I happen to be the president of the city council, and I'm calling the July 16th, 2026 Committee of the Whole, to order at approximately 636 p.m.

As president of the council, it falls to me to be chairman of this committee of the whole.

So let us begin by saying the uh Pledge of Allegiance, please rise.

Uh Councilman McGallister, could you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

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.

Please remain standing.

I do have a request.

And he lost his life tragically very recently.

So just a moment of silence for him, please.

Thank you.

Right.

Thank you.

You may be seated.

So for the first time this evening, I'm going to take attendance.

Councilman Coello.

Councilman Flanagan.

Councilman Hawley.

Councilwoman Lepine.

Councilman Salvatore.

Councilman Vizade.

Councilwoman Gardner.

Councilwoman Faye.

Councilman Henry.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

Councilman.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Councilman Giordano.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Councilman Rotello.

Councilman Chinese.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McGallister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

Councilman Dennis Perkins.

We have 20 members present, one absent.

I expect her to arrive late.

I'll read the notice of tonight's meeting.

There'll be a meeting of the Committee of the Whole for all members of the City Council, commencing at 6 30 p.m.

on July the 16th.

Shortly thereafter, there'll be a recess to commence a public hearing at 7 p.m.

After which the Committee of the Whole will continue.

The purpose of tonight's Committee of the Whole is a discussion of the charter revision draft report, which was returned to the council.

I expect us to recess for the public hearing at 6 55 to allow time for the uh videographer to be prepared for the public hearing.

And we'll commence promptly at 7 p.m.

with the public hearing portion.

Tonight, we we will examine the draft report of proposed changes to the charter by the charter revision commission.

This is an unusual task for the council.

It doesn't happen that frequently.

And we'd move on to chapter two.

It's my expectation there are certain chapters that we're going to spend a lot of time on, and there'll be other chapters where less time will be spent.

At the end of the debate on a particular chapter, it's my plan we'll take a vote to approve the chapter or not approve the chapter, or amend the or amend the chapter.

That would be my expectation as we go through this.

There are eight chapters to the charter.

Councilman Salvatore, I'll recognize you for motion.

So for purposes uh ordering the evening, I make a motion to approve your outline of the agenda to handle the Charter Revision Commission recommendations chapter by chapter.

All in favor?

Please say aye.

Are there any opposed?

Thank you.

And one opposed at this point.

Yeah.

So I at this point, um, I'd like to go to uh chapter one and the preamble of the charter.

Is there a motion?

Councilman Salvatore.

I make a motion to approve the recommended changes from the Charter Revision Commission on in the preamble and chapter one.

Motion made and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Is there any discussion?

And I'd like to go from left to right in the top row, and we'll do the same in the bottom row.

Starting at to my left, is there any discussion from any member of the uh of the council?

Councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

In the preamble, I had previously spoke about a language change to be added.

And I'd like to see the word taxpayer added to that section.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to my left who would like to make any remarks or observations or discussion regarding chapter one?

Moving to my right side at the top row of the dais.

Is there anyone who wishes to make any comments or discussion regarding chapter one?

Councilman Hawley.

Thank you, Honor.

Um, if I have a question, do how do I do this?

Do I direct them to you or do I direct them to council?

I just want some clarification.

You could direct it to me and then I'll I'll pass it off if there's somebody to talk to you.

So through the chair, I just have a question.

Um, why was the word town still in our charter?

If we recently did this in 2009, was there a statutory reason why we keep it as town?

Okay.

And I'll I'll direct that uh question to one of our corporation councils.

Um Mr.

Matola, do you have an answer for that question?

Mortality Mortaletti, I apologize.

Uh yes, um, Mr.

Chairman, is there a this is in the preamble?

It's it and chapter one.

Yes.

We took it out.

We took it to reference.

I don't see a reference to town in what I'm looking at right here.

Mr.

Holly, is this on I'm just referring to the proposed charter amendments, chapter one, section one-two.

It's saying that we're changing the word town to the word city.

You're on chapter one.

Yeah, and my question was why was this still in the charter in 2009?

Like, why are we just changing it now?

Is there a statutory reason?

Because I know like at the state level, there we're all towns technically.

So would this change negatively affect the city?

That's my question.

No, no, there's no negative impact.

I mean, we are a city, which is different.

Sorry.

Mr.

Holly, uh, answering a question.

There's no impact language change.

Obviously, we're a city, not a town, so we made that change.

I don't I can't speak to why in 2009 we used the word town, but there's a legal distinction between city and town.

Thank you.

Is there any other questions or remarks from anybody on the days of the second level going to the lower level?

Um, councilman um Rotello.

Thank you, President Bazaid.

Uh, through the chair to council.

Uh the original language was we believe in strong political leadership and a representative council and in the right of every citizen to be part of the decision making progress, and they have added citizen and resident who have an equal opportunity to.

So that's the only language change.

I see here.

Is that correct?

That's the only change.

In the preamble, yes, that's the only change.

In the preamble, which is what we're discussing.

Yes, yep, that's right.

So we have a lot of institutions here in Danbury where people aren't really residents, but they're spending time in these institutions, whether they're universities or prisons.

I think we have one of the largest prisons in the Northeast here in Danbury.

Um, by adding this language, are we elevating temporal residents?

Maybe non-citizens, maybe felons, maybe people who can't even vote.

Are we are we tying future councils to I don't exactly know what these means?

We believe in strong political leadership and a representative council and the right of every citizen or resident to have an equal opportunity to be part of the decision making progress.

Could you could you walk me through how they would participate in this decision making progress if we're granting them the right to do so?

How would that work?

How would that function?

I mean, normally people can come in here at seven o'clock and speak.

Or they can send me an email or call a bunch of phone calls today, as you can imagine.

Um how would these people who've never really participated before?

They can't come here, they're in prison, let's say, or they're in a dorm or something.

How would that work, or did we not even consider that?

Was this a sort of feel-good language that we decided to add in, or did we really think this through?

There's 1800 prisoners of the FCR.

Darn it, they should be able to participate too.

Was that the thinking, or is this just coming up for the first time?

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Rotello.

Um, we did not get uh into that level of of thought.

Uh the when we included resident, we were trying to be more inclusive with the language.

So we weren't envisioning you know every um potential scenario really, um, like your hypothetical, for example.

So we wanted to be more comprehensive and cover more with the language.

So that was the impetus for the for the resident language.

Uh the equal opportunity language was discussed at a few charter revision commission meetings.

Some members of the commission wanted to see uh some equal opportunity language built into the charter, so we thought that the preamble is an appropriate place to add that.

So it was more of a general um more of a general idea than anything specific like what you're suggesting.

I'd call that aspirational.

Is that accurate aspirational?

Uh could you clarify that?

In other words, we're aspiring to more inclusion.

Yeah, that was the intent behind this language.

As opposed to something specific that we were drilling down on.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There are any other questions.

Councilman Chinese.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman.

Again, through the chair.

I know Councilman Rotello started to hit on a little bit what I was going to ask the question on regarding the definition of a resident.

I know the resident definition can have several definitions to it.

And one of the questions I had is as it pertains to this sentence, what does resident necessarily mean?

Because I know there's taxpayers as a resident, there's legal residents, and there's non-legal residents.

There are also um legal resident legal non-residents, you know, green card holders and everything like that.

So by adding the term resident, it's all inclusive.

It's everyone who considers the city of Denver their principal abode.

This is where they live.

And as a resident of our city, they can partake in all the decision makings.

Well, I do understand they cannot run for local offices.

I'm talking more non-citizens.

Well, they cannot run for local offices, but by being a resident and part of the decision-making process, they can now be on board local boards and commissions, because that's not part of the election process.

So they can now serve on local boards and commissions.

Was that discussed as well?

And also, can they partake in voting on referendum items?

Because they're now part of the decision-making um process now of our city, even though they are non-citizens, because the term citizens and residents, you are now incorporating two classes of people as well.

Um and I knew I looked in other towns' charters, and I didn't see many terms residents.

Except for the city of New Haven.

So I would maybe make the motion to say why can't it just say the citizens of the city of Danbury shall have an equal opportunity to be part of the decision-making process?

This is basically what we have before.

I don't think anybody here will object to to have an equal opportunity.

I think the term resident could be misconstrued as what rights some people have and whatever.

So I'm again I'm gonna pass it through the chair.

Has that been discussed in the Charter Revision Commission, how it's interpreted and what that means?

Because the charter will overstep the any ordinance we currently have in place, so they can be equal opportunities, they can work in any job that's available within the city, whether they're um you know, you may have people who are a legal resident um under the uh the Dreamers Act, right?

Which again, they would uh they would be considered a resident, and they can work anywhere in the city because this allows them to do so.

Is that interpreting it correctly?

So, Councilman Cheney's um again when we had the resident language, um, as I just mentioned to Councilman Rotello, that was more aspirational language at the meetings that I attended for the Charter Revision Commission, we didn't have a discussion on uh the legality of the residency itself.

So it's it's more to be again aspirational language.

Certainly, um you know, we can have discussion as a council about you know what language to add and not add to the charter.

But again, on this term, it was aspirational in nature.

Okay.

I mean, again, to the chair, if I may.

Any motions done now or at the if you want to make a motion to change language in in section one, now would be your opportunity.

What uh what what I'll do, I'll everybody speak and then I'll come back.

And if I make any motions, I will do so.

Before we leave before we leave chapter one.

Yes.

Fine.

Um councilman uh Dwayne Perkins.

Could you please move the mic?

Thank you.

Mr.

President.

Uh just uh point of clarification.

Uh Councilman Henry mentioned the um the word taxpayer.

I just want to know if that would be replacing all of the occurrences of the word we or would it be inserted and um other areas of of word usage through the chair.

Uh are you asking that question of counsel?

Um Mr.

Umporation Council.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman Perkins.

Um so uh that term was discussed at Charter Vision Commission meetings.

We didn't add it uh as a commission.

I don't I don't I wouldn't replace we with taxpayer.

Um I would if you wanted to add that language, it would have to probably go in a different part of the preamble.

Um but that's a decision by the council as to whether you want that language added, and then if so, where do you want to put it?

Councilman Perkins, did that answer your question?

Uh not really, but we'll uh we'll we'll proceed.

Is there anyone else uh in the lower part of the dais who wishes to make a remark or ask a question regarding chapter one?

Seeing none, I'm gonna return to the left-hand side of the upper my left-hand side of the upper dais.

Is there anyone who wishes to make any further remarks or questions?

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I'd like to make a motion uh to amend the red line draft report to reflect the word taxpayer in that in that line.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a second to thank you?

So we have a uh a proposed amendment on the floor uh to amend um the the presented language and add taxpayer to part one uh of in chapter one of the council revisions.

Are there any remarks on that?

Councilman China's again through the chair.

Can they can the person who made the motion just state it in a paragraph so we can get a better feel of where exactly it wants to be instituted?

Councilman Henry, did you understand that request?

Yes.

Are you willing to change your motion accordingly?

I'll make a point of a clarification, Mr.

Chairman.

Sure.

Part one, chapter one, specific to the red line draft report, and I would add that word taxpayer in there to be inclusive.

Okay.

So you would add it in the sentence that says we believe in the right of every citizen and resident and taxpayer to have equal opportunity.

Is that is that accurately reflect what your amendment is about?

Correct.

It would be added to that where the red line draft report language is.

Okay.

And and is Councilman Coello, is your seconding that motion?

Yes.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion regarding the amendment from any part of the council?

Councilman Flanagan.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I had just a question on adding the word taxpayer.

I imagine that there are folks who own property here in town who don't live in town, aren't residents, and they pay their taxes on their businesses, for instance.

How's that going to affect the rest of the charter?

And where would you like that question directed?

I guess we'll have to ask the uh attorneys in the room.

Councilman Council Attorney Mortaletti, could you answer that question from Councilman Flanagan?

I would respectfully ask Councilman Flanagan to restate the question.

I didn't hear you over here.

Certainly.

Adding the word taxpayer to that line, and I'm going, I'm making an assumption that we have people who don't live in Danbury who aren't residents but are taxpayers because they maybe they own a business.

How is that going to affect the rest of the charter, or does it give them some uh authority, if you will, that someone who normally doesn't live here would then have.

So I mean, if if we put that term in there, I don't think it would create any you know conflicts with the with the subsequent terms.

If you if we wanted to propose taxpayer language in other sections for consistency purposes, we could do that, certainly.

Um but I don't I'm not cons I don't think putting it in the preamble is gonna have some sort of um cascading negative effect on other sections of the charter.

That's my that's my view of that.

Councilman Hawley, we're now talking about the amendment as proposed.

Yep.

My question was uh just based on what uh corporation counsel just said, would this be considered a substantive change?

No.

Well, it's a proposed recommendation, it's a recommendation to amend the charter, which is consistent with the statute.

I'm not sure we have to worry about you know whether it's substantive or not.

I mean it's I'm not sure that we have to concern ourselves with that.

Uh yeah, I I'm I don't think it is.

Councilwoman LePine.

We're now talking about the amendment.

Yes.

I think that if you add taxpayer that you're adding people who own buildings in Danbury, that it's not just people who live in the residents of the city, you're adding people who may own from who knows where.

So I think it's a bad idea.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um my concern is well, a preamble changing to a preamble isn't a substantive change.

A preamble is meant to be an basically an introductory statement.

It's meant to be the guiding principle and to be uh declarative statement of what this charter is supposed to be.

My concern is if you're adding the term taxpayer and then putting no additional substantive rights or changes throughout this, then it it sort of means nothing.

It's a moot point.

There's no purpose to it unless the intention is to then put some sort of substantive changes to add some sort of rights for those taxpayers that is not already authorized.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Rotello.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

You know, I guess this goes back to what it means by participating.

It reminds me of the constitutional convention when they didn't add the bill of rights because they just assumed everybody was for free speech, and everybody was for a separation of church and state.

And they started to think, you know what, maybe we ought to put something in there because the people that follow us may not actually believe what we believe.

We already allow taxpayers to participate in this room.

There's nothing unusual about that at all.

Adding this in there just codifies something that we already do.

But what circles back is what we mean by participating.

They can't vote unless they actually live here, but they can sure participate.

They can fund campaigns.

There's a lot of things the taxpayers can do.

They invest in our community.

We welcome them, they grow our grandless, they should be able to participate in some way.

They have uh access to economic development and the mayor's office access to me.

I get calls from taxpayers who are not residents because they're considering building in the city or doing something like that.

This is something that we already do.

My concern is not with the taxpayer to take it or leave it.

I have no problem having it in or not having it in.

My concern goes back to the resident.

But as the attorney pointed out, this is just a preamble, and he's sort of not pejorative, but he's sort of soft peddled, it's not that big a deal, it's just a preamble.

So I don't think you can make a case that in a in a not necessarily substantive preamble, making a change would be a substantive change.

I'm agnostic on adding taxpayer.

If the body wants to do this, I'll vote for it, sure.

I've got other issues in the preamble, but this kind of reminds me of fixing the airplane while we're flying it.

I I don't think, all due respect to the process, I don't think this really is the format to go through eight chapters and to fix them in the next 20 minutes.

I I don't I really don't think this is gonna work.

But hey, I'm game, right?

I've been doing this for 30 years, so I'm gonna put my shoulder wheel and fish in.

So let's go forward with it and I call the question.

You call the question.

Calling the question.

Okay.

Count all those in favor of calling the question, please say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Two.

So uh the question is called, and now we're gonna put this to a vote.

with it and I call the question you call the question calling the question okay all two seconds does it count all those in favor of calling the question please say aye aye are there any opposed two so uh the question is called and now we're gonna put this to a vote all those in favor of the amendment to uh part one chapter one of of the council has stated the amendment again is is is we believe in a strong political leadership and representative council and in every and the right of every citizen taxpayer and resident I believe uh would be included in that sentence so all those in favor of the amendment please say aye chairman roll call vote roll call yes fine aye councilman uh flannagan aye councilman hawley councilwoman lapine no councilman salvator no I guess I get to vote I vote no uh councilwoman gartner no councilwoman Faye Councilman Henry Councilwoman Wallace Smith Smith Councilwoman Spain Reichel no councilman Giordano Councilwoman Jabbar no councilman rotello councilman chinese councilman Dwayne Perkins Councilman Britton Councilman McGallister Councilwoman Robinson Councilman Laughinghouse Councilman Dennis Perkins yes thank you give me a minute yes is it appropriate for I've got an emails about not speaking the microphone is it appropriate for councilman Britton to make any votes regarding the charter revision since he was chairman of the commission that submitted this draft for our consideration I I believe it is yes okay but right now let me can you if you just give me a minute to total this thank you all right 10 eleven 12 so that's 12 votes in favor of the amendment and nine votes opposed the amendment carries so it simple majority that's correct so now we're gonna vote on the whole thing right return to the main motion as amended all right are we ready to vote on the main motion which is to approve the changes to the preamble and chapter one as amended all those in favor please say aye aye all those opposed the ayes have it at this point we are gonna take a recess for the public hearing and if you just you have five minutes while he gets ready please return to your seats in five minutes thank you thank you we're gonna we're gonna do attendance real quick for the reconvene uh committee of the whole councilman coello here councilman flannigan present councilman hawley present councilwoman councilman salvatore still here councilman bazaid present councilwoman gartner councilwoman fay councilman henry here councilwoman wallace smith councilwoman spain reichel here councilman giardano councilwoman jabor here councilman rotello councilman chienese councilman duane perkins councilman britton councilman mcalester councilwoman robinson councilman laughinghouse councilman denis perkins all twenty one are back after the break we left off at chapter one we're now gonna move on to chapter two of of the charter at this point I entertain a motion from councilman salvatore mr president I make a motion to approve the recommended changes from the Charter Revision Commission on chapter two and there being a uh uh a second from councilwoman andrea gartner is there any discussion and we'll go again this is now all of chapter two there are some meaty parts of this so uh we're gonna we're gonna go around twice same ground rules I'll start on the left of the upper part of the dais is there anyone who wishes to make a remarks or comments regarding chapter two to I meet my immediate left councilman henry thank you Mr Chairman section two dash four we appoint

Is there any discussion?

And we'll go again.

This is now all of chapter two.

There are some meaty parts of this.

So uh we're gonna we're gonna go around twice.

Same ground rules.

I'll start on the left of the upper part of the dais.

Is there anyone who wishes to make a remarks or comments regarding chapter two to I meet my immediate left?

Councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Section two-four.

We appoint.

Could you hold hold a minute?

There's a point of order.

And then we vote for the remote.

It was pre-chap.

It was preamble in chapter one.

That's was the motion that was made.

We made a dual motion for the preamble.

Is that is that resolved?

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilman Henry, your remarks, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Back to 2 4 reapportionment of wards and voting districts.

Districts.

Paragraph three, all the way down to where the red line language is.

I'd like to make a motion to amend.

If three out of four members fall to timely designate, fail to timely designate a fifth member within 30 days, a fifth member shall be recommended, appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council at its next regular meeting.

I make a motion to remove appointed by the mayor.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Um the motion made and seconded regarding uh an amendment to section two four, uh, the third full paragraph at the end where there's a change.

Yes.

Councilman Britton.

Do you have a remark?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

My question to the councilman, if you're getting rid of the word appointed, what are you replacing it with?

Because then the sentence doesn't make any sense.

Is that your question to me?

Souncilman Henry.

I can clarify that.

The fifth member should be at least an unaffiliated voter, not appointed by the mayor, but chosen by that commission.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Councilman Henry, if I understand you correctly, you're you're you're proposing an amendment where the fifth member shall be um confirmed by the city council.

That was your original motion, correct?

Correct.

And confirmed by the city council.

Without the mayor, without the mayor making the appointment.

So the fifth the fifth member shall be appointed by the council and confirmed by the council at the next regular meeting.

Is that your motion?

Correct.

As long as the commission or the reappointment reapportionment agree on that unaffiliated voter for the fifth voter.

Okay.

I'm going to ask for a clarification.

So it it's it's stated that if three out of four members fail to agree, right?

So the the people who are already appointed don't agree.

So I I just want to clarify what your motion is.

Motion would be to remove the language the mayor shall appoint.

Thank you.

And would that second still hold uh councilman chinays?

Okay.

So that that is what is before us right now.

Are there any remarks on the amendment?

Councilman Cheneys.

Thank you.

As someone who is on the reap reapportionment committee, I know that the issues regarding finding that fifth person, which is almost impossible, given the way the charter currently read.

But I would like to possibly just think about it, maybe making an amendment to the motion that it'll say after 30 days, such a such appointment will be given back to the council for which the council shall shall um prescribe the methods which to appoint the fifth person.

Because part of the problem that we had in the past is that the council has to govern who that fifth person is going to be, but we don't have the procedures in place to which to appoint that fifth person.

Always in the path, we always relied on the mayor's office or town or the the uh the town chairs or to figure out who that next person's gonna be, whether it's gonna be a democrat or republican or an affiliated, we have nothing in place for the council to act upon because we don't normally in the past we get a recommendation given to us.

So it's not like we it's not like we're like the board of ed, where we have a special ad hoc set up to figure out who that fifth person's is.

So I would like to have the we up the uh charter commission to revisit this to come up with the procedures necessary for us to appoint that fifth person, because otherwise it's not going to solve the problem.

The committee's not going to agree, it's going to come back to the council.

We have to pick that fifth person, but we have nothing in place to which to do so.

How do we gonna pick the person?

What procedures do we use as nothing in place for us to do it?

So your remarks relate to the language of the proposed amendment.

Correct that way.

I think we would have to have it where if the if the commission cannot find the fifth person that the that that the next regularly scheduled council meeting, that the council will have it on the agenda to prescribe the the method to which it wants to appoint somebody.

Well, the language is not exactly, but that's why I want the commission to rework it to where the council has the procedures that we have to provide to get that fifth person, whether it be a Democrat, Republican, or unaffiliated, we have nothing in place to do it.

Otherwise, it's going to be majority, it's going to rule.

Thank you for those remarks.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Um I mean, I guess through the chair, and maybe this is a question for um Councilman Perkins or Councilman Chinese about prior precedent here, finding the person.

But then I go back to the language before this uh amendment was recommended that this previously said um would be appointed by the mayor and then approved by the city council.

Um is that meeting that original language if we didn't change it?

Is that an appropriate process that would help in that situation, or you still need something that would be further guidance to select that fifth person?

And who's that question directed to?

Through the chair, I think that the question really is to if Mr.

Cheneys can confirm if that solves the question.

If my name uh uh councilman Cheneys, are you able to respond to that question?

Through the chair.

Normally it with these reapportionment committees, and that's supposed to be political, but they are on it's unfortunately.

Normally, is the majority leader picks two, the minority leader picks two, and then the committee itself has to pick that third, that fifth person, which is almost impossible because we're gonna want somebody who wants to be on my party, because I want those three votes.

Those three votes mean it's a major because three votes will carry a plan to the council.

Because it at the previous commission, we only had four four members.

Those four members could not agree on a final plan, even though a plan was submitted to the commission, the commission didn't look at it and it was not accepted.

If there was a third person or whether it be a democrat or republican, if it was the three Republicans, you probably would have gotten that jerry men mandated map that they propose would have been approved at that commission level.

Okay.

So again, that's why it needs to be, I think, has to come back to the council to where we can figure out who we want to be that fifth person, because it's that fifth person is very important.

Okay.

Again, this this debate is on councilman Henry's motion, right?

Is there any other remarks regarding regarding the motion on the floor for the amendment?

Councilwoman Gardner.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I would like to say that um in my experience in attending city council meetings and participating in local government for the last um 15 plus years, that this really becomes an impasse because I remember a time where the the four members couldn't even decide on an unaffiliated voter, and it just gets blocked.

So anything that can serve uh um to um continue the process forward, I think is worthwhile, and if it's the appointment by the mayor of that fifth person, that perhaps provides an incentive with the four committee members um to select that fifth person and and do what they're expected to do.

So I am for that part of the that the uh mayor should be appointing the fifth person.

Okay, are there any other remarks regarding that?

Count Councilman Hawley.

Did um councilman Henry accept uh councilman Chinese amendment to the amended motion?

I think I'm sorry, the amendment councilman Chineese amended the motion that councilman Henry did.

I just wanted to see if councilman.

I don't believe he did.

He made remarks.

He didn't make an amendment.

There was no motion.

Got it.

Sorry.

I was drawing.

Okay.

I up it does that answer your question?

Okay.

Does anybody else have a remark on the amendment of council proposed by Councilman Henry?

Councilman Rotello.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

So we appoint two from the minority and we appoint two from the majority.

I know this because the last time this happened, I appointed two.

And it was pretty simple.

The minority leader appoints two members and the majority leader appoints two members, and they just appoint who they want.

They don't even have to be members of the council.

They could be members of the community, they could be clergy, they could be anybody.

Councilman Rotello, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Could you could you let me take these off?

Maybe that's a little bit bit better.

So what I was saying was the minority leader appoints two, which I did the last time, and the majority leader appoints two, uh which uh Warren Levy did the last time, who was unfortunately unable to be here tonight due to a minor injury.

Um you should be fine.

And that's relatively simple.

This fifth member thing has always been a problem because the committees generally cannot come up with that fifth member and they cannot come up with a chair.

Having the mayor make the selection is a quick and dirty way of doing it, but this ultimately is a council issue.

It it really isn't even an entire council issue.

It's not really an issue of the at-large council, it's really an issue of the ward council people because we're drawing borders that only ward people that are only relevant to ward people and the people who live in wards.

The at-large people continue to uh run throughout Danbury, and those borders don't change.

So it's it's the may this is not an issue for the mayor.

The mayor's election is not necessarily going to be uh affected one way or the other, and the seven members of the at-large council are not going to be affected one way or the other.

But who will be infected will be the 14 members who run uh in wards.

My suggestion is is that the council act as if it were a elk's hall or a town committee, and they simply nominate names the way that you would at a political convention if when it comes to selecting the fifth member if the next uh reapportionment committee cannot come up with a fifth member.

This is it's not that complicated.

The council simply is is tasked with coming up with a fifth member, and they submit names and there's a vote off.

That's all.

It is a prerogative of the dominant party.

I hate to say this because we are in a democracy, but we're essentially a two-party system.

We're not a we're not a plurality.

This is not a parliament.

We essentially have two parties, and there's always one party that dominates, and it is a prerogative of the dominant party to basically pull the trigger on these kinds of decisions.

It doesn't have to be purely political, but we need to resign ourselves in a situation where we have a two-party system that the dominant party is probably the one that's going to make the selection.

You could have a Republican mayor and a Democratic uh council, which happened under Mark Bountain's first term.

And and then that case, because the Democrats had such a huge majority, the had this been enforced back then, the Democrats would have been able to choose the uh fifth member, and if the mayor had been the one to do it, like the proposal is in this revision, then Mark Bowden would have been able to do it.

But I I think because this affects most of the members of the city council and not the mayor at all.

It should be the decision of the city council.

I just don't think it's that complicated.

I don't think we need to send this back to the uh uh Charter Revision Commission to have them come up with a huge plan and how exactly the council is gonna do that because of the council's gonna have to weigh in, see if they want to do it that way.

I I I would just go forward, if we get tasked, we have to come up with a name.

How do we do that?

We would do it the same way the town committee does it.

We just make a selection, we have a vote off, and when it's done, it's done.

That's my opinion.

You can disagree with it, but I I I it I I've been doing this for a very long time, and I have a lot of faith in organizations like this.

I think the city council, if they had to, can come up with a name.

And I'm I'm satisfied with uh Councilman Henry's amendment.

I think it's workable, I think it's doable.

I think if we went forward on this and it happened, I'm I'm not sure that the next revision commission can't come up with a fifth member.

The law there's a lot of a lot of incentive to come up with your own fifth member and and make that the chair, but if it can't, I think it's workable that the council does it.

I I would I am not in favor of having the mayor do it because essentially it's irrelevant uh for from from for the mayor going forward.

It is uh of great concern to the city council and of specific concern to the uh board members.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Are there any other remarks on the amendment made by Councilman Henry?

Councilman Twain Perkins.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I do I do understand uh Councilman Hendry's um uh amendment and it and it does make sense because like we have been discussing here all along this whole appointment of this uh fifth member is it's all is all political.

So I think that on its surface uh the councilman wants to just remove the the mayor's uh ability to appoint out of the equation, but then that drops it back into the council's hands, and that's the same thing.

Um do we have the council come up with some type of mechanism to re uh evaluate that whole system or just go to a whole other process?

We heard one of our public speakers mention that maybe just put it as an independent uh process or some type of selection from that category, and that would remove both of the major parties.

So that's something that I think that should be looked at, and it would be interesting to know if the uh chair of the committee did explore that with any depth in detail.

Uh otherwise um I'm not I'm not sure how much how much it sense it would make to just drop it back in the hands of the council when we know that's gonna be um uh a majority rule type of decision in the first place.

Uh I I guess I don't know, Mr.

Um President, if I can uh ask the the president of the committee to uh opine whether or not they were um investigating the uh uh inclusion of a independent party process, or if they just left it to the mayor's selection.

I I'm sorry, so that is that an inquiry you wish to make it is because I I want to know if they were able to to explore the independent um uh opportunity to make a fifth member choice, or if it just rested upon the mayor and or the council.

Um so you you wish me to ask uh uh uh assistant corporation counsel Mortaletti that question?

I I think it would probably be best.

I'm not sure if I can direct anything to the sheriff's own.

If he's able to understand that question and answer it, that's fine.

That's fine.

So to attempt to answer that question, um without I don't want to misstate on the record candidly.

So what I can tell you is that there was extensive discussion about how to address the reapportment advisory commission given grid locats happened uh in recent years, especially with the last reapportionment, um, which I happen to uh be part of as legal counsel to that apportionment commission.

So we came up with this language that you see as a proposed amendment in section two-4.

Um I can't really opine beyond what that language was.

I uh I would be speculating as to the extent to which we discussed uh alternatives.

I know that we did discuss some alternatives, um, but at the risk of uh guessing as to what all that was.

I don't feel comfortable doing that uh with this council.

Um but we did discuss a number of options.

We ultimately landed on the language that you see here.

Thank you.

Does that answer your question, Councilman Perkins?

No.

Um no, because I still think that the way this language is written now, it it doesn't get us any closer to selecting that fifth person.

It doesn't get any closer at all.

Um I'd like to just maybe send this back for further uh further evaluation.

I mean, I think the amendment's good, but it but it doesn't go it doesn't go far enough.

But as you know, right now we're we're we're discussing the motion made by it by uh councilman Henry, correct?

Okay.

Are there any more comments regarding the motion made by Councilman Henry?

Uh Councilwoman Jabbar.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I echo at least what I believe I understood to be Councilman Sheen's um commentary on this, in that in the motion that Councilman Henry made made, it does invite additional questions, and we heard from a number of members here today about how we want more clarity, not less.

And by making this change, we now have a bigger issue of well, how is the city council supposed to select somebody?

What is the parameters in which we're doing that?

How are the names coming before us?

And instead of it clarifying any of this, it invites so many more questions and so much more ambiguity.

Thank you.

Are there any other remarks?

Councilwoman LePine.

Do you have a question?

I think that we should leave this the way it is.

And the reason is that there is a mechanism and an incentive here already.

If the three of the four members pick their fifth member, then if they can get the job done, then they don't need the mayor to appoint anyone.

So the incentive is to get it done.

And also it has to be approved or confirmed by the council anyway, so the council still has a say.

Is that true?

So they cannot approve it.

So I think everything uh councilwoman LePine.

Oh, the question, one sec.

I'm just saying that leave it this way because everything we need is already here.

And we can not approve the appointment.

So I think it's complicating it more by changing it.

Thank you.

Are there any other remarks or comments regarding the amendment?

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

Um I don't think there's anything wrong with asking the Charter Revision Commission to consider a change, uh, such as one that is on the floor.

The Charter Review Commission is able to tweak this section any way that they see suitable if we make recommendations.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with asking them to consider some of the factors that Councilman Perkins, Councilman Chinacy, and Councilman Rotello pointed out.

And I tend to defer to them in this regard since they have been around, seen these commissions, uh, reapportionment commissions.

And um I I think it's important to send it back to the commission with that consideration, you know, asking them to reconsider.

They can sh throw it right back to us just as this, but what's the harm in asking them to consider uh such a change or such an amendment?

There are any other remarks uh for councilwoman uh Wall Smith.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I think um we should leave the language as it is.

I considered what Councilman Henry said, and I I sat here and I thought about it, and I think it will just make the waters a little bit more murkier than it is.

And here goes this can again that we continue to kick down the road.

So I think it speaks for itself to agree with councilwoman Lepine.

It will encourage the three of the four members to do their job and choose the other person so that we could kick kick the mayor's appointment out of it, and if they don't, then it comes back to the council anyway for approval.

So I think all the safeguards and the guardrails are in place there.

So I just can we I I just I hope we don't make this any more complicated than it needs to be because I read this like 60 times, and I try to find every loophole in it that I could, and I couldn't find one.

I think everything is in place that needs to be in place.

The three people you decide, if you can't decide, we're gonna have somebody decide for you.

And after that person decides for you, now we're gonna go back to 21 people and have them either back up or say agree or disagree to what uh the mayor's appointment said.

So let's not get scared by the mayor appointed because I think that's just the language, it's just semantics at this point.

It does come back to us for final decision.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Laughinghouse.

Um through the chair.

Uh, my quick question was I believe the language three out of the four was placed in there because the last commission that came together, reapportion commission, three of the four agreed, and they couldn't come to an agreement.

Uh so by adding that language in there, they're ultimately getting closer to that that uh fifth member.

Um the other part I just wanted to add is somebody who who watched the the particular um you know meeting this afternoon, there was a fair amount of spirited debate as a result of kind of what it transpired previously, um, mainly from uh Commissioner Safranik.

Um, and they did toss around several different ideas within the group in terms of what may align.

I think that's why we got the language that we're currently in front of.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wants to opine second second time?

Um second time.

No, councilman Rotello.

Language as written just gives permission for the two members of the mayor's side to slow walk the appointment for a month until the mayor makes the decision.

Sorry about that.

This language, as written, gives the two members from the mayor's party permission to slow walk the appointment so the mayor gets to choose the third member and create a majority.

That's exactly what it does.

It's exactly what's going to happen.

You would be an idiot in a political party with a strong mayor and a strong political party to say, I know what we'll do, we'll compromise when all you need to do is nothing for 30 days, and this is exactly what happened the last time until the mayor comes along from your party and appoints a third member.

Now you have the majority, and now you can do whatever you want.

That's what this language does.

And that's what we're talking about without saying it out loud.

So let's say it out loud.

If you do this, the mayor, whoever the mayor is, Republican or Democrat will side with the two members and there will create a de facto majority.

The second the minority leader or the majority leader makes those selections.

They will not choose a third member, they will hand it to the mayor.

At least with the council, you have 21 people breathing down your neck trying to make a decision.

Whether that's coming from the majority leader or the council president to put those names forward, it makes little difference.

If you give it to the mayor, the mayor is going to use it by telling his two people who who are in his party to not do anything.

Let me choose, let's get that third member.

Let's draw the I am amazed that they didn't see this.

You can see it coming on the Hudson, you know, heaven's sake.

Anyway, that's what's look.

We're political animals, it's what we do.

We should know this stuff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman.

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

Um I I questioned some of the remarks that said there's a process built in here, and it's appointment by the mayor to come to the council.

This being my first term on the council, I've yet to see this council not approve something that the mayor has set forth.

And I will quote councilwoman Gartner, who during our ad hoc of uh Mr.

Bobby Bria stated the process is working, the process by which the mayor appoints and we confirm.

So I don't think that the safeguards exist here as written.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gardner for your second and final act.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

So that's a mischaracteration, Councilwoman Fay, um, because there were other elements, including the Richter Park authorities president um willingly endorsing that candidate.

So there were definitely other other elements.

There wasn't a residency requirement either.

Um I think in the past, the stalemate has been when it's has to be all four members agreeing, right?

It would get deadlocked two to two.

I agree with councilwoman um Wallace Smith that this three out of the four addresses what has previously been a roadblock.

And quite frankly, if that doesn't address the roadblock, because not addressing the roadblock means we're at risk of violating the voting rights act, as we were when you know we um the council, the 2023 council was sat in the and our current council.

So I think this would address the blocks that have happened in the past.

And if it doesn't, then we can revisit it and look for a recommendation of an appointment by the mayor.

Thank you.

All right.

For your second or final time.

Yes Councilwoman Robert.

Can I just from a from a point of order?

Can we re-hear what the motion actually was?

Because I think I I my understanding is a removal of basically the appointed by the mayor language.

So that's that's correct.

That's correct.

So voting a a yes on this would basically leave it open to where that name comes from and go back to the charter commission to determine the process.

Is that it would it would propose something, it would go back to the charter.

Okay, that's right.

Thank you.

Just clarification point.

Thank you.

Actually, it first goes to the council, and then if the council votes, it would go back to the charter revision.

Mr.

I'm sorry, can you can you just can you just repeat the response you just gave to Ms.

uh Robinson?

I didn't I didn't I didn't get that whole thing.

I think I think the answer I'm looking for, but I'm not sure.

So essentially right now, can I do can I clarify my question through the chair?

Right now, the language says that the mayor will will give a name, and we can we can debate what the word appointed means.

The mayor will give a name, it'll come to the city council, and we would approve or deny it.

The motion on the floor is to remove the delivering a name by the mayor to the city council.

So the motion on the floor is to amend this to leave open whatever the process is for delivering a name to the city council for approval.

So I think my question to clarify what we're doing here right now is voting on an amendment that actually is just open-ended to go back to the charter commission to create a process because the amendment that is on the floor is basically that there is who is the person or who is the body that's gonna give the name to the city council, correct?

And that is not answered for in the current language of the motion.

I missed informed.

If I may, I thought the amendment was to send it back to the council for a decision.

It goes to the council, and the council then sends it to the uh charter revision commission.

The council under this amendment, the council doesn't choose the that's correct.

Just says you guys have to do this, even though they haven't done it.

The council, the council does not rewrite the charter.

The charter revision commission does.

Okay.

The council can remove things or or not, but we can make recommendations.

Can do a point of a point of order.

Just point of order.

I want to just make sure everybody knows what we're doing here tonight.

Every change you make, okay.

We then have to vote it out of the city council at a meeting to go to the Charter Revision Commission.

And then the Charter Revision Commission decides whether they want to take our recommendations or not.

They can send back a change, or they can say, no, we did the work, we're fine.

So what you suggest tonight still has to be debated in the Charter Revision Commission.

It's not we're changing it, and then it's going to come back to us that way.

I hope I just want to make sure everybody understands that.

No, you have a correct understanding, and the statute also provides the process of recommendations going out to the Charter Revision Commission.

They'll look at those recommendations.

Comes back to the council.

So you're right, Mr.

Salvatore.

That that said, is there any other any other person who hasn't remarked two times?

Councilman Salvatore.

Listen, I think the one thing we're forgetting is the word unanimously was crossed out here in the last few charter revision commissions.

The problem started with the loss of being able to do it unanimously.

And I watched in one of those meetings where they threw names out there of Danbury residents who weren't very political on one side of the spectrum or the other, and the parties denied it.

In the end, here they moved it to three out of four.

And my my good councilman Rotello might be right.

Two people can hold out, but the other two people might want to say, you know what?

I don't want this to get to the mayor.

I'm gonna be the third, and we're gonna pick our fifth person.

The language is good the way it is.

Leave it as is, and let's vote keep going on this.

I vote that I recommend voting against the amendment because it leaves it open, it's too open-ended.

Thank you.

Any other any other remarks from somebody who has not spoken already two times?

Councilman Giordano I I think the uh the language as proposed uh by the charter commission is good.

I think it'll break the uh um the you know the ability uh to stall on it, and uh I think it'll help uh move the process forward, and um I support it as is thank you.

Anyone who hasn't spoken two times, councilman chinese.

Thank you again through the chair.

Like it was mentioned before, this is a council decision.

The the two the four members are selected by the council.

I think the fifth member should stay with the council.

You know, it should be a we should not be giving away our authority.

And this here once again gives it away our authority to the mayor's office.

We should keep it here on the council level.

We should deal with it amongst us all the 21 of us on this that on this dais, and we should and we should keep it that way.

So I support the amendment to have it be a council decision at the end of the day.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Are there any other remarks?

Are there any other remarks from somebody who hasn't spoken already twice?

If that being the case, we're ready, we're ready for a vote, I believe.

I made a motion.

You okay?

So this is your second time.

That's fair.

So go right ahead on the motion on the floor, request a roll call vote.

Roll call vote.

Okay.

So we're gonna vote by roll call on the motion and the motion.

I believe I'm going to state, please listen carefully, Councilman Henry.

I believe I believe the motion uh to to uh to amend is if uh three or four members fail to designate a fifth member within 30 days, a fifth member shall be appointed by and confirmed by the city council at its next regular meeting.

I believe that's the motion that we're gonna vote on.

That's correct.

Okay.

So this is a roll call vote.

Councilman Coello has to the amendment.

Yes, Councilman Flanagan.

No, Councilman Hawley, no, Councilman Lepine, Councilwoman Lepine, no, Councilman Salvatore.

No, Councilman Bazade, no, Councilwoman Gardner, no, Councilwoman Fay.

Yeah, Councilman Henry.

Yes, Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

No.

Councilman Spain.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, yes for the amendment.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

No.

Councilman Rotello.

Yes.

Councilman China's.

Yes.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Yes.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

Nay.

Councilwoman Robinson.

No.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

No.

Councilman Dennis Perkins.

Okay.

There are 13 against the motion.

Which would leave eight in favor of the motion.

The motion fails.

I will try your minds.

Well, no, we're still we're moving on to other sections in chapter two.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

I'm going to apologize.

I'm actually not going to move on to a different section.

Excuse me.

I I don't want to move on to a different section.

I I do have one issue.

In the same section, section 2.4 or 2-4.

Okay.

I have one issue.

And I'm making a motion to change the word appointed to nominated.

I do believe words have meanings.

I spent years studying laws and I've spent years analyzing laws and going through legislative intent, etc.

etc.

to try and interpret a lot.

One of the biggest things is every word that you put in the law has meaning.

And the term appoint means to basically name name somebody to the role, not invite actual uh confirmation or consent, whereas the name nomination, the term nomination means we're suggesting a name, and then we need to confirm.

So I would prefer that we move.

I'm file formal motion to change the word appointed to nominated.

Sorry.

Okay, that motion is made and seconded.

Again, we're on the same phrase in section two-four.

Councilman uh Rotello.

In the grand scheme of things, there's not that much difference between having the mayor make an appointment and having the count having the council then confirm that appointment versus having the mayor nominate and having the council confirm.

There's not that much difference, but it shows intent.

And the intent is that the council is in control of the process.

The mayor, of course, can tell us who he thinks is the best candidate, but ultimately it is up to the council.

Generally, when the mayor appoints the council is very reticent.

I've been doing this again for a long time.

I can't remember the last time a council actually turned down a formal appointment.

It would give the council a little bit more flexibility, yes.

Technically, it doesn't make any difference, but in a practical sense, it makes all the difference.

So I support this.

It was a good idea.

Are there the motion is made and seconded?

Are there any remarks on this limited motion to amend by proposing to the Charter Revision Commission that they change the word appointed to nominated?

Any other remarks?

Councilwoman Jabbar, do you have a remark you want to make about this?

Briefly, I forgot.

I'm sorry, it's very late, guys.

Um I I would just like to know.

I do think there is a difference, for example, the governor nominates judges to the bench, and then they are confirmed by the legislature.

He doesn't appoint them, they don't become appointed until after they're confirmed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That said, are we prepared uh to vote?

Um as to councilwoman Jabar's motion to remove the word appointed, recommend to the Charter Revision Commission it be changed to nominated.

All those in favor of the motion, please respond by saying aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

No.

Nay.

Okay.

The eyes have it as to that section of the charter as our recommendation goes to the full council.

Now we are still on chapter two of uh the proposed changes to the charter.

We're we're we're still up here.

I I was on the left hand side of the the dais, and we're just moving our way around.

So is there anybody else on the left hand side as to chapter two?

Yes, well, that's this is your second bite of the apple, so for this part, it's you it's up to you.

Let him get through his changes then up.

He just made a motion, so I'm on to the next person.

We'll move around.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I um I'm looking at uh municipal elections section 2.2, and I would like to uh I will move to amend that the mayors serve a term of two years, not four as written.

That motion has been made and seconded uh to uh reject or oppose the change to four years in section two of the charter has has presented to us.

Are there any comments or discussion on that?

Councilman Chinese.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Again, through you read it through corporation counsel.

When you were deciding, one of the issues that occurred in the past why regarding two to four years was the problem of removing somebody in office for four years.

Has there been any discussion of what if there is a bad mayor or a bad council person who that we have to be stuck with four years?

Is there a process to remove someone in office who has a four-year term?

Has that been discussed at all?

Or is it by state statute we can do so?

Or I know council the council president may have an opine on that, that there could be a mechanism to do so, but is there something that the Charter Commission actually discussed if in the case?

Because there's no recall provision.

We can't remove them.

So what would happen if you elect somebody for four years and they don't show up at all for any meetings at all?

Which has happened.

So um what's what's the what does the council or the city do if that always occur through the chair?

So attorney Mortaletti, do you understand the question?

I believe the question for Mr.

Chinese is uh what can be done in the event of wanting to remove a mayor within an extended term of four years.

That's the right anyone, okay.

Well, if the question was whether the commission discussed that issue, um you know there was there was general discussion on that point.

Uh I'm not aware of a mechanism.

Um we'd have to defer to uh you know, I believe there's language in the statutes on that.

Um we have not included that in section two-two.

Um so I would have to defer to the statutes as to whether there's a mechanism, but whether that item was discussed uh uh the concept of uh the pros and cons of a four-year term was discussed for any office.

Uh but as to the removal process, I would have to look at the statute to that.

And we didn't have we do not have extensive discussion on the process itself for removal of any of any office with a four-year term again again through the chair.

Does that need to be a motion to have corporation counsel referred to the commission to look at that?

Or we can just I mean we can do that uh as a request of the council.

I don't think we need a motion on that issue.

If you want us to research that, we can do that.

Again, does that have to be in form of a motion?

Or can I just ask it and he can do it, or do I have to make a motion to just he can just he he it's a request of of the council, he can do that.

Right.

Okay, good.

Okay, can you do that for the next we can do that?

Thank you.

For the record, I I don't believe there's any provision in the general statutes that authorizes recall, but we will confirm that.

But it's something that we can do.

Yes, it's a matter of home rule if you decide uh that you want to put in a removal provision.

I think that's within your legislative discretion to recommend that to the commission.

Okay, but that's what I'm getting at.

Okay, thank you.

We we will confirm that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or remarks?

Councilwoman Robinson as to the motion to through the chair, just from another point of clarification is I mean, I think that tonight we got a lot of public comment that was very split.

Um, and in in this, I mean, I don't think going back to the commission on this particular question is really gonna we're reinventing the wheel as far as it appears that is this my understanding is that we could pull out certain questions for the referendum itself, like if this is something that we decide once the we want it to be a separate question to the voters, we could do that, right?

We are not close to that process.

But I mean, like if we at this moment the questions presented to the voters are are something towards the end of this.

But we could if if we get to a point where we want to leave this particular question to the voters, we could leave it as is with the commission and pull this out as its own question to the voters when we get there.

I believe that's correct.

That could be that could be a question.

There are questions that could be responded to in this process.

Thank you.

Thank that was my own question.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions or remarks?

Councilman Rotello.

Thank you.

What we heard tonight, and we've been here for the last couple of months is this four-year term business because it's really important that if a mayor or a chief executive or the head of IBM or whatever takes enough time to really get up to speed, it would be very unfortunate if the guy or gal was this wonderful person who then gets tossed out for no reason at all, like magically thrown out of office, even though he's fantastic, um, and therefore all the fantastic stuff that he's doing goes away with him.

I have never in in the history of my time in politics seen a fantastic politician get tossed out of office.

I've seen a lot of duds get tossed out of office.

And so, really, what we're talking about is a guy who's a dud who's gonna get an extra two years because he's got a fantastic policy, even though he's a jerk, his policy is really great.

That's another thing I've never seen.

I've never seen a jerk politician with really amazing policies.

I gotta tell you something.

If you've got amazing policies, even if you're kind of prickly, even if you're not all that great kissing babies, you're probably gonna get another term.

I'm not worried that the city of Danbury is gonna lose this fantastic mayor because the public decides, even though he's great, they're gonna throw him out anyway because they're a little PO'd the Yankees lost the ballgame last night.

I think if he's really good, he's gonna stay, and if he's not really good, he needs to go.

So what what are we doing here tonight?

We're basically telling the voters that they cannot get rid of this guy because for some reason we don't know what the reason is.

We think it's this reason, but it's not that reason.

We think we have to keep him around because he's got great policies, even though he's an idiot.

If he's an idiot, he's gonna get kicked out, he deserves to get kicked out.

And if we have a policy in place that keeps him around, we deserve an idiot for a mayor.

That's on us.

So my suggestion is Danbriggs worked really well for decades.

My suggestion is we keep it at two years.

And we keep the council a two years.

I mean, if the guy's bad, he's gonna go.

And if he's bad, his policies are bad, and they're gonna go too.

And if the guy's good, he's gonna stay, and if his policies are good and he's good, his policy is gonna stay too.

This other issue that came up a couple of times, it's just so hard to campaign.

I can't believe it.

The second I get elected, I've got to start campaigning all over again.

This is not the we're not running for exalted potentate of the universe.

We're running in Danbury, Connecticut.

30,000 people vote.

You can knock on all those doors, you can send a mailers.

It's not that hard.

And frankly, if you think it's that hard, maybe this is not the job for you.

I've campaigned probably more than anybody else in this room, with the exception of Ben and Duane and a couple of other guys.

I've done it at large for six years.

I campaigned at large.

From the north of Danbury all the way up in New Fairfield to all the way down at Bethel and East to West.

Covered all the doors, knocked on all the doors.

And it didn't to me feel like that's all I was doing in my life was campaigning.

So relatively simple process.

Expensive, maybe now, maybe a little bit, but that's what you know, donations are for.

Campaigning is not the issue.

Getting kicked out of office is not the issue.

If you are a good mayor and your hand is on the pulse of the people, which is what we want in this community, certainly what I want in this community.

I want that kind of responsive mayor.

It's gonna get my vote forever.

I don't even want term limits.

I am I am a hundred percent against term limits, whether we have two year terms or four year terms.

I believe that the people of Danbury should be able to elect whoever they want, however many times they want.

I don't care.

As long as they're good, and if they're not good, the people of Danbury, with a lot of faith in them, are gonna elect somebody else.

Let's give them the chance to do that, but that's a two-way street.

Because if you tell them that they can't vote after two years, it's gonna be four years.

If somebody sent mentioned tonight, let's do six years.

Holy smokes.

Let's keep it a two years.

There'll be a campaign for the last two months or three months of the second year of the term.

It doesn't last forever.

It reconnects you, believe me, it really reconnects you to your constituency.

It's a healthy process.

You will get re-elected if you're responsive.

Your programs will continue to have life and they will continue to go forward.

You will continue learning and get hopefully get better and better and better until maybe you want to go out and do something else or give the seat up for someone else because you've got different plans in your life.

Let's keep it simple.

Two years works, let's continue doing it.

I do not, I am not buying into any of these four-year arguments.

It's not enough time.

We're gonna lose a great guy.

Not gonna happen.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Rutello.

Is there anybody else who wishes to make a remark regarding uh the amend the amendment uh for two years?

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I'm going to paraphrase because I can't remember the direct quote from the West Wing.

At some point they were complaining, and they start discussing I heard some noises of something.

Yes, the West Wing.

We're talking about the West Wing tonight, because the West Wing is all about government and elections and people who believe in the power of the people.

And I spent my entire night and countless hours reviewing these videos that have been stored of the public speaking.

And I believe as an elected official, it's my job to echo the voice of the people.

And the voice of the people is they want to be able to vote.

And I think they should be able to vote as the amendment on the amendment as it's written, because as the West Wing stated, you spend all this time, hard energy working, listening to people to get elected.

And then you get elected and you spend the first year, year and a half figuring out what's going on, who works in your office, how to do the job, how to make the conversations how to happen happen and how to get work done.

And then all of a sudden, you're running for re-election again.

And now we're all back to the beginning.

And while our mayor, our current mayor has done such a phenomenal job working through the two-year limit, I don't think it should be limited to this mayor.

And some of the commentary that I have heard has been talking about just political parties.

I don't care who's getting elected.

I care if the person cares about the people and if they're working for the people, and that's it.

And I think they should have the opportunity to do that.

And if we're electing somebody to two years or to four years, it shouldn't matter.

It should be somebody who we, the people, believe is going to do the job, and I think they should have the amount of time they need to be able to do it.

I don't think they need to be spending half of it focusing on re-election.

And unfortunately, two years does that because it takes a whole year to start running for re-election again.

So once you get in, you've gotten your feet wet, you've just learned how it how the process is, how the sausage gets made, nobody wants to see it, but it happens.

All of a sudden you're running for re-election.

And I think the people should get an opportunity to vote on that four years.

And if the people of Danbury don't want four years, so be it.

The people's voices have been heard, and we've accomplished something.

And the way it is right now is it's two years, and I think the people should get a chance to amend this if they want to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Coello.

Thank you.

Uh question uh through the chair uh for for council.

If it passed, and there was a four-year term for the mayor, and let's just say for whatever reason, he is not removed because he didn't do a satisfactory job.

He had to leave early, couldn't fulfill his obligation.

Who knows?

Could die, he could uh have personal issues, he had to leave within two years.

Explain to me the process to fill that position.

Does it go to the president?

Or does it go back to an election to the voters?

So uh I mean the charter is written, would provide it would go to the whoever the president of the council is at that time.

Okay, so the president would be the mayor for the next two years.

If that's the case, he would fill out the remainder of the term.

That's correct.

Okay.

So we could change that as well and put that back to the voters, if in fact it did change to four.

We could make that change.

I'm sorry, I I'm what I'm trying to the point I'm trying to make is I'm again first of all, I'll just state my position on this.

I I'm in favor of two-year term limits.

I mean two-year term for the council, uh zoning, um, and for the for the mayor's position, right?

Treasurer uh town uh clerk as well.

But with regard to the the mayor's office, if that person in fact has to leave for whatever reason, the voters are gonna get somebody in that position.

They didn't vote for for two years.

You've taken away their right.

You've clarified that for me, if that person has to leave early in a four-year term for whatever reason, right?

So that's that's correct, as it stands right now.

As it stands correct as it stands right now.

That's my interpretation.

Are there any other questions or remarks?

Councilwoman Gardner.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, a couple of observations, having, as I previously mentioned, attended and um been part of a lot of city council meetings over the last 15 years.

Um I think a four-year term for mayor is sensible because not just for the reasons many people support it, that it provides for long-term planning, but it then makes the mayor's office the actual prize of four-year uh term of being mayor.

Um, you know, we've we've had a mayor in the past that has served for 20 years, but of those 20 years, 12 of them were busy running for governor.

And you know, I if if it were a four-year term, I think the inclination to um you know put fielders out and accept opportunities, political opportunities outside of our city is there and it's been demonstrated.

And in those 12 years of working to build a narrative, in my opinion, I I had saw the downtown deteriorate.

I saw our infrastructure, I saw a lot of things um sort of um you know devolve in the city um because you know, every two years there was a hope to build a narrative for a higher position.

So I I feel a four-year mayoral term makes the mayor's office the prize, and I support that.

And also not to put the um as uh councilwoman Faye, I think pointed out, or perhaps it was council men Henry that um you know the the idea of this two or four years is pretty split.

And so not to put it on the ref, not to put it as part of the revision, is to what takes the opportunity for half people not to vote their support for four years, if indeed it's a majority vote.

Um and so I think it it needs to be um on that uh referendum, otherwise you're not really listening.

And I think the comment about campaigns has been misconstrued because I didn't hear it as an as a candidate complaining about the the effect of elections every two years, but it's actually like for those of us who are on the doors, we hear the weariness of the voters of these every two years.

Um people are being inundated, our technology has changed, um things happen you know in great speed.

Uh a four-year term allows the space for uh real work to get done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman uh Spain Reichel.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

To um echo oh, sorry, to echo what uh part of what councilwoman Gartner was just saying.

Um as a first term counselor, uh when I was knocking on doors, many, many people said the only time I hear from anybody who's running for office is when they're asking for my vote.

Well, if you have to run every two years, that's gonna continue because when you are, you know, you've gotten elected, and as many people have said, now you've got to start thinking about campaigning.

And voters feel like that's that's the only time you really get in touch with them.

And when will you get in touch with them if you have to run constantly?

If you have to run constant.

Am I being clear, I'm not being very articulate, but um I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman, Councilwoman Fitz.

Thank you.

Um so this this is my motion that's on the floor.

Um, and I would actually like to adopt the comments from councilwoman Gartner and Councilman Spain, because it's true.

The only time the public sees politicians is when they are campaigning, when they're asking for your vote, which is what councilwoman Spain Reichel just said.

Councilwoman Gartner made a lot of arguments in favor of a two-year term because we had a 20 20-year mayor who was seeking out another job.

And during that time, he continued to be elected as our mayor.

If he was there for four years, we'd be stuck, maybe still with Mayor Bowden.

I don't know.

I don't know.

But if it was four years, we would have less opportunity to vote someone out who's climbing a political ladder, someone who maybe wants to run for governor, somebody who wants to run for Congress.

So both of both of those comments I actually construe in favor of a two-year term.

And I'd like to say, if it takes you two years to learn any job, perhaps you're not the right person for that job.

I think that the only time things get done expeditiously and efficiently is at election in an election year.

That's when we see roads get paved.

That's when we hear good things about our schools, that's when we see and hear and can actually touch our politicians.

Yes, it's only Danbury, but Danbury's our home.

And it means an awful lot to the 90,000 people that live here.

And they should have the opportunity to come out every two years and vote on who they want to be the city's mayor.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Hi, I just want to um I mean, I think that we can probably go on and back and forth, and and as we heard in public comment today, everybody's gonna have their opinion on what makes the most sense, right?

Um we hear from voters and we knock on doors that they're fatigued, they're tired of being asked for donations, they're tired of lawn signs, they're tired of phone calls.

Um, I mean, I think my position is I don't really know what the right answer is.

I'm not gonna sit here and say what I think the right answer is because I don't.

I think that the whole point is the voters have their we're doing this to give them an opportunity to vote on it.

Um I think my position is I see we struggle with looking at things from a longer period from a budget perspective, more than one or two years, because you're not allowing somebody who's in that CEO position to really, you know, be able to look at forecasts and and make longer-term strategic capital progress improvement plans beyond you know the next election cycle.

Um, I I think there's pros and cons to either.

And and I don't I think that what I'm hearing a lot from people is the cons of a four-year term are the fact that you feel that that you don't have quick accountability for somebody who's bad.

Um, but I think you know, from a purpose of of we would like to have some type of hope that we're not just gonna keep electing terrible people that we would be afraid to keep in for four years.

The whole point is to try to get a cycle here where we're getting good people in and we're keeping good people in who want to do this, who want to spend the time the four years to help build something.

And I just think that no matter what our personal opinions are here, I heard a pretty significant split in the public comment, either here tonight or at the commission, and I just think this is something that we can go back and forth on, but it's here right now as a four-year term for us to present to the public, and I think that's the public's gonna be the ones that this is who we're representing.

And I don't think that me personally hearing the um back and forth from the public tonight, it's my job to put it back to them, not to make a decision based on what I think personally.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilman Perkins, we have not heard from you on this topic.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I I never I never was interested in a four-year term.

I I like I like to I like the the two-year terms, and and the reason for that is because it gives you an opportunity to make voter contact.

One of the best things about this job is being able to talk to your constituents.

I was just talking to one of my consistents the other day on uh on Deal Drive over some paving stuff.

Uh talk to some people over on Brushy Hill, Southern Boulevard, uh Jeffrey Jefferson.

That's what we do.

We we make voter contact.

And if you're not doing that, it's very difficult to be effective sitting up here on the staus.

I mean, how else can it work?

So the longer you have between voter contact, the the less effectiveness I think that one will be.

Um some people do say, you know, I only see you during election time.

I'm like, well, maybe so.

Um, but it takes an expense to run every year.

We we spend, you know, money every year to run for these jobs.

Uh so one thing that we need to keep in mind is that it's a very important to make sure that we reach out to our contacts, we talk to our constituents just to make sure that we are hearing and understanding their different needs and and um wants.

I mean, one way I do it is through a lot of three-one-one calls.

I mean, I'm not gonna sit here and say that I have more three-one calls than everybody up here, but I certainly have a lot.

Uh it's too easy to check.

But if you if you did check, I better have more bunch of people up on this whole dais.

Okay.

So that's a whole citywide thing that a lot of us can be doing.

We just put those those calls in.

Okay.

I just email 311, and it seems like they're waiting for me to send a message in, because it seems like as soon as I turn around, they're out doing the request.

Um so it's it's important whether it's the council or the mayor to make sure that we always maintain that level of contact.

And you know, there's not a ton of voters that we have.

And um we we can we can hit those with mailers, we can hit those with doors, different types of campaigns.

So I I think I think we need to um keep the two year intact.

And not only that, um if you have checked any of the economics lately, you'll you'll see that for decades we have achieved a high level of economic prosperity.

I mean, just look at our uh data in these uh council books, constant two percent growth for for years and years and years.

That comes from a finely tuned machine.

Whether one administration takes over or not, those mechanisms are in place to make sure that things run kind of on the smooth side.

So unless you go in there and start trying to turn things upside down, you're gonna be handed over um a a pretty a pretty good economic system.

Um, you know, we um increased our our um our spending five percent or whatever five and a half percent in 20 uh 25, but we only raised our middle rate less than three percent, less than the rate of inflation.

I mean, you don't do that by by accident.

That happens from long-term planning.

Okay, so this whole notion that everything's gonna fall apart just because you have a two of a two-year term, it's it's just it's not based in in fact, okay?

Because if if that was true, none of this stuff would be happening.

Okay.

Uh new new appointments, new people, new new grants, new financing, new uh businesses coming in town, new economic development, new restaurants, a whole lot of new stuff is happening.

All right.

And that's because of efforts like you know, our economic people, the efforts from the mayor's all of our efforts together.

Okay.

But just having a longer term doesn't necessarily gonna make that any better.

Okay, so things are working, you know, very well as they are, and um, I'm so an advocate of the two-year term.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Councilman uh laughing house.

I'll be extremely brief.

I think it's too big of a topic for us to make the decision here in this chamber.

Um I echo what uh councilwoman Robinson said in terms of the opportunity if this goes forward to put it to public referendum and let the folks decide.

Uh the other thing I just want to make point of is um just voter contact.

Um I didn't get this role to sit and knock on doors every two years.

I'm sure nobody here did.

Um I'm talking to voters at the softball fields, uh, the other opportunities handing water out at the fire department on Christmas Eve.

Um, we're all heavily involved in the community, and I spent my past month talking this issue, and the people want to vote.

So councilwoman Richael Smith for the second and last time.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So um, as I said, I was not very articulate.

Um I do agree that when you campaign, you are making voter contact, and that is wonderful, and I enjoyed it so much.

I enjoyed talking with people.

But what I'm saying is I would like to be able to do that when I can really offer them something and say, you know, yes, I know how this works.

I I can, you know, do you need this?

Do you need that?

Rather than just go and knock on their door and ask for their vote.

Thank and also um I think it is very important that we put this forward so that the people of Danbury can vote on it.

If we if we do not advance it, then they have no opportunity to vote on it.

I think it's important that they are given that opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

How many times have you spoken?

Only once.

So Councilman Flanagan hasn't spoken yet.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I just wanted to echo what some other our members have been talking about.

We could beat this thing to death all night.

Let's get it to the voters.

We all answer to them.

We all work for them.

Let's get it to the voters in November.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Rotello.

I don't think it's escaped anybody's attention.

It certainly didn't escape mine.

The people in favor of the changes in the charter were the ones pushing to have the voters vote for it in November.

And generally the people who were against the changes in this charter, the proposed changes of the charter, particularly four-year terms, were the ones asking us to kill it tonight and not send it to the voters.

So what does that mean for a practical sense?

I can't read your minds.

But let's just assume that you've been honest all night, and all you want to do is send this to the voters.

You're taking a really big gamble.

Because what's gonna kill this in November, if it's killed, is gonna be four-year terms.

You're gonna die on that hill.

There's not gonna be any more secret donations to the mayor for five thousand bucks to report, no patronage jobs for the friggin' I I uh what are we doing?

What's the patronage jobs?

I mean, we get rid of IT, we're gonna have a patronage job for the town clerk, a patronage job for the town clerk.

Oh, I know that those are great ideas, and you're married to them, and you're gonna lose them all.

You're gonna die on this four-year term.

If you are really serious about sending this to the voters in November so it passes, not just sending it to the voters because you believe in democracy.

I mean, sure, I I can do that.

I don't like this.

I want to send it to the voters, they're gonna kill it.

I shouldn't even say this, I should have kept my mouth shut because I know in my bones that if you continue with four-year terms, it's gonna die on the hill in November, and that's what I want.

I want that, but you don't want that.

So I'm giving you the opportunity just to consider this because most of you are new here.

If you want this to have a life, get rid of the primary issues in this proposal, and the primary issues in the proposal are four-year terms of the mayor of the council.

You get rid of those, it'll probably pass in November.

If you don't, it'll probably fail.

And that's gonna be on you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilman Salvatore, did you have a remark?

Yeah, I just I I think at this point in time we beat this horse dead.

Um again, 37 people tonight don't make the electorate, don't make the majority, but out of the 37, a majority were for four-year terms and for getting this to the voters.

I respect your opinion, but I also think part of democracy is taking that chance and putting it before the voters, and I believe that we should keep the four years in, and we should move this forward and just go.

Thank you.

Um that said, um, before us is is the amendment from councilwoman Faye to leave the terms of office at two years.

I believe that's a correct summary.

Yes, I would and and that's the motion uh before us.

Is that just for the mayor?

It was for it's across the board.

I know I just I only addressed the mayor.

Okay, yeah, just the mayor.

Yeah, I was I was trying to do it very specific.

Okay.

So it's just the mayor.

So that's the motion, and uh uh before us, so I'll try your I'll try your minds.

Could we have a roll call vote?

Sure.

Thank you.

A roll call vote on on councilwoman's phase amendment.

Councilman Coello, yes or no?

Yes.

Councilman Flanagan.

No, Councilman Hawley.

No, Councilwoman Lepine.

No.

Councilwoman Salvatore.

No, Councilman Bazade, no, Councilwoman Gartner, no, Councilwoman Fay.

Yes, Councilman Henry, yes, Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

No, Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

No.

Councilman Rotello.

Yes, sir.

Councilman Chinese.

Okay.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Yes.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

Councilman Dennis Perkins.

Yes.

Okay.

There's 14.

No.

The motion fails.

So we will continue going across the dais regarding chapter two.

Is there anybody to the right of me at the second level of the dais who wish to make any comments or remarks regarding chapter two of the changes to the city council?

No.

So let's move down to the lower the set first level of the dais.

Go ahead.

Yes.

Yes, I'd like to make an amendment to that to change the uh four-year term for the council back to two.

Second.

Okay.

That motion made and seconded.

Are there any remarks regarding that motion?

Councilwoman Faye.

So I just to be clear, this is not this is an amendment to my motion, or this is a whole new motion.

Your two years.

Your motion.

Yeah, okay.

I want to be sure.

So if this council is inclined to accept a charter revision provision that provides for a four-year term for the mayor, and also accepted a provision that has a four-year term for council, we would be one of three cities in the entire state of Connecticut that did that.

Waterbury has a two-year city council.

Norwalk, Bridgeport, and Hamden join them.

It would be absolutely absolutely ridiculous to have a council comprised such as this one with an 18 to 3 majority for four years with a mayor.

At least rotating the council and getting public input on their seats every two years would maintain some public involvement, would give the politics back to the public in some way.

So I am very much in favor of Councilman Rotello's motion.

Thank you.

Are there any other remarks regarding the motion by Councilman Rotello regarding uh two-year terms for the council members?

Councilwoman Jabor.

In reading these amendments, I think there's a stark contrast between the mayor's office and a four-year term and the city council and a four-year term.

For one, the mayor's office is an elected position.

That is a full-time position.

City council is a volunteer position.

We do not get paid to be here.

We take time out of our schedules to represent our constituents.

We take our evenings such as tonight when we have all worked a full day and now come in to come and make these decisions.

And I think it's a very tough ask to ask somebody to volunteer four years of their life on a volunteer position to do this job without them being able to reconsider it.

I think what would wind up happening is rather than the diversity we have on the days here in age in gender and types of jobs that we all do, in where we are in the stages in our life, whether retired, whether working, whether what have you?

I think that diversity will strongly suffer once you consider this as a four-year term rather than a two-year term.

I think people are going to have a harder time considering four years, especially if it's a first time running.

This is my first time running.

This is my first time being on the council.

I made this decision very consciously and knowingly that this was going to take time out of my life, and I was willing to come serve my constituents and represent them in the best of my ability.

And I think it would be I would not be serving my constituents to the best of my ability if I were to put forward to them that the city council should be four years.

I think the diversity of this committee would suffer if it was a four-year term rather than a two-year term.

And I think people who have volunteered to serve their time may think twice to recommit to serve their time again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman Jabor.

Is there anybody else who wants to remark regarding the motion to change to uh recommend to the commission that uh they change it back to a two-year term for the council members?

Any other remarks?

No, hearing none.

I only heard it twice.

Thank you.

Uh I had a question through the chair with regard to the same question I had with regard to the mayor.

So if it does get passed, the ones that are on the council are elected for four years, and in the event they can't stay or for whatever reason have to leave in two years, right?

What's happened in the past when it's a two-year term, typically would go back to the town committees, they would recommend somebody, and it comes in front of the council, right, and we approve it.

So that would be the same thing under a four-year term.

That's correct.

So the point is again, you're taking more voting rights away from the voters.

They don't have a say in that, right?

If it were every two years, and that person happened to leave in 18 months, then that person that gets sat there for six months, right?

Gets appointed approved by the council and would have to run for re-election again, and the voters get that choice at the end of that second year, not four years.

So by doing that, the potential is it's like you know, councilwoman uh Jabor said, there's a potential that a person, you know, it's it's a big commitment at four years, and they may not be able to fill fulfill that, and it's just another reason that I think uh I know I'm opposed to it, but it's another reason it's one, you know, less voter input doesn't make this better.

It's it's you're taking more voting rights away from the voters by going to four-year terms.

And the in the an example that if a person cannot finish that term, they'll have no say in who fills that seat for the next two years.

They might have voted for Mike Flanagan, but if he can't fulfill that position for whatever reason, somebody else gets in that seat, they may not like it, and whoever it could be, could be me, could be Paul, could be Ben, could be anybody here to take that voting around right away from the voters.

I think is uh it's not why we're here.

So I'm I'm opposed to it.

So thank you.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Um I I do agree with um what's been said so far tonight.

I think that a lot of the history of the cities that have gone to a four-year mayor term, um, most of them have stuck with a two-year council term.

Um, and it has been a significant uh like New Haven, I think is a good example.

New Haven, maybe it's New Haven, a significant example of 70% of the voting public um agreed to keep the council terms to two years while they agreed to have the mayor's term at four.

Um I think that some of the accountability questions that are brought up as far as the legislative body and making sure that you're listening to the people are very important.

Um, and I think it echoes some of the points here is that you know, there you have a chief executive officer of the city who I think it's very important to have an opportunity to have a longer runway to be able to get things done, but um we are here as volunteers, and four years uh is a long commitment for people to do this, especially on nights like tonight.

So um I I do agree that that this is something that to keep in mind as far as we want to get good people to run.

We want good people to be able to sit up here in the dais.

Um, and and I think being able to have this be reasonable term um is is something to keep in in mind.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who wishes to make a remark?

Councilwoman Gardner.

Um yeah, I just want to remind everyone that board of ed terms are four years, and we're not really um discussing um reducing that to two.

So I think there is a framework where four-year terms do work, even for volunteers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Lepine.

Um, I'm just thinking about the fact that uh, you know, it's like pulling teeth to get people to get out and vote, as it is, we don't even have half the people in the city that vote.

So if the mayor's term becomes four years and the council is two, you're gonna have years where hardly anybody comes out to vote, it's gonna be difficult to get them out.

So I think that those two those terms should be the same.

I think that's the best way to get the most people to vote for the council at the same time with the mayor.

Thank you.

Any other remarks on on the motion regarding a two-year term for the council?

Hearing none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor of uh that's fine.

We will do a roll call.

Okay.

And we're voting on the motion for to recommend to the charter to the council that they recommend to the Charter Revision Commission, they consider a two-year term.

So for council people.

So councilman Coello.

Yes.

Councilman Flanagan.

No.

Councilman Hawley.

No.

Councilwoman Lepine.

No.

Councilman Salvatore.

No.

Councilman Bazid?

No.

Councilwoman Gardner.

No.

Councilwoman Fay.

Councilman Henry.

Yes.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

No.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Yeah.

Councilman Rotello.

Yes.

Councilman Chinese.

Yes.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britt.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilman Woman Robinson.

Yes.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

No.

Councilman Dennis Perkins.

Yes.

Okay.

The motion fails uh with 12 no votes.

Okay.

Continuing on in our discussion of chapter two of the revisions to the charter.

I forgot where I was.

I'm thinking I'm in the lower dais.

Councilman Ben Chinese.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I do have several things I would like to discuss on this section.

I know during the public speaking portion of the evening, they mentioned the Board of Education about they would prefer staggering their terms because of the amount of work and knowledge that's needed in in performing their duties.

And since it's already currently a four-year terms anyway, so my question would be to Corporation Council is why did they decide to make it to take the staggering away?

Something that we that we're missing here, because what I've talked to previous ex-board of ed members and current members, they prefer the staggering of the board of ed, because it is true that if it could possibly turn over from one four four years to the other.

I'm sorry, if he's able to answer the why part.

Are you asking if if the law permits it?

No, I know the law permits it, but I don't understand why they changed it from what we have to because it's already four years to making it all one four-year term for everyone.

So Councilman Cheneys is the why the why question, don't you think would be better answered by a member of the Charter Revision Commission than the Council of the Charter Revision Commission?

So to do the chair, uh that would be my suggestion that we have the commission answer that.

I will note that any recommendations made tonight by the council ultimately will end up uh going to the commission at a joint meeting held between the city council and the commission.

Uh that would be an appropriate opportunity for the commission to comment on the rationale for why they changed this particular language.

Um so that would I think that would be a fair uh process for getting an answer to this question.

So I should make a motion to recommend to the commission to reconsider on staggering the board of ed to make it staggered.

That'd be your decision if you want to make that motion.

Okay, then I will make a motion to take the board of ed and re to remove to remove the term and make it a staggered four years as it as it currently is stated.

So that's second.

Okay.

The motion's been made and seconded.

Is there any um remarks on on that motion to uh to not accept the the four-year terms that run concurrently and go retain the staggered terms to the board of education in the charter?

Councilman Giordano.

I think it's pretty obvious why uh why they were uh changed uh to be four-year concurrent terms, and it's just simply that uh if you don't do that, then you're gonna end up with uh um an election of uh, you know, in you're gonna end up with an election in one year where you're only uh um uh running like uh a few school board members, and it just seems practically uh um uh not uh very efficient as as far, you know.

Uh you know, we if we already have a situation where uh the municipal elections have uh at best uh half the turnout of uh um uh you know, midterms and presidential elections.

So uh I think you would get a situation where uh there weren't a lot of people voting in that uh election.

And so practically speaking, it doesn't make any sense to do that.

Thank you.

Um councilwoman Robinson.

I I I mean, I guess I don't know if this tags on to Councilman Cheney's um question, but I think my main question is this is if the board of education was consulted um during this.

Um is it is that through the chair?

Is that part of is that to the council or is it to the commission itself, or do we wait for another time to get an answer?

So that's a question really for the commission.

I don't believe unless unless the corporation the corporation council can answer that question.

Uh Mr.

Morgan, can you answer that question?

The chair, we did discuss uh both terms and the substantive uh proposed changes to the charter with the board, including the board's attorney who had a meeting uh who met with our office, corporation council's office.

So you know, these these changes were discussed with the board.

Um, we had uh we had a lengthy meeting with the attorney for the board.

Um the board then spoke at the Charter Revision Commission meetings explaining their position on our proposed changes.

Um we did canvas this with the board.

Yeah.

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I think by eliminating the staggering that we currently have with the board of ed, we as a city are losing valuable insight and historical knowledge.

I think uh I I know before when it was staggered, it was done intentionally, and it was done purposefully.

And I think this document is actually entirely the opposite.

I also want to note that I was at the public hearing uh for the the Charter Revision Commission, and what happened there was about two hours of public comment brought back to the commission that met immediately after.

And there was I would say at least four members who expressed concern, who wanted to think about what the public had commented, who wanted to see the minutes of that night, and they were told that um they needed to move it forward.

They were bullied, honestly, they were bullied into moving it forward because it would come back to the council at this meeting tonight, and that we would be responsible for making the changes.

So the rhetoric that we've got to push this to the voters is just more propaganda that we need to keep this ball moving forward when it isn't ready to do that yet.

There was explicit pushback from the Charter Review Commission members that you don't send an unfinished product forward.

That's what they did here, and now this is almost what we're doing by not considering and by saying we need to push, we just need to push it forward to the voters.

We need to get it to the next step.

They actually, and it was Chairman Britton who said the council will have the opportunity to weigh in on this.

So it was purposefully put before us tonight so that we could thoughtfully consider these recommendations because it wasn't done before it got to us.

So I I urge you all of us up here to carefully consider everything and not believe that it was thoughtfully prepared and in a final draft format to come to us because none of us would file a brief that was half done, and that's what we're sitting with tonight.

Thank you.

Councilman Mattello.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I I don't know why they did this.

I mean, I certainly agree with Mr.

Giordano that it appears they did it, because if you eliminate elections every two years and you have a staggered school board with three people running or six people, whatever it is, you've got a really tiny election.

I mean, that's you know, it's just obvious.

It just seems in a practical sense to not make a lot of sense if you're looking at it superficially.

On the other hand, the largest part of the budget is the school board.

And whenever I'm talking to people when they get through uh exhaustively explaining to me about crime and traffic and all that stuff, they circle back around to one of two things.

I have kids in school, we're not spending enough money.

I don't have kids in school, we're spending too much money on the schools.

They never say we're spending too much money on the infrastructure.

They never say, you know, you guys are spending too much money on paved roads, you should stop doing that.

They never say you're spending too much money on underground utility.

It's always the schools, either too much or not enough.

So this actually could have a very different outcome.

Yes, it'll be a really weird election with a handful of people on the school board.

But it will finally zero in with the voters' minds, especially the ones that are with with kids in schools and the and the ones that haven't had kids in school for like 40 years.

It will finally bring them to the forefront, and the discussion every two years, two years will will concentrate exclusively on what the city of Danbury is doing with the school system.

I think that's a very healthy conversation to have.

It's a very healthy way to allow the voters to have their say.

Just it's just an election about schools.

We're not talking about the mayor, we're not talking about the ball fields.

We're not talking about the roads, we're just talking about the school board.

And as you know, if you've only been here for a couple of years, or you've been here for 20 years, in May, in April, all we hear about the orange shirts come in and we get haranged for hours about what we are doing right or wrong, usually wrong, when it comes to the school system.

I I would find as people have said, you know, we can give this to the voters and try it out for a couple of years.

If it doesn't work well, you know, we do something else.

So let's try this out.

Why not?

I think it'd be really cool.

We have an election every two years, just well, not every two years of the fourth, the second two years will be everybody, but every other two-year section will be just for school board members, and we will actually get to sit back and see what the dialogue is in the community.

I'm gonna go to Park Avenue School.

I'm gonna be there for that election.

I'm gonna stand there with my sign and tell people to you know to vote for these school board members and and and do that kind of stuff.

And I'm gonna have that.

I I want to have that.

I want a special election just for school board members.

So, yes, I agree with uh uh Lugi Ordano, Lucian, that it was probably done for that, although I'm not a mind reader.

I can't tell you exactly if that's why they did it or not.

But my guess is that's probably a large portion of it.

But I think that may be a little short-sighted.

I think it might actually be healthier to have a an election in this two-year cycle just for board members.

It is the largest section of the budget in Danbury, and maybe the most important.

And I I think it would be a very interesting uh procedure to to view, and I think it would be very healthy, uh, very healthy for the community.

I support this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Rotello.

Um, Councilman Chinese.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I think there's a misconception here.

We do have elections almost every other year.

It may not be municipal, but it is state.

So there's no reason why we can't run municipal candidates on a state type of election.

We're doing it this year with the charter.

We're putting a city question on a state ballot with this already federal and state electors.

So why can't we have federal, state, and board of ed electors on the ballot as well?

There's no reason why we can't, it's just the starting point to which we get them on the first shot.

And after that, be four years after that, whether it be a state local election or be a presidential election or a governor election, there'll be some point in time for four years, like the governor.

Governors every four years, so why can't it piggyback on the governor's ballot?

So again, it's just the starting point to where it is.

Yes, we would have to wait three years before the next four year term would start.

But it can happen.

So the fact that it's because of the we're gonna have a small ballot is not true.

We just got to put it on the right ballot so we can do it.

So that's why I'm asking the commission to re-look at it to see if that's an option, if we can do so.

And if it is, why not?

Because it seems like that's what the board of ed seems to want to keep the staggered terms.

If we can make it happen, let's let's at least look at it.

And that's what the motion's about.

If we can't, we can't, but at least we're giving it a different perspective to see whether or not we can, and that's the purpose of it.

And I think it can happen.

It's just again, the starting point, which is in this ballot, just chart a change too.

It's the first six now and the next five, two years from now.

So it's still that's staggered, it's just a starting point.

So I think this could work.

It just would be uh a state type of election instead of a municipal-owning election.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Councilman uh Dwayne Perkins.

Did you have your hand up before?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I kind of did.

I mean, what what's the problem if the um ballot is light for board of ed members?

I mean, I don't understand what what what what what problem that would be.

Let's say um instead of nine people, there's there's only four or five.

What's what's the problem?

Thank you.

Um councilman Britton.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um education is important to me, so I figured I would opine on this issue here on the dais.

Um so I'm reading the language here for the unstaggering.

My opinion here for this for this body, it's important because from a practical matter, if we don't adopt it this way and say we assume that we adopt the four-year terms for every other office, you are gonna spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer dollars on an election for five, sometimes six people.

To me, I don't think that's a practical use of taxpayer dollars.

Number one, um, number two, I historically speaking, just doing my research on this for in preparation for tonight.

Um, I don't think we chose to stagger them.

State statute speaks pretty clearly on this.

Um, it allows the option to stagger, but it also gives the right to municipalities to unstagger if they so choose.

Um, and I also want to make a note that as I was prepping again for tonight that the language that was proposed in the previous charter revision had pretty much the same exact language for unstaggering the terms that was approved through the commission 18 years ago.

So this language is not novel.

This isn't a novel idea to unstaggering the terms because in my opinion, the way that it reads tonight for us to debate is this is just common sense.

I mean, we're really gonna run an election for five or six people.

I mean, you just got to think about that at the macro level.

That is that's not a prudent use of the taxpayer dollar, in my opinion.

Um, so I just want to leave on that, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Um moving along the lower level of the days.

Is it one one more quick question, Mr.

Uh President?

I mean, wouldn't they be appearing on the same ballot that all the rest of us are on?

Or would there be a whole election just for the board of ed?

I I'm sorry, are we talking about the the motion on the floor?

Right.

The motion on the floor is is that the board of ed would remain staggered terms every every um every two years.

Well, the motion would require that on the floor.

Right.

Every four years, I'm sorry.

Four years, but an election every two years.

Right.

Councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So I don't know how well this has been thought out looking at the elimination of potentially all the board members after four years, but during that process, board members are trained for expulsion hearings.

So required to make three hearings.

If you eliminate the entire board, there is nobody there to conduct those hearings.

They all have to be trained.

That's a different process that we have right now.

So staggered terms protect the status quo that they have right now on that.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gardner.

Yeah, I just want to build on something, Councilman Shane said that also um, you know, this year we have we have local races in the sense we have our registrar voters and our probate judges are also part of the current election cycle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman uh Richel Spain I support um staggered terms for the board of ed.

I think it's important to have people who know what what to do, how to do it.

They've been there, they have um experience.

I think that's really important, and I support staggered terms.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have you already gone on this?

Well, I just want to clarify the motion again.

Can we sure I I believe the motion is to keep staggered terms for the board of education?

So it is to remove remove the the requirements.

The red lines that were made in that section.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anybody who has not spoken at least one time?

I think everybody has.

Yes, thank you.

Um I just wanted to point something out from a different perspective.

Uh I heard a couple of board past board members speak tonight, but I want to rewind about five years or so during COVID.

Parents were incredibly passionate, no matter what side of the line you stood on, when it came to parental rights, and having a four-year term not stagger takes away those rights from parents.

I saw thousands of parents speak at the Capitol, passionate, whether you're on one side or the other.

And I think this is another reason we don't change that.

If that's what they want their hill to die on, the charter revision could fail on that alone.

If we learn nothing else during COVID, is how passionate parents are.

She was passionate enough about it.

There's people on there.

There's other councilmen's wives who ran for that as well.

They're passionate about it.

But to take away those rights from you know the parents in this town.

I'll look past the cost about money in elections, right?

Because at the end of the day, the city spends there was nine million dollars two years in a row that were left on spent in the election.

It costs 20,000.

If a whatever that costs is for election two years, pales in comparison to what the effect it could have on our kids.

So I'm in uh I'm a strong support of staggering the four-year terms.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think we've we've talked about this.

Um we're ready to take a vote on the amendment to retain the stagger for the board of educ to recommend to the council that the council recommend to the charter revision commission that we retain the stagger for the um board of education.

I got a roll call on that, please.

And we'll do it by roll call one more time.

This is this is uh again for the committee of the whole.

Uh Councilman Coello.

It's for two-year four-year staggered terms, correct?

That's correct.

Yes.

Councilman Flanagan.

Yes, Councilman Hawley.

No, councilwoman Lapine.

Councilman Salvatore.

Councilman Bazaid, no.

Councilwoman Gardner.

No.

Councilwoman Fay.

Councilman Henry.

Yes.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

That's correct.

Let's keep it staggered.

Okay.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Yes.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabor.

Yeah.

Councilman Rotello.

Councilman China's.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Yes.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

Councilman Dennis Perkins.

Yes.

The motion carries regarding the recommendation of the uh of the ad hoc committee to the council to recommend to the uh Charter Revision Commission they retain the staggered terms.

Moving our way through chapter two of the charter.

Councilman Cheneys.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I want to talk about section 2.2-6, which um allows for the concerning vacancies in the elected positions.

I'm going to make a motion that we strike the amendment to allow the mayor to fill a vacancy in any elected city office except the board of education.

If the council does not fill the vacancy by appointment within 60 days from the effective date of the vacancy.

Um again, um I'll just go you can second.

I just want to opine if there's a second.

Okay, that motion been made and seconded.

And so I believe it says if if the city we're taking out the language where if the city charter should fail to make any appointment within 60 days of the effective date of the vacancy, the appointment shall be made by the mayor no later than 30 days after the 60 days that the council had to make the appointment.

Correct.

Okay, that you like that stricken the whole thing.

So is there any discussion about that change to chapter two, section six vacancies?

Councilman Britton.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um my question would be what happens then if the council doesn't fill the vacancy in 60 days.

Can they just sit on it and keep it open forever?

Councilman Chinese.

Again, through the chair.

I mean, as somebody's been on this council for over 20 years, and we never had this issue because it was never the council's issue.

It was that we never got the names brought to us to begin with.

So a lot of times when a resignation happens, the resignation is goes to the town clerk, the town clerk or the legislative aid.

By the time we get it, it could be 30, 40 days after the fact.

So really, my suggestion would go to the commission that when a resignation occurs at the very next meeting.

That resignation is already on our agenda where the council is already seeking just like the board of education does.

We're already seeking another nominee.

And it's usually the party that's been vacated, whether it be a Democratic Party or Republican party, we have to fill that slot.

And normally the council at that point is what we've done in the past.

We've asked the town committees on each party to recommend someone they wish to fulfill that position with, and the council almost 99.9% of the times accepts that nomination.

Um it's you and if not, we can have an ad hoc and we can put it out to the public that we're seeking a uh an individual to fulfill a vacancy that was that's occurring, whether it be a zoning or council or anything.

So that's been what we have done.

The problem in the past is the council never really took the initiative to have this done.

The Audived does it when somebody resigns, they have a special committee that's met and they seek a nomination.

So the fact that we have to wait 60 days, it's usually not the case.

It's usually when someone resigns, it's on our next agenda.

We we set the parameters to say, okay, this is what we're seeking.

We can have an ad hoc, and then we can the next meeting we can appoint somebody.

And that's usually what happens.

I mean, I mean, I can't speak from the for the mayor who gets who does a lot of these appointments himself, how many people actually request to be on these uh for the elected, but I don't see why the council once again wants to give up a power that we have to to allow another person to do our jobs.

I mean, we don't do a lot.

You know, this is one of the important besides the budget.

This is another important step that we do.

We fulfill the elected position.

This has been going on for what 50, 60 years, and all of a sudden we want to give it up.

I mean, I've been here, we never had a problem filling a position.

The only time we've had it is when either a town committee has failed to submit a name.

And now I know we had a town an ex town committee member on this tariffs now.

We had some in in the audience.

We had a we have an assistant here sitting in here.

I don't see it to be a problem that the council cannot do this within 60 days.

That's my opinion.

So that's why I think it should be stricken.

Councilman Rotello.

Could I ask Councilman Shinezu to repeat the um amendment?

I believe the amendment was just to strike all the red in in that section.

That was his amendment.

That's what I thought, right.

That's pretty much what I thought, but he has an actual plan 1A in the plan one is to strike the red, and the plan 1A is to give it back to the council using some sort of mechanism.

But the motion's not the motion.

That's correct.

That's not the motion.

So my question is we strike this, it goes back to the commission and they return it to us with the strikeout out.

What do we do?

I mean shouldn't you have uh I I know, but should you want you want me to amend but I haven't thought this a little complicated here, you know.

I mean I I'm sorry, could you direct you directly?

I know we're we're having a dial we're not supposed to, but it's it sounds like you've given us some thought.

Maybe you should amend your own motion and then I will second that because right I I can't support this.

I don't know where we're going with it.

I I know where you want to go, but it's not here.

I I think I think we're a little out of order right now.

So thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So I apologize for that.

I understand what I understand what your point is, but but it's got to be but but you know the motion, if it's made would send it back to the right.

Okay.

Are there any other people with remarks on this particular motion by Councilman Cheneys?

Councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I do agree with Councilman Shenizi's request and motion to strike all the red line draft report here.

Um I I believe that neither party wants to or would risk relinquishing an elected seat for a possible political appointment, and it should go back to the city council to approve.

Thank you.

It is all right.

Councilwoman Gartner, if you have a remark on this.

Yeah, I guess um I'm I'm not sure where the city council gets robbed of its power that Ben Chianese uh Councilman Sheanis mentioned.

Because if it's not done in 60 days and then there's another 30 days, I mean the the council has the power, but there's also just a time, you know, that uh time frame for it, and I think that's okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um other comments, any other comments.

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

Um what I understood um Councilman Chinacy's comments to be is that the process sometimes takes longer than 60 days, and that 60 days would simply not be enough in most circumstances, given the time that they solicit uh that we're soliciting names from whether it's town committees um or whomever, that 60 days would be a truncated too short time period.

Um that that's what I understood his his comments to mean.

Um and you know, this brings me back to my experience where I've asked for certain subjects to be added to the agenda, um, and and an ad hoc formed and been told no, that that's not the process that council people are not given the ability to do that.

Um, because it is centralizing the power in one person, and that's the mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments on uh the amendment by Councilman Chinese?

Councilman Dwayne Perk.

Just just for clarification, um Mr.

Um President.

So what I'm seeing here is that within that 60-day period, it goes to the council to be filled by the same party.

So I I think what um councilman Shenisi is saying that if it goes beyond the 60 days, it would be an appointment made by the mayor.

And that's that's where the amendment that's what you want out of there.

That's correct.

That's that that understanding is correct.

Okay.

Um but I but I guess I guess what the the charge of the um the the commission is trying to trying to put a mechanism in place to figure out what happens after the 60 days by by having a mayor appoint someone.

So uh it seems like it's still open-ended.

I mean, maybe it goes back to the council again.

So I mean the new language to the to the existing position, uh the existing provision in the charter is in red.

The current language is is remains in the black in section two-six that you're looking at.

All right, thank you.

So councilman Rotello.

Just briefly to clarify, if we pass this, it will be open-ended.

There will be no time.

As it stands, if you remove the amendment, there won't be a time limit.

Correct?

That's correct.

Right.

That's all.

I mean, the the practical bottom line here is that if we take out the red and there's a vacancy, the council can take as much time as it wants to appoint somebody else.

There will be no traffic instructions telling us we have to do it in three months or in a quarter or six months.

It's not like somebody else is gonna do it.

We still get to do it.

We just don't have a time limit.

If I'm correct, that's sort of correct because it's limited by charter to 60 days.

Right.

Right.

Councilwoman Gardner.

Yeah, just a point of clarity.

So as it's written right now, if the council doesn't um fill that position in 60 days, the appointment goes to the mayor, but it still remains a vacancy filled with the same political party.

Correct.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Um, I think we've Councilwoman Faye.

So I um I I agree with Councilman Rotello that it will be rather open-ended.

Uh if we vote yes on Councilman Shinesy's motion as it has been stated.

We also know the results because this has happened, and this is how Mike Sefranic got his constable position.

I believe it was on day 61 or 62 that he was appointed by the mayor.

So we know how this works.

Um I I think that the motion as presented is um to still too open-ended, and I would like to see another motion made that would um provide the parameters for what happens next, so that um maybe it's not given to the the power isn't given to the mayor, but we have a safeguard of what happens when someone isn't appointed within those sixty days.

So really what we're doing here, if you were if you're a member, we're the committee of the whole, we're gonna make a recommendation to the council that the council recommend that that the Charter Revision Commission look at this again, right?

So it doesn't have to be we're there, they don't necessarily have to use our words, right?

They they develop their own words or don't make any change at all.

So in in that understanding, um Chairman Busade would be it gets struck out, but it's not necessarily left open-ended because the Charter Revision Commission has the authority to that's that's substitute information.

Or or not.

Right, absolutely.

That's right.

So um at this point, if there's no other discussion, um, we are now voting on the amendment proposed by Councilman Cheney's to strike out the red additional language to section two six of the charter.

So all those in favor of adopting the amendment, um, please say uh yes.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

All right, I'm gonna ask for a roll call vote because I can't tell.

I'm tired or I'm not I don't have good ears.

So we're gonna go one more time.

Um councilman Coello.

This is to uh a yes.

Yes, vote is for the amendment to strike it.

Yes, Councilman Flanagan, yes, Councilman Hawley, no, councilwoman Lepine, no, Councilman Salvatore, no, Councilman Bazade, no, Councilwoman Gardner, no, Councilwoman Fay, Councilman Henry, Councilwoman Wallace Smith, Councilwoman Spain Reichel, Councilman Giordano, Councilwoman Jabbar, Councilman Rotello, Councilman Chinaes, Councilman Dwayne Perkins, Councilman Britton, Councilman McGallister, Councilwoman Robinson, Councilman Laughinghouse, Councilman Dennis Perkins.

Yes.

Thank you.

Hold on a minute.

So the amendment fails by a vote of 13 to 8.

Okay.

Yes.

I'm I'm would just like uh maybe a minute.

I'm I'm I'm thinking that perhaps we should continue this hearing.

Um I don't know about everybody else, but um I'll second that.

I'm running out of air.

I would just ask you to give me a minute to confer with the legislative assistant, and I'll come back to the days.

Please remain in your places.

This will be very quick.

Thank if if we just can just briefly come to order.

The the next date for this would be on the twenty-first, which is Tuesday, Tuesday evening.

Um I I just want to before we before we leave this tonight, um, I I believe we've more or less gone through almost every section of chapter two.

Um really town clerk.

Okay.

That's that's all correct.

Okay, thank you.

I would make a motion to continue the hearing.

The motion's been made and seconded.

All those in favor of continuing the hearing um to to a committee of the whole.

Um all those in favor of continuing the committee of the whole till Tuesday at six thirty.

Um, please uh say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Nay.

One.

So two.

Um therefore um the motion carries.

Um I move that this hearing be continued.

Do I have to six thirty.