Danbury Charter Revision Commission Public Hearing - June 25, 2026

On Thursday, June 25, 2026, the City of Danbury Charter Revision Commission held its second public hearing at 7:00 PM in the council chambers at City Hall. The hearing was called to order by the Chair, with six of nine commissioners present. After the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence for those affected by the earthquake in Venezuela, the Chair read the legal notice for the hearing regarding the proposed City of Danbury Charter Revision Draft Report published in the News Times on June 17, 2026. The hearing was limited to Danbury residents, with each speaker allotted three minutes. Twenty-five members of the public addressed the commission, offering a wide range of positions on the proposed charter revisions.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Kevin Guidati (27 Topfield Road) urged the commission to slow the process, arguing that the charter deserves more public engagement. He raised concerns about the Board of Education language in Section 6-18, stating it gives the mayor broad access to financial records and could blur the lines between oversight and operational control. He asked three questions: why the pace, how the public was engaged, and why the BOE language is so broad without clear protections.
• Lorraine Herger (Southern Boulevard) stated the process appears predetermined and lacking data, especially regarding the mayor's four-year term. She suggested broadening the commission to include non-politicians and following structured project management with documented pros and cons.
• Jeff Harold (Foster Street) defended the commission's work, noting that the public had many opportunities to speak at previous meetings. He thanked the commission but expressed disappointment that more residents did not participate earlier.
• Lauren Daly (22 Spruce Mountain Road), Secretary of the Board of Education, read a formal statement from the board opposing the use of "shall" in the fourth paragraph of Section 6-17, requesting instead the word "may" to protect student data privacy under FERPA. The board expressed concerns that the language conflicts with state statute and could expose sensitive student data.
• Lynn Waller (83 Highland Avenue) made numerous points: she opposed staggered Board of Education terms, advocated for the town clerk to be a civil service position, criticized the mayor's appointment of the fifth reapportionment member, questioned where public notices were placed, said the 10% signature threshold for referendum is too high, noted the lack of an ethics committee for the public, objected to changing "elderly services" to "aging services," and argued the mayor's borrowing authority of $5 million lacks limits. She also stated the process was rushed in 11 hours of meetings, compared unfavorably to her previous charter revision experience of 1.5 years.
• Karen Palanzo (27 Middle River Road) agreed the process was rushed and one-way. She opposed four-year terms, objected to the town clerk becoming appointed, noted that only 11% of Connecticut towns have appointed town clerks, and raised concerns about removal of newspaper publication requirements and changes to gift reporting thresholds.
• Lori Esposito (Town Clerk, 45 Pine Trail) spoke about the importance of stability in her office, noting the two-year term is disruptive and that staff remain regardless. She cautioned that vague language in the draft could affect staff and asked the commission to be thoughtful.
• Ryan Hawley (18 Brighton Street, Democratic City Councilman) expressed support for modernized language, gender-inclusive revisions, and four-year terms, but strongly opposed removing the elected town clerk. He argued three points: structural conflict (clerk oversees elections for mayor), data (all larger cities except Hartford elect their clerk), and contradiction with the commission's own four-year term reasoning. He stated the current clerk has proven the elected model works.
• Abu Karim (Lindencraft off Mill Plain Road) supported four-year terms for stability, noting he is tired of frequent elections and signs every two years.
• Jan Maria Jagish (One Coach Hill Drive) listed several arguments for four-year terms (more time to accomplish goals, less campaigning, stability for businesses and grants) and also argued for staggering Board of Education terms to retain institutional knowledge and continuity.
• Will Sweeney (19 Ironwood Drive) supported four-year terms but expressed strong concern about the Board of Education financial oversight language, arguing it could allow the city to shape outcomes indirectly without formal directives, and that this could be exploited by future administrations regardless of party. He stated that students lose when politics intertwine with schools.
• Diane LePine (14 Lilly Drive) thanked the commission for their work and professionalism, stating that the public had opportunities to attend or watch meetings. She supported making the town clerk an appointed or permanent civil service position. She noted that the News Times has no circulation, explaining why public notices might not be seen.
• Christina Sweeney (19 Ironwood Drive), an educator, found the Board of Education language in Section 6-17 problematic, contradictory, and potentially in conflict with state statute. She argued that the city cannot force the Board of Ed to surrender financial systems while claiming not to impair its authority, and that the language should be cleaned up.
• Jim Maloney (15 Worcester Heights) thanked the commission and supported four-year terms, stating they are modern and necessary for a growing city. However, he opposed creating standing committees for the common council, arguing they become dominated by the entities they oversee (the "iron triangle"), and noted that Danbury previously eliminated them for that reason.
• Warren Levy (Pilgrim Drive) opposed four-year terms (arguing they reduce accountability), supported ad hoc committees, opposed eliminating the elected town clerk (all major cities elect theirs), and argued the legislative assistant should be accountable to the council, not the mayor.
• Candice Fay (31 Old Lantern Road, Councilwoman) said the process was rushed and the document was being "crammed down our throats" to meet the November ballot. She criticized conflicts of interest (eight of nine commissioners donated to the mayor's campaign, and the chair's mother chaired the Board of Ed). She opposed the $5 million borrowing limit, the four-year term, and the BOE oversight. She asked for a slowdown.
• Michael Henry (11 Corinthsel Road) made specific recommendations: add "taxpayer" to preamble, make the fifth reapportionment member unaffiliated, require city council approval for mayoral appointments to vacancies, protect the legislative assistant from mayoral removal, add a residency clause for boards, and adopt "may" instead of "shall" for BOE language.
• Robert Mulillo (One Lois Street) acknowledged the commission's effort but felt rushed. He opposed four-year terms, favored keeping the town clerk elected or civil service, argued the legislative assistant should be removed only by two-thirds council vote, and opposed the BOE language, urging use of "may" to protect student privacy.
• Emil Bazid (Seven Wilders Wood Way, former councilman) opposed four-year terms for the council, emphasizing that council members are volunteers and that elections every two years ensure accountability. He said successful councilors engage constituents year-round.
• An unnamed speaker (Mr. Casagrande) raised many points, including that the process is rushed to give the mayor a four-year term, objected to the composition of the commission (not answered), criticized the removal of "God" from the oath, proposed ecumenical prayers, noted many vacancies on volunteer boards, called for term limits (max 8 years for mayor), questioned the $5 million borrowing limit, and raised concerns about investigations, technology department qualifications, and ID badges for employees.
• Michael Coello (47 East Lake Road, City Councilman at large) thanked the commission and speakers. He stressed that the charter must meet three tests: transparency, public participation, and accountability. He expressed concern that proposed changes (four-year terms, higher borrowing limits, appointed positions) reduce accountability. He asked the commission to carefully consider all comments and ensure the charter strengthens public confidence.
• Jennifer Doran (Longridge Road, Assistant Town Clerk) suggested more discussion on the town clerk position and recommended restoring the reference to state general statutes in that section to clarify that many duties are state-mandated.
• Lou Giordano (23 Maple Crest Drive, City Council 7th ward) expressed strong support for four-year terms, updated fiscal thresholds, and shifting elected roles to appointed ones based on qualifications.
• Ed Vacovitz (Thaddeus Avenue) opposed four-year terms because they reduce accountability, stating that power granted by the charter belongs to the people and should be regulated.
• Barry Rickert (26 Schoolhouse Drive) addressed the seating of council members, arguing that the requirement for the majority party to yield seats to the minority disenfranchises voters and should be eliminated.

Key Outcomes

• The public hearing was closed by a unanimous vote at approximately 8:47 PM.
• The commission then adjourned the hearing, with a five-minute break scheduled before a regular meeting.
• No decisions or votes were taken on the charter revisions during the public hearing; all comments were received for consideration.