Good evening.

My name is Peter Bazaid.

My name hasn't changed.

And I am designated to be the chairman of this public hearing.

And this meeting is for all of you to have an opportunity to speak on what is noticed, which is the report of the Charter Revision Commission about the charter changes.

So that is tonight's topic.

There are two microphones.

Please line up behind either microphone.

I will try to call you in turn.

Please try to keep your remarks as brief as possible and on topic, which would be whatever provisions of the charter you wish to address.

And please be respectful.

I will try to limit your your speaking to three minutes, considering there's appears to be a large number of people in the room who wish to address this topic.

And before we start, it may seem a little redundant.

I am going to take attendance again.

Councilman Coelho.

Still here.

Councilman Flanagan.

As I may.

Councilman Hawley.

Councilwoman LePine.

Councilman Salvatore.

Councilman Bazade is still here.

Councilwoman Gartner.

Councilwoman Faye.

Councilman Henry.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

My body is here.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Councilman Giordano.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Now here and arrived around 645.

Councilman Rotello.

Councilman Chinese.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Councilman Laughing House.

Councilman Dennis Perkins.

Thank you.

So tonight, when you address, when you address us, please be respectful of the people in the room and direct the issues presented.

At this point, to start off public speaking, I will recognize the mayor.

Please state your name and address, sir.

I think people know I live in Danbury.

Not sure.

Roberto Alves, 7 West Reading Road.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council.

I want to start by thanking the Charter Revision Commission Committee for working hard and putting a good product in front of the city council for you guys to debate, hear the public on, and hopefully move forward.

This process took countless meetings with the ability for the public to opine, I believe, in over a dozen opportunities.

We've been public on where I stand as an individual on a lot of those items.

But at the end of the day, as I said to the Charter Revision Committee at public hearings, talk to many folks individually and it put out there publicly.

At the end of the day, what I'm asking to you, as mayor, as a resident, as a voter of this city, is to give the Danbury public the opportunity to vote yes or no on this charter revision.

When you hear folks say that you're taking their vote away, that is the opposite of what is happening.

Once this council gets to vote yes or no on this, your yes vote doesn't change the charter.

What I'm for, what I'm against does not change the charter.

Ultimately, is the Danbury voter that gets to decide if this charter is changed or not.

So these ideas that everybody has read and will talk on.

You will have an opportunity if this council passes this to vote yes or no, hopefully in November, where we will have a high turnout for a gubernatorial election, congressional election.

And that's what we wanted to do.

We wanted to put something this important that Danbury voters haven't been able to vote on since 2008.

Items that other parties supported in years past, and the party I'm a part of did not.

That is fair.

What I'm asking you to do is to look at the draft report in front of you.

That is a good report.

That's good things that this city needs to continue to go forward.

But understand that your yes vote or your no vote isn't final.

But if you vote no, you are taking the public's ability to vote yes or no away on this.

Because right now, if this dies with this city council, like it hasn't come up in the last 20 years to actually talk about as far as we got, the Danbury residents don't get a vote.

So democracy is giving them the ability to say yes or no.

Let them say yes or no on four years.

Let them say yes or no on all the things that are in there.

So if you want to give people their vote and let them keep their vote, give them the ability to vote in November.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council?

Please approach the microphone and state your name and address.

Good evening.

My name is Jan Maria Jagish from Coach Hill Drive.

I'm here to support the proposed charter revision because I believe that modernizing our city government improves accountability and better position positions Danbury to meet the needs of a growing community.

Four-year terms provide stability and better governance.

Two year terms mean officials are almost constantly preparing for the next election.

Four-year terms allow elected officials to focus on governing rather than campaigning.

Major projects such as roads, schools, economic development, infrastructure often takes several years to plan and complete.

And longer terms provide continuity while still preserving voter accountability through regular elections.

Basically, good government requires time to plan, implement, and be judged on results.

Appointing the town clerk emphasizes qualifications.

The town clerk's responsibilities are increasingly technical and administrative.

An appointment process allows the city to select someone based on professional qualifications and experience.

If performance is poor, an appointed official can often be replaced more quickly than waiting for the next election.

The elected mayor and city council remain accountable for the appointment.

Some positions are better filled based on experience rather than campaign skills.

Increasing the bonding threshold reflects today's costs.

The current $2 million threshold was established years ago when projects cost much less.

Inflation and construction costs have increased dramatically.

A five million dollar threshold should allow the city to respond more efficiently to needed infrastructure projects.

Larger borrowing decisions still remain subject to oversight through the city's budgeting and approval processes.

This isn't about borrowing more money, it's about updating outdated dollar amounts to reflect realities.

We are modernizing our charter.

Danbury has grown substantially over the years.

The city's government document governing documents should evolve as the community grows.

These revisions bring the charter more in line with the needs of a modern city.

Accountability remains.

You can still address a common council directly.

These changes don't eliminate accountability.

Elections still occur.

Public meetings are open, budgets remain public, officials remain accountable to people, regardless of who is in the office.

Four years give officials enough time to produce measurable results.

People that claim the city will borrow too much.

Raising the threshold does not require borrowing.

It updates an outdated limit, so retune return, uh so excuse me.

So routine projects can move forward more efficiently.

Okay.

Thank you.

I understand that the charter changes.

Thank you.

I I can handle that.

Thank you very much.

To the left, um, madam, could you state your name and address?

Good evening.

My name is Melody Darrett.

I live at 15 Westview Drive in Danbury in the 109th district and the fourth ward.

Just a few houses away from my home lives a current state representative who also works in economic development for the city of Danbury.

I have never personally met him.

Maybe that seems like a small detail, but tonight I ask you to think about what that means.

I was born here, I was raised here.

Danbury is the only hometown that I have ever known.

Yep.

This is about the charter that's before us tonight.

I understand.

I'm gonna get to there.

Yet there are parts of my own city that still feel foreign to me.

Our proposed city charter states the people of the city of Danbury enable those trusted with the operation of the city to plan, prepare, and provide for the needs of our community.

I'm a first generation Filipino American and a recent college graduate with a degree in forensic psychology.

Earlier this year, I was selected to travel to Vienna, Austria with We Are One to attend the Global Fraud Summit hosted by Interpol and the United Nations.

It was my first trip to Europe, I didn't know the streets, I didn't know the language, I didn't know the culture.

I was thousands of miles away from my family and a thousand miles away from my home.

And somehow, I felt safer walking through a foreign country than I sometimes feel walking through the city that raised me.

I want to feel safe walking down my own sidewalk.

I want to know my own main street.

But sometimes Main Street feels like Gotham City, a place where women quietly warn another, don't walk alone, watch your surroundings, get back to your car, lock the doors.

But Main Street isn't some far away place, it's my main street.

There are entire parts of Danbury I don't know, not because I don't care, and not because I don't love the city, but because somewhere along the way, I learned to navigate my hometown through fear.

Is it too dark?

Should I walk alone?

How quickly can I get back to my car?

So when the charter says our government must plan, prepare, and provide for the needs of our community.

I have to ask is a young woman feeling safe enough to walk through her own hometown a community need, because to me it is.

Members of the city council, tonight you're being asked to vote on a charter revision that will shape how our government serves the people.

So I leave you with this.

When a young woman is afraid to walk down Main Street, who listens?

When a neighborhood feels disconnected, who asks why?

When someone lives only a few houses away from an elected official and still feels invisible, where does accountability live?

Our charter should answer those questions.

I should know our businesses, I should know our parks, I should know my neighbors, I should know my leaders, I should know my people, and I should know Danbury because I grew up here.

Council members, as you consider this charter, please ask yourselves one question.

Are you creating one Danbury or are you allowing invisible borders to remain?

Because Danbury's growth is not measured by only the buildings rising across our city.

It is measured by whether the young women raised beneath them feel safe enough to walk home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

To my right, please state your name and address.

My name is Ellen Cook.

I live at 56 Samplit Road, Danbury, Connecticut.

Number one, I'm in total agreement with the mayor.

I think this should go to vote in the November, because everybody in the city of Danbury, it will affect everybody's life, therefore they should have a right to see where it goes.

Number two, I'm for four years for an elected official.

And number three, I truly believe that the city clerk's office should not be an elected official.

I think they should not even be appointed.

I think either a test has to be given or the uh we have a phenomenal staff in our city clerk's office.

I don't know if anybody's ever had the privilege to work with them, but they are totally amazing, and we're very blessed to have people that are so good at what they do.

But thank you so much.

I'm not taking any more time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ma'am, please state your name and address.

Hi, my name's Ashley Fawn, and I live on William Street.

Um, um, I live in the fifth ward.

Okay.

Um my public comment is dedicated to first for uh to fallen first responder Cooper Whiteside, who served our community as a Reading Fire volunteer firefighter, and T, and most recently as a Bridgeport police officer.

And I stand before you tonight as a single mother, a business woman business owner, a woman, and a rape survivor.

I know what it feels like to ask one simple question, who is responsible and receive no clear answer.

That is why words matter.

That is why authority matters, and that is why I respectfully believe this proposed charter revision should not be adopted in its current form.

Government is not personal, it's structural.

Administrations change, people change, but the structure remains.

A city charter is the constitution of our municipal government.

It should clearly define authority and accountability, not create uncertainty.

One section concerns me, the language defining the mayor's chief of staff.

As the founder of a Connecticut nonprofit, I've worked alongside chiefs of staff across our state.

I have also studied ethics and governance through my work with Fairfield University, where I've seen firsthand how clearly defined roles in accountability are essential to maintaining public trust.

I understand how influential this unelected position can become.

And as a rape survivor, I have also learned that when power exists without clearly defined boundaries, the person with less power is often left trying to prove a line was crossed.

The proposed charter allows the mayor to assign the chief of staff virtually any task within the mayor's office, while also stating that the chief of staff cannot exercise the mayor's authority and that their actions are not those of the mayor.

That raises one important question.

Where does coordination end and executive authority begin?

Public trust depends on clearly written law, transparent government, and unmistakable unmistakable lines of accountability.

A charter should not only explain how government works when everything goes right, it should protect the public when power is tested.

My daughter deserves that protection.

Your children deserve that protection.

Our first responders deserve that protection.

Every resident of Danbury deserves that protection, and visitors to our city deserve that protection if we want them to come here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name and address.

Karen Palanzo, 27 Middle River Road.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and City Council members.

I attended both the first public meeting and the second and the last public meeting concerning the charter revision.

The Charter Revision Commission was created April 7th at a common council meeting, and they were given 16 months to propose the revisions to the charter.

It is wonderful that the public had a chance to comment, but it became apparent to me that the Charter Revision Commission members, elected officials, and city employees had their own agenda on how they wanted the charter revised.

Why do I think that?

Well, before the first public meeting, it was a well-known fact that the proposed charter revisions were to include a four-year terms for all elected officials, which indicates to me the process of revising the charter had already begun, and there's already a set agenda.

I have worked for several Fortune 500 companies, and it is a standard practice when revising an important document to redline the document and in the comments section provide an explanation for each major change.

This process was not filed by the Charter Revision Commission.

There's no single public document documenting the reasons behind the proposed changes for the public to review.

At the first public hearing, residents of the city of Denver, including myself, provided input regarding the charter.

I pointed out that other town charters had a strict ethics section.

The proposed changes, the commission decided it was not necessary to include a strict ethics section, but instead add one paragraph that references the city ordinances as follows.

Article 3, Division 2 of the City Danbury Code of Ordinances as amended shall apply to this section.

Ordinances can be changed by the common council and not by registered voters of the City of Danbury.

It was obvious at the last and second public heat meeting that the City of Danbury citizens present did not agree with many changes presented.

Many spoke about the process and that the two-month time frame was not adequate to revise such an important document.

There was concern expressed that the process was expedited, and it was stated by residents that other towns took up to a year to revise their charters.

Members of the public spoke eloquently and made many valid points regarding the process and revisions that should have been considered by the commission.

The commission was asked to slow the process and revisit the many proposed revisions in the draft document, which included vague references to job responsibilities, changes to length the terms of elected positions, increasing amount of spending that did not require pre-approval by the voters, town clerk to employ a position, and much more.

According to the meeting minutes, the committee had their own preset time frame and was unwilling to modify or adjust it, taking account public input, and even thought they were given 16 months.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Palanzo.

To my left, sir, please state your name and address.

My name is Ray McGarigal.

I live at 41 Eastgate Road, Danbury for the last 54 years.

Now it's twice as big.

When this came up before when Mayor Bouten was in charge as the mayor, I was for this change.

When you try to plan, organize, and execute something within a one-year period, and then begin the election recycle, it doesn't work.

You need to be in a position where you can have a longer term view.

I agreed with it back then and I agree with it now.

The second point is on the transparency for financing with the Board of Education.

Any organization, regardless if it's the if it's uh one of the charities in town or the public education system, if you depend on the city for funding and you depend on the state for funding, you should be transparent.

Your books need to be open.

People need to know how the spending is going to be conducted and how it's been conducted.

As far as the rest of the charter, I don't have an opinion on that at this point.

However, I would encourage that we not play politics, because the last time it was the Democrats that said no.

And this time, I hope we can overcome that.

And as a city, we can ask the voters to either support it or reject it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

To my right, please state your name and address.

My name is Mary Keating Tahan, and I live at one East Hayestown Road, Barkley Commons.

Good evening, members of the City Council.

Although I am retired now, I was a public school teacher in Danbury for over 36 years.

I have lived here all my life and deeply care about our community.

That is why I chose to come this evening and address you.

I urge you to support all the changes recommended by the Charter Revision Commission.

They have studied the charter and have made thoughtful and appropriate proposals for our diverse and dynamic community, and I thank them for their efforts.

I want to specifically address the change from an elected town clerk to an appointed town clerk.

The change is warranted now.

A town clerk is the keeper of records.

They maintain land records, deeds, mortgages, powers of attorney, and foreclosure filings.

The clerk processes vital statistics, birth certificates, marriages, and death certificates, and of course, dog licenses, and the office issues many other things to help our community.

None of those responsibilities are political in nature.

So why should we have a clerk to be an elected position?

What, for instance, would be a democratic way of doing that job versus a Republican way of handling those tasks.

How would Democrats run for the office differently from a Republican?

The job description is one of being a clerk of records.

It should not be a politician endorsed by a political party raising money for an election running on the same ticket as other elected officials, campaigning on a political platform regarding issues of the day.

The job is one of being clerk of records.

Now I know that the responsibilities also include handling absentee ballots and sometimes making decisions about which candidate should appear on the ballot or not, which is exactly the point.

A clerk should be a clerk, tasked with the responsibilities of the office, not running for elected position.

Like faraway towns, and especially losing Laurie Kay back to Wilton, the jobs are appointed.

Please let the voters which please let the voters weigh in and decide this fall.

Please send all of the charter changes to referendum.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak this evening.

Thank you, ma'am.

To my left, sir, please state your name and address.

Hello, my name is Paul Bamba at Three Crestdale Drive.

It is a no small feat to uh accomplish presenting a package like this to uh the city council.

Uh there are many, many challenges along the way, I'm sure.

Uh I commend the commission for doing what I think are very sensible and uh well thought out and careful changes to the charter.

Um I actually think it's irrelevant what my opinion is on the charter, uh, as I do actually for almost everyone in this room.

What matters will be when the city council allows the residents of Danberg to vote on it.

And I just urge that uh the city council consider that uh the residents of Danbury are we're an intelligent and uh thoughtful and caring community, we're neighbors, and we deserve the right to decide the charter that is our city constitution.

So my only my only ask uh and request would that be that you allow the residents of Danbury to cast their votes on this revised charter.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Uh to my immediate right.

Please state your name and address George O'Lachlin, 13 Maple Bridge Road, Danbury.

And I want to thank the commission for all their hard work in coming up with this document.

Um there's three points I want to address.

Uh I moved here uh over 45 years ago, and every time I vote for the mayor, I'm thinking, why are we doing this every two years?

As soon as we elect somebody, a handful of months later, we're starting a re-election campaign.

There is no time to plan, implement, and assess what we're doing.

And it's just a constantly we're coming up with something new, and and we're never committing to doing the right thing.

And I think so often throughout the the 45 years, it seems like we trip on ourselves because we don't make a plan, we don't complete it, and we don't assess whether it was done right or not.

Uh the other two points, I was on the board of education for uh well over 10 years, and we had a lot of uh controls about our spending.

And when I see that there's been a history now of some overspending, I think the council needs to have a right to look at the budgets.

There's too much money involved, too much percent of our uh hard-earned taxpayer dollars go to support our school system, and there needs to be controls, and if that means that the council has to have uh eyes on their books on some sort of regular basis, I think that's a good thing.

Uh the third point I want to address is the town clerk.

Uh, we all know that there's been political issues with it.

It doesn't need to be a political job, it should not be a political job.

We should get somebody with qualifications, and they should be, you know, go through the appropriate process of being interviewed, and we should hire somebody on a full-time basis that really knows what you have to do to be a town clerk.

Thank you very much.

And last thing is this is all about you guys aren't making the decision now.

You're making the decision to allow us, the voters, to make the decision.

And that's really a bottom line here.

And I and I request the council passes this on to get on on the ballot.

This thank you, Mr.

O'Loffin.

Sir, please state your name and address.

Uh Henry Hall, six flirtation drive Danbury.

Uh I'm calling I'm speaking in favor of this because I want the voters to understand and have a voice in the future of our city.

Uh the proposed changes aren't perfect, but they're good enough as a former programmer and current programmer still.

I know that things go into production, not when they're perfect, but but when they're good enough.

This is good enough.

I have some personal reservations on a couple of issues, but overall, it works.

And it works for me.

It should work for the city, and if it's not going to work for the city, it can always be changed in a few more years.

Uh thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

To my to my right, sir, please state your name and address.

Keegan Willemson, 43 Saddle Rock Road.

Um I'd like to speak in favor of this because you know, I want and support more efficiency, um, continuity and transparency in our government.

Uh several people who spoke in support already detailed uh a lot of the reasons why and connected those to points in the charter.

I won't repeat all of that.

Um, but I want those things for our city regardless of what party holds sway at what particular time.

Um what I'm asking for is simply the opportunity to vote on the revision.

I I I ask the the council put this forward so that the public uh can participate and have the opportunity to vote on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Uh to my left, please state your name and address.

Hi, my name is Lynn Waller, 83 Highland Avenue in Danbury.

I frequently appear before you, but not in the last few years.

I've got a very bad leg, it's a lot of effort to get in to address you.

I am sorry, I made the first public hearing, I made the second public hearing, and now I have to come back.

Had the charter revision taken the time to make some of the suggestions that I made, which is on this page, uh, I would not have to come back again tonight.

I am very discouraged by what's going on.

I do feel you're taking away my right to vote.

I say that because I politely asked the Charter Revision Commission to make some changes in their revised charter.

They chose to ignore it.

As and most of the other 25 citizens that came before you to speak, the Charter Revision Commission, not the council.

I now believe that even you have gotten instructions from on high just listening to tonight.

Remember, they didn't vote you into office.

We did.

If you leave the revised charter without making any changes, we requested you will leave us with no choice but to vote no in November.

When we find finally will have the power to have our voices heard, uh we may get to choose to replace the old charter and just say no.

Here are a few of the changes that I made, and I'm gonna make them quick because I only have three minutes again.

And I'd like to go out this time.

Uh the board of ed, I don't mind.

I don't know that much about finances, so I don't know what you're asking of them or not asking of them, but I am very concerned about the four-year terms for the board of ed, mainly because I think it should be stepped as it was in the past, which leaves the majority of the board of ed in position, and the new people come in and are helped guided by the people that were there.

If you replace the whole board every four years, you're starting from scratch, and it may take them a few years to get up to snuff.

The town clerk, it says in the thing that the mayor can pick them.

Uh it should be civil servant service or voted for on the ballot, like it is now.

I don't like the idea that the mayor is picking, I'm losing my vote.

Legislative assistant, the mayor's pick.

This should be chosen by the council as she works for the council, not for the mayor.

Reapportionment, the fifth person in the is the mayor's pick also.

Uh it should be chosen from the independent voters' role instead of the mayor's pick, because no matter which party he's in, Republican or Democrat, you're gonna end up loading the reapportionment by whatever the three people are, instead of just an independent person.

The number of signatures required to get the right of referendum is much too high.

It's 10%, and you only 10% of the registered voters.

Doesn't sound like a lot, but you only get 30 days to collect them, and it's impossible.

I know I have tried.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowler.

Oh Lord, I was just ending up.

Thank you.

Um changing back to the elderly commission instead of the aging, we all age.

We aren't all elderly.

Thank you, Ms.

Waller.

To my right, please state your name and address.

Uh good evening.

My name is Lorraine Herger.

I live on Southern Boulevard in Danbury.

Uh my comments are probably echoing many of the concerns of the other citizens who have been speaking.

However, I think they bear repeating.

Since it appears to me that since the prior meeting when I also stood up and spoke, I have seen no changes to the charter revision.

And um none of the issues were addressed.

And I I would like to speak to what Mayor Alves said.

He pointed out that this has to go to the people.

I don't think anyone who's against it in its current form is saying it should not go to the people.

What we're saying is that the issues that have been raised repeatedly need to be addressed before it goes to the people.

So I, for one, am, you know, very much for democracy and voting.

So I don't want my no vote on this version to be interpreted as we don't want to see it go to the people.

So the issues I have the four-year term, no valid reasons raised for this.

The cities in Connecticut, which have four-year terms, are larger than Danbury for the most part.

The smaller ones, there they have mayors or selectmen which don't have the power that the charter revision would also put in the hands of the single person.

I also think there should be term limits for the mayor's position if we're going to give him this much power, because that's what people have been saying in all the public hearings and on social media.

Uh secondly, the approval of the large amount of debt without a referendum.

Again, I don't think that's what Danbury needs.

Additional appointment powers of the mayor.

Again, centralizing and concentrating power.

That encourages things that we've I think we all know exists, such as uh favoritism, cronyism, nepotism, etc.

Uh so I think that all around when I look at the charter revision, I see it as being too willing to centralize power in the hands of a single person.

And I don't think that's what Danbury wants.

And finally, as a last comment, just as a comment that I think is a bit ironic.

In the past year and a half, we have seen uh this you know, wave of no kings rallies across the United States, which have been put forward by the Democrats.

Well, I think we want to elect a king now in Danbury and put all the power into the hands of one person.

So I would like to see the charter revision go back and uh address these.

Thank you, ma'am.

Well, thank you.

To my left, uh, please state your name and uh address.

Good evening, Kate Canada for Topfield Road.

Uh I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address the council this evening.

Um I also appreciate all the work that's gone into producing a charter revision draft report at the public hearing of the Charter Commission on June 25th, which occurred just before the Commission voted to move the draft report forward.

A formal statement was shared from the Board of Education to express two concerns about the proposed Section 618 title Board of Education, and I'm here this evening as a private citizen to echo those concerns to the full council for consideration.

It's important to know that the state of Connecticut considers education to be such a critical responsibility that Board of Education members, through though elected locally, are agents of the state and not the municipality.

They are instructed to operate independently of the municipality to protect the interests of the school district.

This is especially important when it comes to determining how board members advocate for funding and how the funding is spent.

It creates a firewall to prevent political interference in the funding and operation of the school district.

While the superintendent, the commission, and legal representatives for the board and the city were able to achieve consensus on much of the language included in the draft report.

The use of the word shall in the first sentence of the fourth paragraph muddles muddies a relationship defined by state statute 10-22, which explicitly separates the roles of the municipality and the board of education.

The other significant concern is around the potential exposure of sensitive student data embedded in the financial system.

The Family Rights and Privacy Act guarantees student privacy.

It provides that personal student data should only be shared with the student, the student's parents or guardians, and any immediate educational staff directly involved in the student's educational planning.

This is a federal mandate which requires protecting the data at an extremely high level in the event that such data is accidentally exposed.

There are very specific and labor-intensive steps required to address it, which strain the resources of the district unnecessarily.

An inadvertent exposure of student data would also diminish the trust between this district and the community.

Given these possible consequences, granting access to the district's full financial records and systems to any party outside of the district is a decision that should be left to the superintendent and the board.

These concerns have no connection to the actions of the current city leadership.

Both the city and the school district have partnered to work through financial challenges, and both parties have acted in good faith throughout that process for which this entire community should be grateful.

The goal for both parties was is and should be to maintain stability for the Danbury public schools.

This cooperation is the standard by which we should expect our local government to operate.

However, none of us can predict who the future leaders of Danbury will be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Elvis Novas, Forest Example Place.

I'm here tonight to express my support for the proposed charter revisions.

Our charter is the foundation or local government.

As Danbury continue to grow, I believe it's important that our government evolves to meet the needs of our community.

I support this because meaningful work in government takes time.

As someone who serves on the housing authority and Sony Commission, I see firsthand that projects involving housing, economic economic development infrastructure and planning often take years to complete.

Stable leadership gives elected officials the opportunity to focus on governing, building partnerships, and deliberating through so instead of constantly preparing for the next election.

So I'm worried that four-year attempts reduce accountability.

I see it differently.

Accountability from transparency, public engagement, and most importantly, the borders.

Four year terms simply give the risk residents the chance to judge elected officials based based on a complete record of accomplishment accomplishments.

I also appreciate that the proposed charge charter continues to recognize the importance of public participation and inclusive government.

And our government should continue to reflect and serve everyone who calls this city home.

The proposed charter reinforced the principle that our local government is seeks to serve all residents and encourage broader participation in civic life.

This proposal is bigger than any one mayor, any one city council, or any political party.

It's about creating government that can better serve Danbury today for years to come.

I respectfully ask the council to support this charter revision and allow the people down to make the final decision at the ballot boss.

Thank you for your time and for your service to your city.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, to my left, please.

Good evening, Council.

Uh General Pine, 14 Lilly Drive, and Danbury.

Um I'm just going to speak to one particular uh change in the proposal.

But first I'd like to thank uh Chairman Joe Britton for chairing uh a particularly controversial uh and difficult uh uh commission uh committee.

Um the thing I'd like to speak about tonight is the uh position of of town clerk.

Um as a realtor in this town for almost 30 years now, I deal with the town clerk's offices in the in the entire region.

Um I have a feeling that most people in this town have never set foot in the town clerk's office, nor do they really know anything about what the position means.

Um and to me, the town clerk's position is the keys to the castle here.

Um it's very it, I mean, it's as as important as the mayor's position in certain ways.

Um that being said, I really support the the the uh fact that the this should be taken off the ballot.

Uh, this should be an appointed position.

I believe in continuity.

Um, you know, it's not just about dog licenses and and and marriage licenses.

Uh, you know, that this they keep the records for every every piece of paper that goes through this town, you know, goes through the the town clerk's hands.

Uh there's just so it's such a technical job that changes all the time.

We need continuity in that office, and I really don't want it to be left up to a what can amount to be a popularity contest in a vote.

I want somebody qualified in there, and uh please take that into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

To my right, sir, please state your name and address.

My name's Randall Michael.

I live at Juniper Ridge Drive in Danbury.

I'd like first of all to thank the the council and for the charter commission for spending your time and all your effort that goes into this.

And I would like to support it.

I think it's been a long time before we should have changed the terms of our mayor, going from two to four years.

I think yeah, doing two years, you probably just get the names of everybody that works for you before you have a chance to do anything.

I think to do any kind of long-term planning for the that the city needs, you have to have at least four years.

And I would hope that the council here would pass this so that we, the voters and the taxpayers, can vote.

And anyone who doesn't like what's on there can vote no.

But I think we should all have the opportunity to vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

To my left, ma'am, please state your name and address.

Debbie Rizzo, 46 Old Musket Lane.

Uh, let me start by saying so.

Last week I spoke at this podium, and I'm still opposed uh to the couple, uh, especially the couple of issues that I have with the charter revision, and that is the appointment of town clerk.

I think if we were going to change it, it should at least go to a civil service.

Um, I do have a problem with taking two-year terms to four-year terms.

With that being said, and I think we've spoken about that at great length.

I am not opposed to opening up the charter.

I am thankful for a sister-in-law that served on the commission.

What is scary that no one's talking about some charter commission members at different times said, but I need more time.

But let's talk about this more.

I need to review more.

A lot of his answers he gave tonight.

You could have followed up with, but we have had the time.

But had we have had the time to discuss that.

That's the problem.

I'm not opposed to charter revision.

I just want to see it done right.

And this was not done right.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

To my right.

Good evening.

My name is Michelle Coelho.

I reside at 47 East Lake Road.

I currently serve as the chair of the Danbury Republican Town Committee and formerly served four years on the board of education and was a liaison for the citywide PTO.

There's been a lot of back and forth regarding the charter revision's fairness.

The admission administration has indicated this is a bipartisan process.

I need to be clear and on the record.

The Danbury Republican Town Committee was never contacted.

We were not, we were excluded from the process and had no participation in nominating the candidates for the Charter Revision Commission.

But tonight I want to speak to you as a parent and as a resident, as a parent who had to advocate for my child with learning challenges as someone who served on the board of education and as an advocate for educational freedom and parental choice.

I can speak to this personally.

Remove elections and you remove the voice of the people.

A charter is a contract between government and its people.

It answers one fundamental question.

Who has the final say?

The people or government.

Change that contract without genuine public voice, and you've taken the power away from the people.

Right now, a parent dissatisfied with our schools can vote for change within two years.

They can run on the board, they can serve on commissions, they can be a part of the solution.

Under four-year terms, the ability to create change through elections is delayed.

A parent with a freshman in high school who is dissatisfied, may not have the opportunity to vote for change until that child is graduating as a senior.

Without staggered elections, you likely to end up with a majority of inexperienced board members at the same time.

That board becomes dependent on the superintendent and the administration for guidance.

Instead of providing independent oversight, the board should oversee instead of become dependent.

Who is accountable to the people?

Nobody elections can fix it for four years, but not in four years.

Board members are informed of decisions that are already made.

This charter formalizes this pattern and undermines the elected officials.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Even though I'm very familiar with you, you still have to say your name and address.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

My name is Irving Fox.

I reside at 10 Clappard Ridge Road in Danbury.

I want to echo some of the concerns of Mrs.

Coello.

I have a lot of issues or concerns with the draft as it exists, but in the interest of time, I just want to concentrate on the change in Section 2.2-2 regarding the elimination of the stagger for Board of Education.

So, as all of you may or may not know, the terms on the Board of Education are already four years.

And for a very for a very good reason.

There's a much higher learning curve than there may be on the council or in other positions.

Really getting mentored and learning from the veterans who are on the board at the time, both Democrat and Republican, you know, people like the late Joan Hodge, the late Eileen Alberts, Kathy Molinero, Mike Fasio, and others.

And Gladys Cooper as well.

She's been there long enough to have mentored me 20 years ago.

But those were very, it was very important to get the continuity for how the board functions, what the board's role in the community is.

Mrs.

Coala referred to oversight of the kind of professionals leading the school district.

That's the reason the board of education is there, to view the community's voice against things that the superintendent, while good intention may not fit with what's best for the community.

And so moving that to eliminating the stagger, I can see the economic benefit by not having an extra election.

But really, what you're giving up is in the event that there's a widespread change on the board in any particular year, you will be flush with people who really have no experience and don't know what's going on.

And and as Mrs.

Call correctly states, that will be subject to more influence on the part of superintendent, and that'll take away some of the people's voice in what educational decisions actually happen.

And if you want to know, like kind of the results of large change in power, I was on this body two years ago when many, many people changed over.

And again, no disrespect to anyone here, but the amount of missteps, procedural issues, um resolutions that had to get redrafted in that first year, uh, was pretty significant.

And I'd rather not have to see that uh on the school board side because the the fate of our children will hang in the balance.

Uh so I hope that you consider that uh going forward.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Fox.

Sir, please state your name and address.

My name is John Cook, and I live at uh 152 South King Street for about 45 years.

I almost forgot the address.

Um first I'd like to uh uh know if I can amend the preamble.

No, only kidding.

I'm kidding.

Um I'd like to thank the uh the council up here for all the dubious reading you've done of this charter, and I'm not up to snuff on the charter, but there's a few things that I uh like to talk about.

I'd like to thank also the uh the commission that worked on the revisions.

Uh four-year term makes sense to me.

It gives us uh city stability.

Uh it gives the city an opportunity to create uh be made more a little bit more efficient, and um it creates it it what it does for the city is it allows the the mayor to make long-term arrangements for the city and long-term projects for the city, which isn't happening now.

Um we are one of the few cities, we are one of the few, having looked it up, we are one of the few cities that hasn't changed over to a four-year term.

Um I think Norwalk was one we're two.

Uh the second point I like to make is um as far as um the board of education.

I think the city should have a say or some transparency in the expenses being paid by the board of education, so we don't have the same debacles that we had in the past.

Uh and the last thing I'll share is um uh the um uh clerk's position.

Um, from my reading, I think there's it it it should be I think it should be an appointed position.

It seems those are important records, like the gentleman said earlier, and I won't repeat him.

Um it's an important position, they hold a lot of records.

I haven't been to the clerk's office, but I I assume it all the records are there and all the written records are there.

Um, and from my understanding, there are it involves a skill set that is required, and that is you can become a CMC, a certified municipal clerk, or a master uh master municipal clerk as MC, and I think that's uh someone we should have in this office with the city this size.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

I hope you'd approve this uh charter so we can move on to the voters.

Thank you, sir.

Ma'am, please please state your name and address.

Good evening.

My name is Natalie Mago, 136 Pembroke round number 30, 06A11.

Thank you.

I live here in Danbury, and I'm proud to call this city in my U.S.

hometown.

I am here tonight to respectfully urge the city council to reject the proposed charter of revision and its current form.

I came to the United States from the Dominican Republic when I was just 10 years old.

10 years old.

Danbury welcomed me.

I was the first Miss Denbury, Connecticut 2019.

Denvery shaped me.

It gave me the opportunities to change my life.

This city is more than where I live, it's my home.

I become in I became involved in civic life because I believe in democracy.

It's strongest.

It's the strongest when every voice matters.

I believe that if you work hard, serve your community.

I stood up for what was right.

And you could help create meaningful change.

I also believe the woman will have a seat at the table.

Not only will we agree with those in power, but especially when we ask those difficult questions.

Unfortunately, my own experience has challenged that belief.

Not only when we agree with us in power, but specifically when we ask difficult questions.

Thank you.

Ma'am, please state your name and address.

Eva Vega, 3 Crane Street.

Good evening, members of the city council, fellow residents.

As we all know, the city charter is one of the most important documents our city has because it shapes how our local government serves the people of Danbury, which is why conversations like this matter.

The proposals before us deserve thoughtful consideration.

They raise important questions about how Danbury should operate today and how we prepare our city for the future.

Some of those proposals include four-year terms for elected officials, which can provide greater continuity and stability in local government and reflect a model that many Connecticut municipalities already adopted.

Another proposal would allow voters to decide whether the town clerk position should become unelected.

Encouraging an important conversation about the qualifications, experience, and responsibilities of that office.

People will have different opinions about these proposals, and that is exactly why I believe they should be placed before the voters.

Because at the end of the day, these decisions should not be made for the people of Danbury.

They should be made by the people of Danbury.

There is no greater expression of democracy than giving residents the opportunity to review the proposals, weigh the facts, and make an informed decision at the ballot.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, ma'am.

Sircedural question.

But would you like me to include her name and address?

It's it's uh it's up to you if you're reading a letter from the former town clerk.

Okay.

So I uh just for the record.

This is uh this is from Jan Gagler, our former town clerk, 10 Old Hayrake Road.

One of the clearest warning signs and a shift toward centralized government is the consolidation of authority into fewer hands.

We are seeing that pattern in several of the proposed changes to the Danbury City Charter.

The most concerning example is a proposal to eliminate the elected town clerk and replace it with a memorial appointment.

Many voters do not fully understand what the town clerk does or why the position has always been elected.

The core purpose of the town clerk is to safeguard the integrity of the governmental process through its duties and functions, which are defined by the city charter and the Connecticut state statutes.

These duties include recording and maintaining all official and vital public records, licenses, and administering elections.

It is a public-facing office that must follow state law, serve residents daily, and remain independent of political influence.

Right now, the town clerk cannot be politicized by any elected official, including the mayor.

Just like the mayor and treasurer, the clerk is elected without required professional qualifications.

This is intentional.

These offices exist to provide public oversight, not technical speculation specialization.

Continuity of service comes from the certified staff who work in the office every day.

Training for certification is provided by the town clerk and its staff by the state, but the core responsibility is democratic accountability, reflecting the will of the voters.

Major cities across Connecticut and the country remain elected.

We can maintain elected town clerks for exactly these reasons.

Removing Danbury's elected clerk and expanding my rural authority would weaken checks and balances and concentrate power to the executive branch.

This proposal, along with several other charter changes that centralized authority should be voted down.

Danbury's government works best when oversight positions remain directly accountable to the people, not appointed through political changes.

Now, my concerns.

A four-year term takes away the accountability elected officials have towards the citizens.

There is nothing wrong with needing to campaign and for re election every two years.

This will diminish the people's voice and goes against core democratic principles.

Why should we be any different than any other legislative body in the state or across the U.S., including the House of Representatives?

The legislative assistant works for the legislative branch and should be hired and dismissed by the legislative body, not the executive branch.

The town clerk needs to be responsible to the people and not a political appointment.

That individual should be either a civil service employee or elected official.

Appointment does not guarantee continuity if change of office occurs.

Vacancies in elected office not filled by the council in 60 days, should still need the council to approve the recommendation of the mayor and not just allow the mayor to simply appoint.

The oversight section of the Board of Education regarding finance, I believe it's in conflict with state statutes as currently written.

Why is this section stating that current employees of the city retain their jobs being removed?

Will our current city employees and department heads be protected, or will they fall under a possible reduction of force clause?

As a union leader, that language should concern me, and I would want some guarantees in writing.

Traditions and legislative intent mean nothing in reality and need to be codified in law and charters.

Unaffiliated representative on the reapportional committee needs to be codified.

Legislative approval of mayoral appointments needs to be codified.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, your name and address.

My name is Paul McAllister.

I live at Mabel Avenue in Jeanette Heights.

I'm reading this in behalf of Mr.

Warren Levy, who was unable to attend tonight's meeting.

We should vote no on the charter changes.

We are now at the end of a Charter Revision Commission's work, and it's closing in the same way it operated throughout its meetings on a fast track.

With the minimal discussion, minimal deliberation, and minimal transparency.

The council was flawed from the very start.

With members of our members are good people, but most are not qualified for the task.

For several, it was the first time they ever read the charter.

They had no historical understanding of how the charter developed or why certain provisions exist.

Some members also had clear conflicts of interest as city employees or political contribute contributors to Mayor Ells.

That's a matter of public record.

Across the entire process, the commission met a total of 11 hours of public meetings to rewrite the city's governing document.

After attending multiple meetings, it became clear that the substantial discussions were happening outside public view.

As a result of the public meetings, they were extremely short with very little debate or analysis.

Decisions had already been made before the public was entered into the room.

Each meet meeting began with public comment, but most or none of those comments were ever discussed.

At the final public hearing, two to three hours long, Democrats, Republicans, independents, and unaffiliated residents, all spoke.

Not one issue was raised by the public by the public was discussed or considered afterwards, not one.

The commission's leadership pursued the an agenda that did not include the people they serve.

The changes they propose reduce transparency, centralized power, and weaken accountability.

They move our government away from the open balance system we know and towards a model that concentrates authority in fewer hands.

There is no major issue with the current charter.

It was served Danbury well, and we should keep the in uh what works.

So again, we should vote no on the city charter.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, your name and address, please.

Mark Stanton, Sixth Tangle Wood Drive.

Uh, I'd just like to thank the committee, uh, the revision committee and the council for all your work and for affording the public a chance to speak on on these matters.

I wanted to address the issue of uh four-year good two year to four year terms.

And I'd actually like the council to reflect, and actually the public too.

How long did it take you to get to be good at what you do, either in your job professionally or here uh as a member of public service?

So I I was a uh school teacher, and uh my first two years were pretty rough.

And uh uh thankfully I had a principal who was very forgiving and kind of saw me through it.

And I think it took me about 24 years to get good at what I did.

In my 26th year, I retired, so uh for that.

And now I work at Trader Joe's uh part-time, where I run the dairy box, and I've been doing that for about two years, and I'm only now getting good at what I'm doing.

So I think it just takes time to to be good at what you do.

Uh I made a lot of mistakes my first year, and like Mr.

Fox had said, it you know, you make mistakes.

Um I I think four-year terms are great for those for for those reasons, and I just hope you consider that.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Please state your name and address.

Uh Gary Simone, five dogwood drive, Danbury, Connecticut.

Uh, first of all, I'd like to congratulate uh this room tonight.

We really saw democracy in action tonight and a spirited and and a civil debate.

And I was really proud to be a Dan Barian tonight, being part of this process right here.

First of all, I want to congratulate.

Well, I want to say my condolences to all you people up there who worked in this commission.

I mean, nobody's perfect for Christ's sakes.

I mean, geez, you know.

Um, you guys try, you try your best.

Um, some of the character assassination is totally uncalled for, and so I I feel bad.

I apologize for that.

Uh there was no need for it.

You give your best.

Everybody has their heart in the right place, and for that I can commend you.

31 years as a municipal employee in various towns, whether it be Easton, Danbury, Bethel, Victor Park, whatever, and I'm very proud of my municipal service.

Um so, anyways, as getting to the point, I actually prepared something today, which is very rare for me.

Something down.

I fully support the proposed charter changes.

I want to thank the commission for working in a bipartisan manner, bipartisan manner to fully modernize our city's charter.

It's been a long time coming.

I've been here, I've been here since 1954.

When I uh my mom and dad had me.

This has been a long time coming.

I appreciate the work that has gone into this effort.

My answer tonight is uh for closure.

I was one of the guys that won the election but lost the election.

Okay.

Um to no fault of the three people that are up there, granted there were the rules or the rules, and uh I lost by the minority representation.

And uh it was sort of like you know, you all know I'm a baseball coach.

Like, sort of like win the state championship, and as we're all celebrating the umpire, because that's what he says, nah, that really was a strike.

So you lost.

I was devastated that night.

I'm not gonna lie to you, I was there, I was there with devastated.

And I actually felt that the it was made a harder when I'm down at the park and coaching and doing my thing, people come up to me and want to say, Gary, what happened?

I could not explain to them how come their vote did not matter.

I have no answer.

Any of you guys have that answer?

Please tell me, because I don't know what to say to them.

It's been quite quite a few people have come to me and said felt that their vote did not matter.

And to other various speakers here, we heard about the need for the vote, especially the Board of Education, et cetera, et cetera.

The same should hold true with this with this statue here.

When you win by 2,000 votes, that's more than just a by uh a nose.

All right.

Again, what do I tell those 2,000 people who voted for me?

Well, they actually asked close to seven.

What do I tell them?

Did their vote matter?

And I don't know, I don't think we've answered that question.

I like to avoid that going forward down the road.

Again, the people who are up there right now, the students with no fault of their own, got on there because of the loophole that was the that was created, I believe, back in 2008.

So I like the um I like to have them take a look at that.

Also, as a baseball coach, I'm used to, you know, when you win a game, you get the trophy.

I don't think you should be in the getting set of precedent of starting uh participation trophies.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Snowman.

Okay.

To my left, please state your name and address.

Good evening.

My name is Denise Minson, and I live at 93 Park Avenue.

Uh Danbury, not the other one.

Um, thank you all for your work and and all your consideration on on all of these um topics.

I I just want to um echo the idea about the the four-year term that that's a good idea because of the constant change and and also the campaigning.

I mean, all of the uh campaign information that we receive and it'll cut down on all of that.

Uh also um, but I like the idea that if it's a four-year term, that there's a two-year two-term limit, because then that could 12 years later, you've got a whole other population going.

So that might be considered.

The other thing is um the clerk.

Um, I've been a clerk in schools and in libraries, and you need like qualifications for that.

So I would think that the clerk should be someone who is on a civil service list or has tested for it, not necessarily been elected because you do need to have certain clerk skills.

Okay.

Uh thank you very much.

And thank you, ma'am.

Good luck to you.

To my right.

Please state your name and address.

Only three minutes, right?

Joan Belisna, 179 Cohenza Street, Danbury.

I've been listening to everybody tonight.

And I gotta tell you, first of all, to the commission, thank you for all the work you've done.

I know it isn't easy.

When people move into Danbury, they look for a lot of different things.

One of the things is education.

One of the things is how the city is run.

I don't know how many of you have ever applied for a job, but how many go in and say, Oh, yeah, I only want it for two years.

It's very difficult to do something in just two years.

I support the four-year term for the mayor.

I really do.

I think it's advantageous to Danbury.

I think it's a money saver.

You're not you're not spending money on an election every two years.

So you need to give the person the chance to move forward.

The four-year term makes a lot of sense.

Not only to the person that has been elected, as someone else spoke and said, there's a learning curve.

Let the person get going, they find out what they're doing, and the city moves forward.

Um providing the city with access to the Board of Education records.

Uh the absolutely.

When people move to Danbury, the first question is, how good's your police department?

Second question is, how are your schools?

If you want to attract people to Danbury, you've got to have a very good school system and spend the money on the students.

So I I absolutely support that.

And I really think you should too.

But the most important thing is I think you should give the people of Danbury the right to vote for the charter, whether they want the revision or whether they do not.

And that's the important thing.

So please, everybody, support the charter revision.

Give it to the voters to decide.

It's ultimately their decision.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

To my left.

Yes.

Good evening.

My name is Kathleen Troy, and I live at 92 Park Avenue.

I'm speaking this evening, first of all, to thank the Charter Revision Committee.

Mayor Alves chose nimble-minded committed volunteers who cared very much and met for eight charter revision committee dates: April 15th, May 6th, May 13th, May 20th, May 27th, June 3rd, June 10th, June 17th.

They have a life, but that's how much they cared.

Just like all of you have cared so much about your city, and everybody sitting here cares about Danbury.

So we can all agree that we are passionate about our city.

Could I get some agreement on that?

There will always be a point that I don't like or you don't like, or you don't like, or you don't like.

Now everybody here actually has an advantage if it does come up in November.

I've heard some feedback negative that oh, they're just trying to rush it for the November election.

Well, good.

Some people enjoy watching paint dry, some people like watching hay grow.

And some of us are busy people, and we'd like to get on this a yes or a no.

But let's get on it.

So it's not to anyone's disadvantage to move this forward.

And it has been a public hearing, a public comment opportunity for every one of those meetings, including the charter revision public hearing dates.

So one thing I feel really passionate about, and I hear other people feeling passionate.

We have an excellent mayor.

I'd like him to be here for four years.

I think a lot of people got used to a mess for 20 years before, but we're watching progress.

And if it's not my mayor, I still think a mayor from another party deserves four years.

I'm going to read a couple of points until my time is up.

Reasons for a four-year mayor term.

A four-year mayoral term is the most common length in U.S.

cities used by about 45% of municipalities in this country.

While not universal, it offers several potential benefits that cities of our size may consider when setting term lengths.

Because I agree, if it's four years, we could have a two-term.

It's greater experience and stability that's been mentioned.

Reduced administrative burden with fewer elections, there's less need for staff to onboard new mayors and retain teams.

Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

Time is up.

I don't want to my right, sir.

Please state your name and address.

Good evening, Council.

Larry Reifberg at 6 Irviee Drive in Danbury.

I heard the Republican town chairwoman say that maybe the Republican Town Committee should have been consulted on names for the Charter Revision Commission.

Maybe the Democratic Town Committee should have been consulted as well.

Maybe the commission should have been 15 members or seven.

Would complain about the legal fees that we would incur if we took two years to deliberate.

Maybe we should have term limits.

Maybe we should have a smaller council, which you know I supported.

Maybe the city treasurer should be appointed and tucked into the finance department.

Maybe we should have six-year terms like the United States Senate.

A group of individuals to meet to study and to propose changes to the city charter.

They've done that.

Respect their wishes.

Don't be afraid of what the voters will decide in November.

We could sit here all night.

Councilman Simone might suggest that we eliminate minority party representation.

Because he won, but he lost.

Democracy is messy, but there's no better form of government.

Previous Republican mayors have reported four-year terms.

Previous Republican town chairs have supported four-year terms.

Let the voters decide what the commission has sent to you this November.

If it's voted down, we'll start again when you determine that we should start again.

And if it's voted up, we'll try those changes and see if it works.

We have nothing to be afraid of when the voters are given the opportunity to speak.

Please pass the commission's recommendations as presented to you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Sir, please, your name and address at Vacovitz Statis Avenue.

Um, first I want to commend everybody for staying awake through all of this and actually paying attention to everybody.

This is a uh a tough thing to go through.

I know.

And thank you for working for our city here.

We heard a lot of things tonight, and obviously, this is a document that has been around for decades for Danbury and decades to come.

We need to get everything right.

Um possibly some things that were said tonight, you're thinking in the back of your head, maybe we have to look at this a little bit more.

I urge you not to rush into this to meet a deadline in November.

This is something that needs to go back, look everything over, make sure we get it right so the people in um years to come can look back and say, Boy, these were some really smart people in Danbury.

Look what they did for us.

I have to uh disagree with Mr.

Al's what he said in the beginning this morning when he came out or earlier tonight, when he came out and he said to you if you vote no tonight to pass this on, you're taking away our rights as voters.

You're not.

You're not taking our rights away.

If you pass this tonight and rush it, we'll have a chance to vote on it.

But if you say no and you bring it back to the committee to look at it again and make sure that everything is done correctly, we'll have our right to vote on it when it comes back to us.

So please take your time.

Let's not rush this.

Let's look at everybody's comments tonight, make sure we get it right.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

Sir, please state your name and address.

Farley Santos, 27 Westview Drive.

Proud resident and taxpayer of the city.

Look, tonight is not about whether each of us agree with every recommendation before you.

The truth is nobody ever will agree.

That's the essence and the nature of democracy.

As public officials, your role is to give more voice to the people, not less.

This Charter Revision Commission met more than a dozen times.

The process was public, open, and transparent.

Chairman Britton even opened public speaking before each meeting when he didn't have to.

Residents had the opportunities to participate, to offer feedback and make their voices heard, and they were.

What sits before you tonight is not one person's vision, it's a compromise forged through months of public discussion.

Now comes the most important step for each of you.

Let the people decide.

You are representatives of the people, not gatekeepers of democracy.

Your responsibility tonight is not to substitute your judgment for that of the nearly 90,000 residents.

Your responsibility is to trust them.

I trust them.

Just days ago, we celebrated 250 years of the greatest democratic experiment the world has ever known.

As someone who is proud to be a naturalized U.S.

citizen in this country, I never take that privilege for granted.

Millions around the world dream of having the opportunity as Americans have every election day.

The right to cast a ballot and decide their own future.

That is what is at stake tonight.

A vote to move these recommendations to the ballot is not an endorsement of every proposal.

It is an endorsement of the people's right to decide.

If voters agree, they'll vote yes.

If they disagree, they'll vote no.

That's exactly how democracy is supposed to work.

But if you refuse to send this to the voters, you're denying that choice.

They're right.

You end the conversation before the people ever have a chance to speak.

I trust the people of Danbury.

You should too.

Let them decide.

Let them vote.

Because if you truly believe in democracy, if you believe in what America stands for, then we should never be afraid to give the voice of the people their chance.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Sir, your name and address.

Al Robinson, 7 Melrose Avenue.

We're hearing here a new narrative.

The narratives now let the people have their chance to vote.

That's not what we're here for tonight.

And you know it.

What we're here for is a committee of the whole, where you guys have an opportunity to look at the recommendations that were put forward to you by the Charter Revision Commission.

And make changes if you feel it is your duty, it's your responsibility.

You are allowed to do that.

And then if you have any changes, it goes back to the committee, the Charter Revision Committee, goes back and forth.

Happened before.

Happened before the last time this uh charter was in front of you guys, and it pertained to four-year terms.

And it went back and forth.

And eventually, after that it was all done, then it went to the voters.

So let's stop playing games here.

Nobody's talking about not allowing the people to have their say.

Trust me, we want to have our say in November.

But what we're talking about here is a lot of concerns about the process and how did we get here?

Again, you know very well because I talked the last time.

I was at the other charter revision when it was done the last time.

I know how long it takes.

I talked to the chairperson all the time, did multiple interviews with that person.

He told me one of the biggest hurdles he had was at the beginning because it's the learning curve to learn this charter.

It's a learning curve.

And it takes more than 11 hours.

It really does.

Which brings me, and I'm not going to get into all the details of this in the charter, um, the charter revision of the proposals or anything, because we have plenty of time.

There's going to be plenty more meetings.

What I have to talk about here is questions about how we got here.

And I think that members of this committee should be able to talk to ask questions out of the members who drafted this thing, the members of the committee, as well as the chairperson of the committee.

Outside of the purview of the other members of the committee.

There's a lot of serious questions that we do not have.

I would like to know from the mayor once again, the previous mayors.

He talked about transparency.

The previous mayor had invited a solicited membership from the Democratic Town Committee and the Republican Town Committee.

Three and three, and then he had three.

We didn't have it this time.

What we had here is the mayor who gave us eight individuals who had directly either contributions or campaign for the mayor.

That's something that should concern all of us because it gives the impression that this thing is tainted.

And I would also like to know, since it was 11 hours to put this stuff all together.

I looked at these recommendations here.

There's a lot.

A lot more than happened the last time.

It's amazing.

I would like to know whether or not these things were done by the mayor's office.

Miss State your name and address.

Jennifer Doran, Long Ridge Road.

I'm also the assistant town clerk.

So I heard a lot of statements made that nobody knows what the town clerk's office does.

And I believe the commission doesn't know, council doesn't know, administration doesn't know, and a lot of the public doesn't know.

And I think that's the problem with why it's getting decided of the the some of the wording that are were put into the charter.

Like the biggest thing is about the the duties and and you know who's who's deciding what these duties are.

The choices could have been elected two-year, elected, four-year, appointed, or hired.

Um the town clerk's office as a whole would love to have someone that knows what they're doing, has some skills, maybe some certification, whatever, and be there years on so that we don't have to start over every time there's an election.

Appointing a town clerk isn't really taking that away if it's under the control of the mayor, because then if another mayor comes in, they may decide, well, we want our town clerk in there, and then we start all over again.

It would be better to have a hired person.

So appointed is something I'm very against.

I understand people want um elected, but then you're electing just anybody.

If none of you know what the town clerk's office does, how are you gonna put the right person in?

And really, are the people picking or the the committee, the the parties picking, because they're putting someone on the ballot for you.

So who's really picking that?

Um, it would have been nice if the town clerk's office personnel had been questioned about what would be good or what would be a good choice, or what would we like to see, since we're the ones most directly affected by it, but we want to put someone there because we work for the people.

We don't just work for Danbury, though, we work for the state.

Um, I read someone said the town clerk's office duties are set by the general statutes.

The office is required in every town, and the purpose is to ensure that information flows from the state to the local community, and in addition to producing and collecting revenue for the state of Connecticut as well as for the city.

We're not just here for Danbury, we're here from for Connecticut, and it's to keep all of Connecticut as a whole because we are involved in some elections or partial portions of elections, but we have people coming into our office from all different states, let alone Danbury.

We don't just serve the residents.

So we would like to see someone in there that is skilled.

Once they get good at the job, it takes time to get good of a job.

Yes, it does.

You can't even get certified before two and a half years.

So we would like to see someone be able to stay there and get good at what they do.

I'm good at what I do.

I've been there a long time.

It'd be nice to have somebody who gets to stay there and help.

The way the charter is written now, it's someone to just supervise, put their feet up, and just have an elected person put their feet up and just sit back and watch us all do all the work.

And and that's what it's been for some.

It's not all the town clerks have been that, but some have.

Um, so the elected, all right.

Some people are for it because the people have a say, but do the people really know what they should be saying, and are you really having a say if the parties are making the decision?

So I'd like to see the town clerk's office have a little bit of say on how the town clerk was just.

Is there anyone else who wishes to address um the committee of the whole?

One more time.

Is there anyone else present who wishes to address us regarding the charter who has not yet spoken?

And for the last time, the last call.

Is there anyone else present here who wishes to address uh the council regarding the charter?

having a say if the parties are making the decision so I'd like to see the town clerk's office have a little bit of say on how the town clerk is just thank you thank you is there anyone else who wishes to address um the committee of the whole one more time is there anyone else present who wishes to address us regarding the charter who has not yet spoken and for the last time the last call is there anyone else present here who wishes to address uh the council regarding the charter want to make a motion all those in favor please signify by saying aye aye are there any opposed public hearing is now clos is now closed um at this point we're gonna take a recess for 10 minutes for two reasons for us to to get water and and maybe go other places and also for uh for the uh the person who does the video here to set up for the next phase uh back to the committee of the whole ten minutes philosopher thank you oh I'm gonna adjourn the public hearing thank you motion to adjourn thank you