firefighters who put their lives at risk every day.

Last but not least, the members of our military, both past and present, should be uh lauded because they protect us all as well.

There is no place for a religious start to the city council meeting.

Separation of church and state.

Not everyone is Christian, not anyone is Catholic and wants to hear about the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There are many religions here.

That has to go and put it in the charter, only ecumenical prayers.

Next.

2-6 vacancies of elected officials.

There's language about 30 days and 60 days.

This should apply to the volunteer boards as well.

I can attest to the fact that only one member of the ethics commission was appointed since 2008.

The mayor was asked by the immediate past chairman, attorney Arthur Mantman to appoint somebody, and it was ignored by Farley Santos, who says, I never saw that.

Uh-uh.

Okay.

Now the Board of Exit Ethics last December had no quorum.

Why?

Because there were only three members.

And what about this reappointment of the mandated attorney who I can tell you from experience often would come in late to meetings or had to recuse himself.

Who picked the Board of Ethics?

The mayor.

Too much power in the mayor.

It needs to be checked.

Okay.

I have it on good source that there are approximately 60 vacancies across all boards.

People don't show up, and there is no quorum and nothing gets done.

And let me read two six to you.

Should the city council to make any such appointment within 60 days of the effective date of the vacancy, such appointment shall be made by the mayor no later than 30 days after the expiration of the 60 days.

Both the council and the mayor have been delinquent in appointing people.

And that has to stop.

Municipal elections.

There's pros and cons for two and four years.

That's fine.

Four years is the way it goes.

The president is only limited to eight years.

But there is nothing about term limits with him or the anybody.

This current mayor will have served four years at the end of his term.

Can he go for another eight years?

No.

Twelve years is too much.

There has to be specifically that is limited to a total of eight years.

He's not better than the president.

Now three eight public notice and hearing.

Notice it has to be at least five days, but not more than 15 days.

The June 2nd council meeting is in violation as notice was given on June 1st, with nothing on the agenda concerning the vote for salary increases.

Therefore, all proceedings on 6-2 are null and void.

Mr.

Casagrande, would you like to speak to that?

Sir, again, please direct your comments towards the draft charter that's in front of you.

Okay.

Um 31.

Excuse me, 314.

Investigation by council committee.

Five members are appointed.

They can call witnesses to testify.

And any office not elected or city employee.

I don't understand that wording.

No, you can't go after a city employee.

Excuse me, an elected official, but what's this about city employee?

What's it all about?

Um, and there they have to have written notice, and if they refuse to appear and fail to answer any questions concerning their office or official duties, they will be terminated.

Well, what about civil service and unions?

That's the problem here.

Too many people that work in this building think they are bulletproof.

Next.

Has there ever been such a case that was brought to the city council or a committee of somebody who fits this category?

Never.

Check with the legislative assistant.

It is not appropriate.

We're a culture of protection.

Excuse me, other people spoke, and don't cut me off.

I asked you to please take action.

I did I did let folks go a little bit over.

They didn't come close to 10 minutes.

But I'm going to ask you to ask you to please.

I will wrap it up.

Thank you, sir.

Investigations cannot be impartial because everybody knows everybody in this building.

Now, this new technology department.

How many members?

You didn't write that.

What are the qualifications listed, for example, other department people?

The chief of staff has qualifications, the HR head has qualifications, the superintendent of buildings who doesn't live in Danbury.

Also, the police chief.

Cybersecurity is essential today.

We don't need amateurs running this.

They should have a PhD in cybersecurity.

I don't know what Mr.

Gentile's background is.

So you need to be precise in this department.

Let me read you something.

What major concern has emerged regarding personal data in the information age?

Privacy and data security has become a major concern as vast amounts of personal information are collected, stored, and potentially misused by companies and malicious actors.

I just heard that within the next six months, AI is going to be able to break in to hear.

Okay.

All employees must wear an identification badge on a lanyard, because the people in the registrar of voters' office do not.

Okay.

Um don't want to uh impose on the time.

I know you have a meeting afterward.

What's on the agenda for the meeting?

It wasn't published.

It wasn't.

You only said this meeting and we'll meet afterward.

What are you going to talk about?

Have you already made up your minds?

Is this a fate accompli?

Enough.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

Mr.

Coello, I see you at the podium.

Do you have comments?

Yes, please.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair and members of the Charter Revision Commission.

Uh, my name is Michael Coello.

I reside at 47 East Lake Road, and I have the honor of uh serving as City Councilman at large for the City of Danbury.

Uh as one of our elected city council members, I believe I have a responsibility to speak for others, especially when asked.

And whenever I believe changes to our government document deserve careful, methodical and public discussion.

First, I want to thank each and every all the members on the commission for the time and the effort you've invested in reviewing our city charter.

I know it's not easy, and regardless of where we may agree or disagree, ultimately, I recognize that this has required a lot of hours on your part and a commitment to our city.

So thank you.

And I also want to thank everybody for coming out to speaking tonight for speaking tonight.

Uh tonight, first I'm speaking uh first and foremost as a city councilman who was elected to represent all of the people of the city of Danbury.

And as a lifelong resident, I deeply believe in transparent and accountable government.

Over the past several weeks, I have heard from residents throughout our cities.

Some support portions of the proposed changes, the majority oppose them.

Many simply have questions and are still trying to understand what these revisions would mean for the future of the city of Danbury.

One thing we all have in common is that we want to have our voices heard.

That is why tonight's hearing is so important.

The city charter is not just another ordinance, it's the framework that defines how our government operates, how the power is exercised, and how the people hold their elected officials accountable.

Because of its importance, I believe significant revisions should meet these three tests.

First, transparency.

Residents should clearly clearly understand what's changing and why.

Second, public participation.

The people who will ultimately live under these rules deserve every reasonable opportunity to participate in shaping them.

And third, most important is accountability.

Any changes should strengthen, not weaken the ability of our residents to hold the Danbury government accountable.

It's the third principle that gives me the greatest concern.

Among the proposed revisions are extending the terms of the mayor and the city council from two years to four, accreasing borrowing authority to five million dollars before any voter approval is required, and shifting responsibilities from elected positions to appointed ones.

Among the among the other ones and the serious concerns that were brought up tonight by our board of ed members.

And I appreciate as my wife serving on one all the work that you do as well.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether each proposal is a good policy or not.

But I believe we should all agree that whenever government asks the public for fewer opportunities to hold the elected officials accountable, then the burden should be on the government to clearly demonstrate why those changes are necessary.

For generations, Tambri voters have evaluated our elected officials every two years.

I was a kid.

Government should never fear accountability.

I don't mind when people call me and have questions and complain.

No problem, I'm there to listen.

The government should earn the public's trust through performance.

I also believe this conversation should extend beyond this room.

When someone supports these proposals or opposes them, every resident deserves the opportunity to understand what is being proposed before permanent changes are made to our governing document.

We must remember that the charter belongs to the people of the city of Danbury.

It doesn't belong to any one mayor, it doesn't belong to any one city council, and it doesn't belong to any one political party.

It belongs equally to every resident who calls this city his home.

In closing, I respectfully ask that the commission carefully consider the comments that were offered here tonight, and I appreciate all of them, and to continually place transparency, public participation, and accountability at the center of this process.

The decisions through this charter revision will shape our city for years to come.

Let's ensure that whatever changes are ultimately adopted, that they strengthen the public's confidence and their government, not simply its authority.

Good government isn't measured by how much power it holds.

It's measured by how faithfully it remains accountable to the people it serves.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Coello.

Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak?

Yes.

Hi, Jennifer Doran of Longridge Road.

I'm also the assistant town clerk.

I'll be real quick because I don't like public speaking.

Um I I just a lot of points, good points are brought up about the town clerk of how the town clerk should be appointed or hired or elected or whatever.

I'm just wondering who's really getting to make that decision because it was just put in here that it would be appointed.

But it sounds like there's a lot of good ideas out there, so it sounds like it's something that really should be more discussed to see what would be appropriate.

But if we do stick with what's in here, Section G of the town clerk portion where it says the duties and powers, somehow um the charter state charter got taken out of there.

And that's where a lot of not state charter, uh general statutes got taken out.

And a lot of our duties in the town clerk's office are from the state, and I think that really needs to go back in there because it's looking more like it's being taken over by the town, but we really do try to all town clerks all throughout the state become uh state rep more so, not just little towns.

We do do specific special things for our town, but majority of our rules, majority of our duties and a lot of our our things that we are told we have to do are more than just Danbury stuff.

It is state.

So I really suggest that it used to say general statutes and should say that again.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public?

Mr.

Giordano.

Hello.

Uh uh I'm Lou Giordano, uh City Council representative for the seventh ward.

I'm Lou Giordano, uh City Council representative for the seventh ward.

And uh I'm uh speaking to express my strong support.

Oh uh the address, sorry.

Uh 23 Maple Crest Drive.

Um speaking to express my strong support for the proposed updates outlined in the uh Charter Revision Commission draft report.

After reviewing the recommendations, I believe these structural changes are necessary to modernize Danbury's government and improve operational efficiency.

Specifically, I support four-year elected terms.

Extending the terms for the mayor and city council will provide leadership stability and allow the officials to focus on long-term planning rather than constant campaigning.

Updated fiscal thresholds, increasing the borrowing and spending limits without a referendum cuts unnecessary bureaucratic delay, allowing the city to respond efficiently to modern infrastructure needs.

Shifting uh the city position from elected to appointed roles ensures that critical government offices are filled based on professional qualifications and expertise rather than political affiliation.

Uh thank you to the commission for your hard work, dedication, and thoughtful leadership during this revision process.

I urge the commission and the city council to move forward with adopting these essential updates for the future of Danbury.

Thank you very much.

Any other members of the public wish to assert?

Ed Vacovitz from Thaddeus Avenue.

Um listening to everybody talking tonight, everybody made some good points about everything.

Um a little uh shaken about going from uh two to four year terms because we'll lose the accountability.

I understand that it gives the mayor and the council a little bit better opportunity to see projects through and things, but the longer that a person is in power or or in office, they gain more power with that.

And I'll be very brief, but the power that is given by the charter belongs to the people, and it should stay in the people's hands, and we should regulate how much power we give to the people that are elected.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

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

Mr.

Rickert.

Good evening.

Barry Rickert, 26th Schoolhouse Drive in Danbury.

I just speak want to speak to one particular point in the charter that I believe was not addressed.

And that is how we seat our councilmen and councilwomen.

There's an election process, and currently we do not see all 21 council people by the numbers.

It is by a requirement that the majority party that wins must relinquish a certain number of seats to the opposite party, no matter what the voting totals are.

And if you go back to an earlier comment, actually the first person who spoke said we the people.

The will of the people.

Well, if the will of the people is they want 21 council persons, men and women from the same political party, that's how it should be.

We should not dictate to our citizens how they are going to be governed.

The citizens dictate to their government how they're going to be governed.

So I did not see this addressed in any of the uh commission meetings.

I don't see it addressed in your uh recommendations.

I would like to see that addressed.

That must be eliminated.

We should have the say who gets to be a council person or a person who is elected, and who gets seated?

The charters for all of us, people who choose to serve, and the people who choose to have those to serve.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Rickert.

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

Any other members of the public?

Any other members of the public?

Seeing none, um, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion has been made.

It is seconded.

Any discussion on the motion motion to close the public hearing?

Hearing none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Any opposed, nay.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Motion carries unanimously to close the public hearing.

Do I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing?

Motion's been made.

Is there a second?

Motion's been made and seconded.

Is there any discussion on the motion to adjourn the public hearing?

Seeing none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Any abstentions?

Motion carries unanimously.

We are adjourned.

We are going to take a five minute break before we get into the regular meeting.

So we are adjourned at 8 47.

Thank you all very much for those that came out to speak.