Continuation of the committee of the whole that was commenced last Thursday and and we're continuing afield.

Um before we start, uh Councilman Dennis Perkins lost his mother very very recently, and I would just uh her name is Robin.

Thank you, Dwayne.

Robin McCorley, and I would just ask that we, his colleagues here on the council, just take a minute of silence uh for Dennis and for his mother, Robin McCauley.

Thank you.

So to just to pick up where we left off, or try to pick up where we left off in chapter two of the charter and the revisions made by the charter revision commission.

Excuse me, Mr.

President.

Are we gonna have the pledge?

We we're just continuing the existing meeting that already started with the pledge.

Would you feel more comfortable?

Fine.

We do that on the city on the zoning commission.

That'd be my pleasure.

Please stand to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Councilman McQuelly.

So as I said, we are in chapter two.

Um we we made uh there were by my count three successful amendments that were voted on and approved in chapter two, and um we are proceeding again through chapter two in and continuing our debate.

Uh we were deep in the weeds of section two-four of chapter two, and there are other sections.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I've been reminded to call attendance at the continued meeting.

Councilman Coello.

Here, Councilman Flanagan present, councilman Hawley, Councilwoman Lepine here, Councilman Salvatore is not present, Councilman Bazade present, Councilwoman Gartner, uh present, councilwoman Faye, Councilman Henry, Councilwoman Wallace Smith, Councilwoman Spain Reichel, Councilman Giordano, Councilman Jabor, Councilman Rotello, Councilman Chinese, Councilman Dwayne Perkins, Councilman Britton, Councilman McAllister, Councilwoman Robinson, Councilman Laffinghouse, and as I explained, uh Councilman Dennis Perkins' mom passed away, so he is not here.

Councilman Jabor is present.

Councilwoman Jabor is present.

So we I believe have seven 17 present, or rather 19 present and two absent.

That said, um we were discussing chapter two.

I believe we had gotten all the way through section two-six as we make our way through chapter two, and um we are going through for people to have discussion.

I believe we are still at the lower dais, going from my right to left.

There are any motions by anybody or any comments or remarks by anyone on the remaining sections of chapter two on the lower dais.

Seeing none, we'll return to the upper dais for round two on the upper dais to my left.

Is there any further comments or or conversation regarding chapter two?

Councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Section two-six vacancies on the red line.

I would like to add in at the end of 60 days, the last sentence, such appointments shall be made by the mayor and approved by the city council to incorporate new language.

Okay.

And that's a motion yes, Mr.

Chairman.

I would like to recommend that language we added to that.

Okay.

Red line.

Thank you.

Is there a second to that motion?

That motion has been seconded by Councilwoman Faye.

Are there any is there any remarks and discussions about that motion?

Would the councilman repeat the motion?

Section 2-6 on the red line reports at the end after 60 days.

Such appointment shall be made by the mayor and approved by the city council.

We didn't appoint.

Councilman Rotello, you're you're adding and approved by the city council.

The mayor still gets to make the selection, and you want to add the city council having the final say on the on the appointment.

Is that correct?

Through the chair, yes, that's correct.

Has it been seconded?

The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Faye.

Are there any remarks?

Any further remarks or discussion?

Seeing none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor of the amendment.

Roll call vote.

Okay.

Thank you.

Roll call vote.

On the amendment proposed by Councilman Henry to chapter 2-6 vacancies.

Councilman Coello.

Yes.

Councilman Flanagan.

No.

Councilman Hawley.

No.

Councilwoman Lepine.

No.

Councilman Bazade?

No.

Councilwoman Gartner.

No.

Councilwoman Faye.

Yes.

Councilman Henry.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

No.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

No.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

No.

Councilman Rotello.

Yes.

Councilman Chinese.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

No.

Councilwoman Robinson.

No.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

No.

Okay.

The motion fails.

There were 13 opposed.

Moving on through section chapter 2.

Oh moving on.

Sorry.

Yes.

Through chapter 2.

Are there any further remarks on the left side of the dice regarding chapter 2?

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

I'd like to move to amend section two.

I want to make sure I'm in the right order.

2-2.

Subsection.

I believe it's E regarding five constables who shall serve a term.

I'd like to move to make that two years instead of four years.

Okay.

Councilwoman Faye, do you have any other amendments in that particular section?

Yes.

Okay.

Why don't we do them all?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I would move to make the same amendments to zoning commission for both the full-time zoning commission members as well as the alternates.

So just so I understand your motion.

Your motion is that you would recommend to the Charter, you you'd recommend to the Council that the Council recommend to the Charter Revision Commission that they return to two-year terms for the constable position, the zoning commission, and the alternate zoning commission members.

Yes, that's correct.

Is there a second?

That motion was made and seconded by uh Councilman Rotello.

Are there any remarks or discussion regarding that?

Um Councilman Rotello.

Thanks.

I'm not sure if that's all of them, because I went through this and now I can't remember if there are any more, but I would just offer a friendly amendment to the amendment that if there are additional changes to four-year terms, I would add as a friendly amendment to your amendment that we change all of them at this point to two-year terms.

But this you may have done that already.

I'm just I I can't recall the question.

I did not, but I'll amend my motion.

Okay.

Um, and I think that's in the interest of time.

I uh I will I will second the amended amendment.

So this would be this would apply to all positions in section two-two of the charter uh for uh restoring everything, including the mayor, which we already discussed and voted on.

I was going to say absent the ones that we voted on the where the absent the ones we've already decided, fine uh for two-year terms.

Okay, is there any further discussion on the amended motion?

Seeing none, I will try your minds.

All those in favor of the amendment, please raise could we have a roll call vote?

Thank you, sure.

Councilman Coello, are you in favor of the amendment?

Question to the chair before I just wanted to clarify.

So this is every this includes the the the treasurer as well.

It includes everybody we have not discussed.

Because we talked about the board of ed last time, talked about the mayor.

We did talked about the clerk.

We did, right?

Yep, yep.

Okay, yes.

Yes, okay.

Councilman Flanagan.

No councilman Hawley.

No.

Councilwoman Lepine.

No.

Councilman Bazade, no.

Councilwoman Gardner.

No.

Councilwoman Faye.

Yes.

Councilman Henry.

Yes.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

No.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

No.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

No.

Councilman Rotello.

Councilman Chinese.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Councilman Laughing House.

Okay.

Three.

There's 14 opposed.

The motion fails.

Clearly.

Excuse me.

Okay.

Moving moving along in through chapter two.

On the upper dais to my right hand side.

Is there any other we're going around the second time through chapter two?

So is there any other remarks, comments on chapter two for the for the council members to my right and the upper dais?

No.

Seeing none, we're going to go to the lower dais on the right hand side, Councilwoman Jabbar.

I'm sorry, uh Mr.

President, it's because I was a little late.

Um I did go back through all of the sections that we discussed last time, and there was one that I neglected to move for in section two.

Um again, going back to words have meanings.

Um it seems that we're using the terms designate, select, and appoint interchangeably in paragraph three.

I would move to use replace the term designate with the term appoint, because it seems like that is what the meaning is supposed to be.

And councilwoman Jabard, would this would this pertain to the interchange of vote that terminology throughout chapter two if it exists anywhere else in chapter two?

I don't believe it exists anywhere else throughout chapter two.

That would only be in relation to paragraph three of section two-four.

I believe I did do a pretty thorough scan for chapter two on that.

Okay.

Could you restate could you restate the motion again, please?

Yes, of course.

In paragraph three of section two-four, I would move to replace the term designate with the term appoint.

Second okay.

That motion has been made and seconded by councilwoman Andrea Gartner.

Um are there any remarks, any further remarks from any council member regarding this hearing councilman Rotello?

Yeah, I'd just like to query council if that was deliberate or just an oversight or just a you felt like switching it up a little bit.

Was there any particular reason why maybe in a legal sense we're using designated instead of appointed in the same paragraph?

Um attorney Mortoletti, if you can answer that.

Yes, do the president.

Um so there's no legal distinction in section two-four between a designation and an appointment.

Um I will note we did have a prior motion to change in two-four of the term appointed to nominated.

So if we are if we are now changing designated to appointed the term appointed was changed to nominated.

So are you so I guess language-wise, now we're putting appointed back in, even though we took it out for purposes of using the term nomination.

So I can clarify your honor.

So just hold on.

It was we're we're in the middle of council, Councilman Rotello's question and query with with our with our attorney.

Did that answer your question, uh Councilman Rotello?

Well, uh, you know, I mean, there's not a difference between appointed and designated, but now switching from nominated to appointed or appointed to nominated.

Taking all the terms together, can they be used defensively in court interchangeably?

I don't see a I don't see a true legal issue.

The only problem is our prior motion switched the term appointed with nominated.

So if we're gonna now change designated to appointed, I want to make sure that the council is okay with putting appointed back in, even though we took it out for purposes of using the term nomination.

So I don't see a legal issue, but it does I just want to point out the prior motion so we all understand that if we're making that language change, we're gonna reinsert the term that we took out for the term nominated.

That's all I'm just calling that out.

I don't there's no legal issue here.

If I may to refresh my memory, what where was that exactly where we made that switch previously in this same paragraph?

No, that's just without throughout two-four.

I see, okay.

Would the councilwoman be satisfied with changing all of them to nominated or councilman Rotello, please direct the question to me and I'll ask her.

Would the councilwoman be satisfied in changing all of them to nominated instead of appointed or designated?

Would would that I I don't believe that's her point.

I I believe her point is where in the current charter the word appointment sits, sits in the current charter, it should be changed to nominated.

Where in the current charter it says designated, it should be changed to appointed.

And and there is no conflict if it's interpreted if her motion is interpreted that way.

And I believe that's my understanding of her motion.

Has she expressed it?

I see.

Okay, thank you.

And just going through this, the the part where we put in nominated really is a separate subsection, and maybe should have been numbered as much.

It really is somewhat different from what what uh precedes it.

So I I will support this.

Thank you.

Are there any further remarks to the to the proposed amendment?

Councilman Chinese.

Thank you.

Uh again through the chair.

I mean, I thought one of our things that we do here is not necessarily dictate to the commission the wording.

So can't we just say to have the commission revisit section two-four to ensure that there's no conflicts of wording as indicated tonight, whether it be nominate, designate, or whatever we decide it, because we don't tell the commission what words to use, let them go back and revisit it and decide whether or not it should be changed, because it's more than just one word, it could be several words.

And they may find some others that they may want to change too.

So that's my suggestion.

Thank thank you, Councilman uh Chinese.

You're absolutely correct.

All we do is make a recommendation, possibly, and we we can say we object to certain terms that were proposed.

We do not choose the words.

Um the uh the charter revision commission chooses the word, the actual words.

That's my understanding.

If I may, I don't see any language anywhere that ties our hands about what we can recommend to the Charter Revision Commission or not.

So that's in the statutes of uh that apply here, the specific statute that applies, I believe is section 7-191, and and it's clearly spelled out that the language changes are conducted by the Charter Revision Commission, and the appointee appointing authority can accept, reject, and and say we don't want this, we'd like you to take another look at it.

That's all we can do, and we are the appointing authority.

Well, not this body has a committee of the whole, but the council is a the appointed.

I think that's been well understood for the last 20 years.

We're not telling them what to do, we're telling what our intent is.

Our intent is to use this language, whether they want to use the language or not, is of course up to them.

Whether they want to accept these amendments is up to them.

But certainly we can inform them that we are uncomfortable with a certain word and we would like this word used instead.

Nobody's ordering the commission to do anything.

Councilman Rutello, thus it's a recommendation.

Correct.

Thank you.

And and the councilwoman is recommending to do that.

That's correct.

That's how it is.

Well, that was a long way around the block, but we got Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Um just uh for clarification.

Um I thought last week that we voted to make a name change.

So this week we're instructed that we can't make specific name changes.

Is that correct?

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand your well.

I mean, la last time we voted to change our uh nominated for appointed, so right now I'm hearing, or at least I think I'm hearing that that's not the way that we should be doing it.

We just should be just be just making suggestions.

But last time we put up a vote for that word change from a point of two nominated.

Not now we're not going to vote on it.

It sounds to me like Councilman uh Perkins.

I believe the motions are all related to the word recommend to the council that the council recommend to the Charter Revision Commission.

All those motions last week pertain to that.

Are there any other remarks or discussion regarding this motion to amend and and changing designated to appointed no seeing none?

I will try your minds.

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

Aye.

All those opposed, nay, nay.

So the motion to amend carries.

Thank you.

Moving again on the lower dais, the second time through for questions and and points on section chapter two of the uh charter.

Councilman Rotella.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh just a point of clarity.

I'm not making a motion or an amendment under section two-seven eligibility.

Uh it says that essentially I'm paraphrasing that you have to live in Danbury to be an elected official in Danbury.

And I just want to be assured that that applies to all the elected officials in Danbury.

It it the language seems obvious, but I've been getting phone calls from people and emails telling me don't vote for this because the board of ed people can be elected from out of town.

And I'm saying, well, that's news to me.

So let can we just clarify that point?

If you are an elected official in Danbury, regardless of whether you're in a ward or in the city itself, you you have to be in the city.

You have to reside in the confines of Danbury.

Board of Ed, Zoning Commission, City Council, Constable, Treasurer, etc.

Whatever we do, whatever the electors in Danbury vote for, for a person to assume that position, that person has got to be residing in the city of Danbury at the time they take the oath of office.

So Mr.

Councilman Rotello, the language of 27 is very clear.

You have to be an elector of the City of Danbury.

And the only eligible electors I'm aware of are people who are residents of the City of Danbury and citizens.

I just needed to hear our president say that out loud, because people have been calling me saying it's not in there, I don't understand it.

Uh you don't have to live here to be on the board of vet, and I'm saying yes, you do, and that's what section two-seven is clear about.

You have got to live in this city, whether you're on the school board, zoning commission, or anything else.

We're correct on that.

It's clear as clear as ink.

Thank you.

That's it.

Continuing on the lower dais for the second time through chapter two.

Councilman Chinese.

Thank you again through the chair, Section 2-8 or 2-8.

Well, oath of office of elected officers.

I would like to make a recommendation to the commission to either strike the entire section, or add that the author of office shall be inconsistent with the general Connecticut statute, sections 122 to section um 123.

And the reason why I say that is because the state statue dictates the author of office.

And it does allow for both, if you want to use on the penalties of perjury, well, so help you God.

Allows the person getting sworn in to choose which one they like to do.

And that is in the state statute.

So the fact that the charter has it one way, some people may want it to have, so help you God.

So that's what I'm saying is to have the just to say that the that the recommendation to commission that it can say in accordance with the state statute, sections 122 to sections 125.

Which is exactly what this paragraph is saying.

So so your motion actually is that uh that the language proposed by the Charter Revision Commission be struck or or that they look again at the whole entire section in combination with state statute.

Correct.

In combination with the state statutes.

So you'd like them to look at that section again.

Correct.

Okay.

So this is a motion.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Councilman uh Dwayne Perkins.

Um discussion.

Councilman Coello.

Thank you.

Yes, I I was gonna comment on that too as well, uh, Councilman Chaney, so wondering if you would be open to amending what's in here now to include under the penalties of perjury and or so help you guide giving us so it's in our charter as opposed to just reference what's in the state statute, right?

Because at the end of the day, if that state statute changes, we this charter is bound by us, right?

We'd be bound by whatever that state statute is.

At least it gives us the opportunity, like the state statute currently does to have and or, but we could include that in our charter now, as opposed to defer to referring to a state statute.

So, in terms of the amendment, you you are opposed for that reason.

I'm not opposed to it.

I'm asking uh councilman Chinese if he would amend, you know, add or change his amendment to that.

So we could do both.

Because you're not striking it, correct?

Well, again, again through the chair.

My recommendation is to the commission to revisit sections two eight nine to see whether we can strike the whole section itself, and because the state statute dictates our oath of office.

So do what do we need it in both spots?

Do we need it in the state statute, which clearly states how to do it, or do we have to say it in the actual charter itself?

I mean, it because on the on the God or or penalty of perjury, it's it's in the state statutes.

And I don't see the state statutes changing which way, but if it does change, we're still bound by the state statute.

So again, through the chair through corporation council, I mean that's what I'm saying.

Let the commission revisit it, let them ask the questions to corporation council to see whether or not we can just refine it to um to this just the state statutes.

It just clarifies everything.

We don't have to say one or the other, we don't have to physically state it.

That's all so uh councilman Coelho, I guess that was your answer to your inqu your inquiry regarding a friendly motion.

I do have a question through the chair, if I may, to corporation counsel, just as a follow-up to that.

And unless you want to answer Ben's first, I don't know if you had to address his first or not.

Is there a question there?

Okay.

So what precludes us from keeping not what's here, but adding that and or for so help me God versus the state statute, and let me finish this by saying, let's just say for whatever reason, state statute changes beyond that.

Who knows what else it says.

What precludes us from from being able to use this oath of office that's here now?

So through the through the chair.

So section 123 says that if an person subject to the oath doesn't believe in a supreme being, the municipality may offer an alternative oath, which would substitute um you know the so help you got language with pennies of perjury language.

So there's there's flexibility in administering the oath if the person subject to the oath doesn't have any religious affiliation or religious opinion.

So if you wanted uh some level of discretion in 2-8, uh, you could recommend you could recommend uh to the Charter Revision Commission that you have and or language, so that you either use the perjury terminology or the swap you got terminology, uh, and then you could also make a reference to section 123 of the statute.

Okay.

I mean that would be that would be but the recommendation would be back to the charter revision commission.

Yeah, okay.

Because you know, one-23 could get amended at some point in time.

Um so you would want language to uh adjust for that fact within the charter.

So I guess my concern would be this.

Let's just say state statute changes and they take so help me God out of it 100% altogether, right?

Does that uh not allow us to keep it in our city charter as an oath?

True.

Well, it certainly is recommended that we compare.

It's religious freedom, but let's just say at the state's level they decide to take so help me got out of it.

I just think we should keep it in our city charter.

Yeah, I mean, generally you want to be compliant with state statute if that language were to get removed.

Um on the other hand, you know, we do have uh um we are a home rule municipality, uh so sometimes uh municipalities are in certain in certain conditions allowed to deviate from the statute.

I think the safe approach here would be to um have alternate language under 2-8 so that depending on who's being subject to the oath, the appointing uh entity can use one language or the other.

Okay, that'd be my that would be how I would phrase the recommendation back to the charter revision commission.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other firm further comments regarding the proposed amendment by uh Councilman Cheney's councilman Rotello?

Thank you.

The way that I read this is by striking so help you God does not mean that you can't say it, it means you don't have to say it.

Is that a is that a reasonable interpretation, or by striking that it means that from now on, no one can say that that's okay.

So, yeah, but we have we have redlined the so help you god language because not everyone subject to the oath has a religious affiliation.

So when that was uh done by the commission, they wanted uh more general language that could be substituted in linguistics, so help you God.

So right now, you don't you just say under penalties of perjury.

That's how this is drafted right now.

And what would happen if somebody said so help me God?

Would they would they not be able to take office?

I mean, where are we going with this?

Yeah, I wouldn't be concerned about that.

Um you know they should recite what the oath is, of course, if they want to add if someone added some additional language, I don't think that would lead to uh you know uh a tremendous you know civil action or a religious lawsuit against the city.

I don't think that would be realistic.

Um that would be a uh that would be an amendment by them, but that's why this charter revision commission put under penance of perjury language because they wanted to avoid uh any appearance of religious conflict if the person being asked uh to uh recite the oath doesn't actually believe in any particular religion.

So this was more general language to avoid conflicts, not to indirectly create conflicts.

Thank you.

Any other comments on uh from the council regarding the amendment?

Councilman Perkins.

So uh thank you, Mr.

Um President.

Through you through um council.

So I guess at the end of the day, what we're saying is we're gonna make a recommendation back to the um committee to look at the state statute and consider leaving the words and so help you God.

Is that is that what we're doing?

I would want the motion recite it again so we are all on the same page about what we're actually proposing.

Let's do that.

Councilman Chinese, are you able to recite the motion again?

Okay, so the what I the motion would be is to recommend to the to the commission to revisit section two-eight and consider either one striking the whole paragraph out entirely because this or adding additional language that refers to the state statute, sections 122 to 123, and if necessary, they can consider adding under penalties or and or so help you God in the ordinance.

But I'm gonna allow the commission to revisit it to see if it could be reworded accordingly.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Does everybody understand the motion uh uh made by councilman Cheney's any further discussion?

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

Um I just wanted to comment uh that I would support this motion because as moved, it is actually what we do in superior court and in every state court.

It's do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God or under the penalties of perjury, or maybe the other way under the penalty perjury or so help you God as the case may be, so that everybody is comfortable with as the case may be.

So I think there's pretty good precedent there to ask the charter revision commission to consider leaving that language, which is the state statute.

Okay.

Any other further commentary regarding this?

Councilman Hawley.

Thank you, honor.

Um, I support this amendment.

I believe the best course of action for the commission to just uh consider is just strike the the whole section in its entirety, and then perhaps a policy decision later on could be made by the oath, um the person administering the oath to give a few of the different options that they can take, because all the ones I've ever taken in the past are just the standard one.

I haven't been presented the option.

But thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Any other comments?

Hearing no other comments, all those in favor of Councilman Chinese amendment to the regarding section what would be section two-eight of the city charter.

Please say aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Three.

Okay.

Motion, the motion to amend as to section two-eight carries.

Proceeding along for the the our second from on the left hand side of the lower dais is there any remarks or comments regarding section uh chapter two of the city charter?

Seeing none, we have concluded our journey through through uh section two of the chapter two of the charter, and we're now gonna move into chapter three of I can't read that.

Mr.

President, I'd like to make a motion to approve the recommended changes from the Charter Revision Commission in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3.

No, Mr.

Chairman.

Point of order.

Uh no, we already did it.

We already made that.

Mr.

Chairman, before the fair councilwoman made her statement, my hand was up.

I I did have a question concerning chapter two.

You have a question.

Question.

Fine.

What is your question, Councilman Rattel?

I'm sorry, this is section three-six when it comes to quorum.

It says a majority of the elected city council member shall constitute a quorum.

Does that mean if you are an appointed city council member?

So now you're in section chapter three.

We haven't reached chapter three.

Section two, chapter section.

Uh you know what I stand corrected.

I thought this was a section three of never mind.

Never mind.

Thank you.

Carry on.

So that's right.

Chapter three.

Sorry for the interruption on the go on.

Okay, sure.

Um Mr.

President, I make a motion to approve the recommended changes from the Charter Revision Commission in Chapter 3.

Second.

Okay.

Motion made and seconded.

Again, we're gonna go through this two times.

Um we'll we'll go through the dais um with our discussion and points regarding chapter three of the proposed changes to the city charter.

Um we'll start on my left at the upper level of the dais in terms of any discussion, remarks, or amendments.

Councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Section 3-3, legislative assistant.

The uh bottom of the paragraph like to make a motion to recommend an amendment and have the council the commission revisit the language where the legislative assistant may be removed by a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the city council at its next meeting, removing the language of the mayor prior to that.

Okay, so motion been made and seconded regarding section three-three in chapter three of the charter.

Um is there any remarks or or comments regarding the proposed amendment?

Can you repeat it?

Repeat the motion.

I just asked Councilman Henry to have the microphone, please or two amendments.

Councilman Henry, are you able to repeat the motion?

Section three-three motion to amend the legislative assistant.

I recommend to the commission to revisit the legislative assistant may be removed by only a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the city council at its next meeting, removing the mayor from that red line.

So what is the motion to change?

The motion the motion is to change section three-three.

Are we all do we all understand what the motion is that's been made and seconded?

Count Councilwoman Robinson.

I just want to point a clarification because it says removed by the mayor, provided that the dismissal may be disapproved by a vote of two-thirds.

So I guess is that we just the councilman Henry's point is are we only removing the by the mayor language, or what exactly?

I believe I believe his motion is that the legislative assistant may only be removed by by a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the council.

I believe that's his motion.

So the disapproval.

That's his recommended language.

That is correct.

Changing that.

Thank you for the clarification.

Are we all clear?

Could you repeat that, please?

Sorry.

I I'm speaking into the mic, I just didn't hear.

Sorry.

Is that a problem?

I'm sorry.

Was there a problem with that?

I just asked for him to repeat it.

Is that a problem, Councilman Bretton?

Excuse me.

Could you address me?

I was.

All right.

But he wasn't.

So the motion, the motion to made by Councilman Henry is to amend to propose language or recommend language to the Charter Revision Commission that the mayor not be allowed to remove the legislative assistant, that it only be uh by a two-thirds vote of the entire council.

I believe that's his motion.

Are we all understanding that?

Are there any other further remarks or discussion about the motion by Councilman Henry?

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

I think broadly it's the legislative assistant works for us on the city council, not for the mayor.

And I think it makes a lot of sense to have that person not be any under any sort of political pressure by the person who's sitting on the third floor in the mayor's office, but rather judged independently by the effectiveness that they're doing for the council.

So I support a I support Councilman Henry's motion, and I further support the commission revisiting this language to actually contemplate to whom the legislative assistant reports, which is us as the council, not the mayor.

Thank you.

Are there any other further remarks regarding the amendment by Councilman Henry?

Councilman Rotello.

This has always put the council in an awkward spot.

Before this happened, the city clerk was basically the legislative assistant for the city council.

And there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that did not want the city clerk to be elected.

They wanted that position to be appointed.

I I was against that.

I wanted that position to be elected.

And that's another fight I lost.

Actually, it was the common council.

It hadn't, the name hadn't been changed yet.

And Joe Caba, who was the president who was occupying the position uh prior to Peter, uh said, you can't do that because it's gonna be really complicated.

Who's gonna manage the person?

The president, he was the president of the time.

Am I gonna do it?

Are you gonna do it?

Are we gonna have a committee to do it?

And I'm like, that's all stuff that we can work out.

We're we're grown-ups here, we can figure out how to do this.

But the dialogue and narrative back then was it's impossible for this body to manage somebody, we have to give it to the mayor.

My position was it really creates an asymmetrical relationship.

These two legislative and executive uh branches are supposed to be, if not antagonistic, certainly separate and independent.

And it's hard to be independent when your own staff member is actually working for the mayor.

Um you'll notice further on in this document, there's a a similar thing where the council does not have the authority, the authority is presumed to be or proposed to be taken away from the council to do essentially the same thing for the mayor's chief of staff.

We had some oversight with the mayor's chief of staff under this document, we do not.

So we've lost any oversight over the mayor's office, and now we've lost all oversight under our office.

And I I just have to state for the record that giving away council power is really not up to us because the power that the council have has belongs to the people of Danbury.

We can't just say, yeah, I don't want to do this anymore, let the mayor do it.

We can't say I don't want to have two year terms on our four.

Let's let the mayor do it.

We can't say uh the mayor doesn't need to tell us when he accepts a donation.

Council doesn't need to do that.

We can say that, and certainly under statute, we can do that, but really the power of this body rests with the voters of Danbury, and we really don't have a right to tell them that we don't want to do this anymore.

I mean, if you're sitting here and you're man for re-election, you you really ought to own this seat.

So while I certainly support half of this procedure, which is to control the fate of our own staff, it's better than what we should we it's not as good as what we should have.

We should be able to hire our own staff and fire our own staff.

That's what we ought to be able to do.

Certainly, if there is an issue, certainly if we find out that the legislative clerk is not working for us but is working instead for the mayor, and this is causing a lot of consternation, and it's sort of grinding the the the how the city operates to a halt.

We need to be able to rectify that situation.

And if we do not at least have the power to threaten dismissal, we don't have any power at all.

We have we have no power of manage, but we we can't tell anybody.

I mean, for instance, the legislative leader, no offense, sent me an email telling me that if I want to do an amendment, I gotta write it out beforehand.

That person works for us.

That person has no authority to say that to me at all.

Zero.

It was a completely inappropriate statement.

And I will take that up with that person at a later date.

The point is is that we as a body should have the ability to pick and choose who works for this body.

Can make an argument that the mayor should have the power to do that with his own office.

But you certainly, it's really hard to make the argument that the mayor should have the power to determine what we do with our own office.

I support this fully, and I would go farther, but for the purpose of what we're doing right now, I certainly support this amendment, and I will be voting for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Rotello.

Are there any other remarks regarding the motion?

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Just briefly, I I don't think this section gives our entire power away.

It says I we're going back to my amendments of I think a point should be nominate here, but I we have to vote on that person and approve them or deny them.

If we don't agree with the person that's selected, we can simply deny them.

We could always provide additional names.

There are options within our city councilship that allows us to be able to override it.

It's not a rubber stamp decision, which is why I supported changing a point to nominate.

And it's the same with the language that's being amended now of removal.

Say the person is not doing a good job, something's happening.

If the mayor tries to remove that person, we can override that.

We have a veto power in this, basically.

So I I don't agree that this takes away all of our power.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Lepine.

I was gonna say the same thing, so I'm not gonna repeat it, but we have uh we can appoint or the mayor appoints, we have two-thirds.

The mayor wants to remove, we have to have two-thirds, so we can we do have control, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, councilwoman Cheryl Wallace Smith.

I'll make it quick.

You know, for a job that doesn't pay, you want to put a lot of personnel issues on me.

I do not want to be responsible for the legislative assistant.

I think the mayor can handle that.

And to the two councilwoman's point, it doesn't take away our our power to say to disagree with the mayor.

So I support leaving the language the way it the way it is.

It's just thank you.

Um I will try your minds.

All those in favor of the amendment um by councilman Henry, please respond by saying I.

I have hold on, wait, hold on.

Councilman uh Coello.

Yeah, I just want to read what's in the city charter.

Now we're still in a discussion.

The legislative assistant shall be the clerk of the council.

She's part of our group, our responsibility, right?

Not the mayor's office.

We work together with the legislative assistant.

And I don't understand on what grounds we would want to give up our ability to control the person that's part of our group.

That's our responsibility, and it's a responsibility of the people.

That's our, you know, that's our connection.

I know the mayor would ability has the ability to appoint that person.

That's currently in the charter.

We approve it.

But I don't stay, I don't understand why we would want to give away the power to dismiss somebody, irregardless if we have to approve a by three-quarters, two-thirds, doesn't matter.

It should be our decision.

So thank you.

Councilman Britton.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

This I think this is just a clarifying statement.

I think as the language is currently written, the legislative assistant can be removed for at any time without the council's input.

So this language actually provides a procedural safeguard for the council to have its say, should there ever be a situation where dismissal is proposed.

I just wanted to clarify that.

That as of right now, the position can be removed at will.

This allows the council to have a say in that dismissal.

Just wanted to put that out there.

Thank you.

That said, let me try.

Councilwoman Faye.

I'm sorry, just uh the chair in response to Councilman Britton.

I I don't think we're sitting with a charter that is the best thing any of us have ever seen written, but that doesn't mean that we have to settle for something that's just maybe slightly better.

I think we as a body should be striving to give our best comments and constructive criticism to the commission so that they can move forward with their job that they have been charged to do.

So simply saying this is better than what was there before doesn't cut it for me.

It doesn't cut it.

Thank you.

Uh that said, Councilwoman Robinson.

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify the different viewpoints here, and maybe this is something I don't know if it um through the chair, if this is a question for corporation council, but the the language, the red lines that are here today, and we are seeing the uh cross outs in blue and the additions in red.

As of right now, if we had taken away these red lines and the legislative assistant, which who we never want to let go, um, if we did want to terminate that position, the council does not have any authority in the charter today to vote on the termination of the legislative assistant today.

Is that correct?

Through the chair, that's correct.

The uh red line language was proposed to address uh issues of removal, uh, and the the underlying logic was to since the uh assistant is a uh clerk of the council, the idea was to allow the council to retain uh authority to prevent a removal in the event that uh removal was recommended or being pursued for any reason.

So you know that was the that was the underlying rationale for adding this red line because before the red line that was the end of section three-three.

Um there was no express language on removal.

Um so that was the that was the rationale at the time.

Thank you, thank you.

All right, hearing no other remarks, councilman chines.

Thank you again through the chair.

This is more for a clarification, if I may.

So when you get to the beginning where the mayor shall appoint or nominate as it was as whatever we decide, but it needs two-thirds of the council to appoint or nominate.

That's 14 members to hire them, for example, but to dismiss them, it's also 14 votes, which is very difficult to obtain sometimes.

So it's like it's counterproductive where we need 14 to to to hire them, and then we need 14 to get rid of them.

So I I think what we what I'm hearing here is that the council should have a more of a say to how we dismiss the legislative assistant.

So I would like to maybe make a friendly amendment, instead of being it may be that the mayor may provide the dismissal, but it must be confirmed by at least two-thirds of the entire membership.

That means if the mayor wanted to get rid of them, but he doesn't, if he doesn't get the 14 votes of the council, then the dismissal doesn't happen.

So the council still has a say whether or not we want to get rid of them, because there could be a many reasons why you get rid of a legislative aid, but again, we just need to be consistent with the 14 votes.

So instead so if the mayor wish to be part of the process, which they should be, but instead of being they may be removed, but it must be confirmed by the council with 14 votes.

So we do have a final say of whether or not we want to dismiss the legislative assistant that we have to agree with the mayor by 14 votes.

So if we don't agree, it doesn't happen.

That's just a friendly amendment if it's if councilman Henry wishes to proceed with that.

I still prefer to maintain the language that I stated with not to be involved.

So let's take a vote on it.

All right.

So all those in a roll call vote.

Roll call vote on the motion by councilman Henry to remove the mayor from the added language to section 3-3, and require that the council take a two-thirds vote to remove the legislative assistant.

Uh Councilman Coello, yes, Councilman Flanagan, no, Councilman Hawley, no, Councilwoman LePine, no, Councilman Bazade, no, Councilwoman Gardner, no, Councilwoman Faye, Councilman Henry, Councilwoman Wallace Smith, no, Councilman, Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

No.

Councilman Robinson Councilwoman Robinson.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

Okay.

14 no's.

The motion fails.

Continuing on in chapter three.

For any changes or motions or remarks.

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you, Your Honor.

I would like to move that the Charter Revision Commission revisit Section 3 8 regarding public notice and hearing.

And as a point of order, I don't think we need to move for specific language in any of these motions.

I do think.

Okay.

I think that we can simply am I correct?

We can simply ask them to revisit and then give them ideas about what we might like.

That would be in our minutes.

That's correct.

So I mean, specifically my concern is just reference to the current Connecticut State statutes, because obviously we're writing this in 2026, and those statutes may change.

So legally, we might have be thwarted back to the 2026 statutes in 2035.

We might want to just say in accordance with the Connecticut State statutes.

That's it.

I'm just asking that they revisit that section.

Okay.

Is there a second to that motion?

The motion's been seconded by Councilman Henry.

Is there any discussion about it?

Councilman Rotello.

I'd just like to point out to some of these young whippersnappers that um we have a lot of constituents that are well under their 70s, 80s, and even 90s.

I got a call from one last week who was deeply concerned that the city is going to change the name of her road.

And if the city changes the name of her road to something to be determined, she's going to have to contact a million different organizations to put in a new address, which wouldn't include her IRAs and her banks and a million things.

And she can't do that anymore because you don't call the bank up anymore and change your address.

You don't call the it's all done online and she doesn't know how to do that online.

So we're working right now in the mayor's office to try to figure out how we can get somebody to her house to help her do this.

What she does do is read the newspaper.

She does do that.

Doesn't read Facebook.

And I think I I get it, it's expensive, and nobody reads it anymore.

Their last printing was 6,000 copies in a in a metro area of a million people, it seems like an infinitely small thing, but you would be amazed perhaps as to how many people see things in the neighbor in the neighborhood in the newspaper that happened to be above the age of say 75.

So I I would exhort the commission to keep that in mind and before they pull the plug on newspapers for what would be in in a city with a 300 million dollar budget a relatively insignificant uh expenditure that may indeed effectively disenfranchise or at least marginalize our elderly population that they would give that a a long look and a second thought.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other remarks?

Councilman Chinese.

That's correct.

Through corporation council, because I know this is can you tell this body what the current Connecticut state statute is regarding publications?

Well, there's uh to the chair if I may.

I mean there's quite a few statutes on publication, so you know we to recite every applicable statute section would be pretty uh cumbersome and not really necessarily beneficial to section three-eight as a whole, so we have a general reference to the statutes because in certain publication instances you're gonna follow what the statutes allow for that kind of publication.

So that's the question is I mean the question itself is gonna require a pretty broad answer.

Again, through the chair, does it allow to councilman patello's point?

We can still publish in the newspaper if we so choose to.

Well, you could if you certainly can.

You would also have to follow the publication requirements set forth in the statute.

So the city could, yes, it could go out of its way to um to publish additional notices.

Uh that wouldn't be that would be sort of addendums to the statutory required notices, um, but there's nothing that prevents you from doing that.

Um it would just be a cost that the city would need to be willing to assume.

But yes, you could go above and beyond the statute and send out additional notices.

Again, through the chair, if I may, because I know in the past it costs probably close to five thousand dollars to post the budget in the news times.

It's pretty expensive to post the budget or ordinance in the newspaper.

And then it was a time where we screwed up and we had to do it twice.

So by having this in here, it will allow us that not we don't have to publish the entire ordinance.

We can publish a little blurb that says we have passed this.

Please go to the city website for the full details of the ordinance.

We can do that here.

We're allowed to do that.

Do the chair through the corporation.

Are you able to make that opinion?

Through the chair.

Uh, I'm not prepared to address that specific scenario.

We do have sections on the budget later on in the charter.

Uh, and I believe there are notice sections in that part as well.

So you present a very specific example, Mr.

Cheney's.

I'm not gonna, I don't think it's appropriate to answer that example, but to your earlier point, the city can always uh provide additional notice in any manner it sees fit to address as many constituents and and citizens residents as it thinks it needs to.

So um, you know, the city will follow the statute, the applicable statute for notice requirements.

Um, and if it wants to go above beyond it, it can do so, and there's no legal impediment to doing so.

Thank you.

Any other remarks?

Councilwoman Robinson.

I just um wanted to if I could get a clarification on what the motion is on the floor right now, because I think it's just it's a recommendation back to the charter commission to make sure that this is reflective of the then current and applicable state statutes, and we're just asking the commission to look at this to make sure that that was that their intent is clarified, right?

Uh I believe that's correct, yes.

Okay.

It is if I may, may I amend my motion um uh to include sections 3.8 and 3-10, which is stated has similar language uh outlined in it.

Maybe save us a discussion.

Did Councilman Henry second your motion?

Second, he did.

Okay, fine.

Does everybody understand um the friendly change to the motion?

It regards two particular sections and chapter three, section three-eight and three-10.

Both of those sections relate to publication and um dissemination of information, and they are both closely tied to each other in terms of the proposal that was made.

Can you please repeat that through the chair if you wouldn't mind?

Sure.

Uh there's a motion made by attorney by councilwoman Faye to uh for the commission to reconsider and look at section 3-8 and 3-10 to make sure that the language would apply to any amendments to the state statutes in both those sections.

And and that means we're gonna strike the publication of a what's the way it's written right now?

Her motion relates to just what I stated.

Gotcha.

Okay.

And I think that's fairly clear.

Um, if there is no further discussion, I will try your minds.

All those in favor of the motion by councilwoman Faye to return to the Charter Revision Commission, chapter 3-8 and chapter 3-10.

Uh please say aye.

All right.

All right.

All those opposed, nay, nay.

All right, it's a little close.

So uh I think we're gonna show hands.

Um all those in favor of councilwoman Faye's motion regarding um sections three-eight and three ten, please raise your hand.

One, two, three, four, five, six.

All those opposed.

Okay, that's the rest of us.

The motion fails.

13 days.

Okay.

Moving on to my right of the upper dias.

Are there any comments or motions from any council members sitting on the upper dais to my right?

Now's your chance before I pass you by.

Councilman Coelho.

If I may, not an amendment, but just a suggestion.

Um, if I could, could we get the uh state statute sent to us by corporation counsel for that last item that we voted on?

And if you don't mind the one, I'm just gonna go back to uh chapter two with regards to the last item, which was um the oath of office.

Okay, I believe um in terms of the current the current topic, the statutes related to notice.

There are several and they're overlapping, and it's not the simply as just cutting and pasting one for that.

So I I think we should still I'd I'd like to see that plus the one for the oath of office, please.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

I I can make a suggestion, Mr.

Chairman.

If you just Google municipal legal notices, CGA, it pops right up, and it's like a whole chart.

No problem.

And I think that should be sent to the charter revision commission and everybody here.

That's my request.

So okay, so so that's not a motion.

It was a was that a motion?

No, it was a request.

Okay, it was just a a comment.

Okay.

Anyone else on the upper dice to my right regarding chapter three?

Councilwoman Diane Lepine.

Um I would like to talk about um three six quorum.

Um what that uh so this is a quorum uh for the council.

What it used to say is a majority of the members shall constitute a quorum.

And it now says a majority of the elected city council members shall constitute a quorum.

And uh question for uh corporate council.

Does the way this is stated and changed to the elected city council?

Um leave out appointed members and uh members who are on the council because of minority representation.

Councilman Mortaletti, can you answer that question?

The sorry through the through the chair.

Um I understand the concern raised by councilwoman LePine.

I can look at that more closely and report back.

Uh if they want if they want to make a recommendation on three-six, I think now will be the time to do so.

Uh rather than debate what rather than debate what it's applicable to.

Okay.

Um can I make a point?

Council Councilwoman Lepine.

Do you understand?

Uh our our attorney, council attorney Mortaletti suggested we we make or you make a motion to recommend that the Charter Revision Commission examine the language to section three-six.

I understand.

Uh I would like to make a motion to amend or have the charter commission look at section three-six.

Um, and possible uh wording would be a majority of the entire city council membership shall constitute a quorum.

Second okay, that's that's a fairly clear motion.

That motion has been made and seconded.

Any remarks, any remarks?

Councilwoman Faye, no.

Okay, councilman uh Rotello.

Thank you.

That was actually my premature exhortation from a few moments ago.

I this was the question that was bugging me for the last couple of days.

Why is it even in here?

Well, I I never thought of the minority representation people.

Um, but uh I guess they're kind of elected under state statute, although I'm not sure.

But I certainly thought of all the appointments that we have made in the past.

Some of those appointments were made for the specific reason of getting a body on this dais to support a mayor's proposal when it was probably going to be a tie, and he was short one, so he made a quick appointment.

So I I can see actually putting that in there so that those people cannot uh create a quorum.

I don't think that's fair.

I think that once you've been appointed, you're a you're a an official council person, and and you should be counted as the quorum as the uh minority representation people.

If we're gonna we're gonna continue doing that, which we do not have to do under state statute, the school board does, we don't.

Um they should also count as a quorum.

I I fully support just striking that language and going back to a majority of the city council members that elected.

I I don't know why it's in there in this uh explanation was wholly unsatisfactory, so I would certainly support going back to the way that it was before.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um that's not the councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

Um I I would if the Charter Revision Commission were so inclined to entertain language that we had suggested, I would be um recommending, I will recommend language that says something like a majority of the current sitting city council members, so that we can eviscerate the concern that's been expressed.

And I do feel it necessary to note that the three Republicans who are up here are actually elected.

We are not unelected.

It's minority representation rules, and I hope all of us sitting on the city council understand that you councilwoman Jabbar.

If I may make a friendly amendment, I would just remove the word elected.

A majority of the city council members shall constitute a quorum.

I believe that was that would I believe that was Councilwoman Lepine's motion.

Exactly.

I believe it was a little bit more, but so um at this point I believe we can take a vote.

All those in favor of the amendment as proposed by councilwoman Lepine uh to have to send back to the um charter revision commission the language of of section three-six and have them consider removing the word elected.

Um please say aye.

Aye.

Are there any nays?

Nay, two nays.

So the motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving down to the lower dais as we make our way through uh chapter three.

Are there any motions or remarks?

Councilwoman Jabbar.

I I will make this general instead of going point by point.

There are two that I take issue with.

One is the one that we've discussed multiple times, where I think uh the term uh appoint should be nominated in section three-three.

Additionally, um just for the sake of consistency, believe all the references to state statutes.

I I would ask that um the commission consider consistency so that all the reference to the statutes just say general statutes, so it's in line with the current language.

And then I do have a separate one that's a little less nitpicky, but is rewriting a whole other section.

Would you like me to do it right now?

Or would you say that?

Are you making a motion?

Are you making a motion?

I'm making a motion for consistency with general statutes and the term appoint instead of nominate in section three-three and general statutes in general throughout all of section three.

I all right.

So would you like me to do it separate?

So so ma'am, may I just just just make a query of you?

Okay, so you're your you would like wherever the statutes are referred to, they be referred to as the general statutes.

Yes, which is their official name.

Is that correct?

Yes, and they're referred in three different ways.

Okay, and you would like that to be uniform throughout chapter three.

Yes.

Okay.

And in addition to that, you would also like um in chapter in the entirety of chapter three, or in chapter in section three-three.

Where it say the mayor shall appoint, I was saying nominate, but we don't need to take that up.

I realize we already dealt with that.

Okay, all right.

So there is a second one, but I think perhaps this was second.

In my mind, it's the third one, but go ahead.

What's the third one?

Uh to rewrite section three-13 so it's a bit clearer.

And I have the suggested language.

Okay, so I I I would like you to do the following if you if you don't mind.

That's fine.

Since you made your comments all at once, I would like you to break it up into a motion.

Okay.

So I'll do the first one.

I I move for consistency's sake that anywhere there's reference to either Connecticut state statutes, Connecticut General Statutes, or statutes that it just be termed general statutes within section, well, within the entire charter, but section three.

In all of the entire the entire chapter three, is that correct?

Entire chapter three is fine.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by uh Councilman Rutell.

Is there any discussion?

Councilman China's.

There's a friendly amendment to that.

We should be consistent throughout the entire charter.

So even though we're on section three-three, it should be consistent through the entire charter.

I'm fine with amending my motion to be the entire charter.

I just knew we were taking it.

That's fine.

I I don't really I want to stay focused, but this isn't necessarily substantive change, it's a naming change.

It's a little different.

So fine.

I'll expand the second through.

Okay.

So are we all?

Do we all understand councilwoman Jabbar's motion is is to change to the term general statutes, which is the official name throughout the city charter, wherever the word statute appears, state statute appears, or general statute appears.

We all understand.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, I'm gonna try your minds.

All those in favor of councilwoman Jabbar's motion regarding the general statutes, please respond by saying aye.

Aye.

Are there any nays?

Thank you.

The motion carries now, Councilwoman Jabbar, you have yet another motion based on our conversations.

Yes, uh, I would move to recommend to uh the commission to consider alternative language for section 3-13 and to amend it to all committees of the city council shall be either ad hoc committees, standing committees, or committees of the whole.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

The motion is made and seconded by uh councilman uh china's is there any discussion?

Councilman Hawley.

I guess the chair or just generally our committee of the whole is covered under the language for ad hocs.

Do we think they need to be separated?

Excuse me?

Committee of the whole.

That would be falling under the category of ad hoc, correct?

It is a special type of ad hoc.

That's correct.

Do we think the language needs to be listed there?

It it just specifies the types of committees the city council has.

It's clarity.

So if I don't I I can't give you my opinion on that, but I believe I believe the councilwoman is trying to attempt to have clarity as to uh how the council operates in the in our document.

Makes sense.

And as through the chair would if we create standing committees, but that would we need to uh amend the section again to list every single committee that we create if we're putting specified committees.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um is everybody understand the motion has made by councilwoman Jabbar regarding the change the the uh recommendation to the Charter Revision Commission for Chapter 3-13.

Okay.

All those in favor of the motion by council councilman Henry.

I would like to propose a change to that amendment and make a motion to recommend this back to the trial revision commission to revisit this and strike the language of and or standing committees, standing committees shall be re so be established and rescinded by resolution.

I would like that motion to reflect all committees of the city council shall be ad hoc committees only.

Second okay, so so this is a friendly motion of uh and and I don't believe uh count the councilwoman is in agreement to change her motion.

I am not, but thank you for the suggestion, councilman.

Can I make that amendment for a formal?

Can we take a vote on hers and then we can go from there?

Thank you.

Okay.

So now do we all understand where we're at?

All those in favor of the motion has made by uh councilwoman Jabbar to regarding section three-13.

Please respond by saying aye.

Aye.

Are there any nays?

One, two, three, four, five.

So the motion did you raise your hand, councilwoman?

Um six.

The motion carries.

Okay.

Um councilwoman Jabbar, have we concluded our motions that you've uh and changes that based on your remarks?

Yes.

Okay, moving on on the lower dais.

Are there any comments or remarks regarding chapter three?

Councilman Rotello.

Back to or or continuing with 313.

Um, I I move with an ad hoc.

I motion that an ad hoc.

I'm sorry.

I make an amendment that after the word ad hoc committees, all following languages struck.

So it will read the city council shall establish ad hoc committees.

Period.

Second.

That motion has been made and seconded.

Um I don't necessarily believe it requires that much discussion, but does anybody wish to make any discussion or remarks on this?

Councilwoman Robinson.

I I just want to make a comment because I was one of the people that spoke out um in the public comment section for the um charter revision commission.

That one of the things that has really, you know, gotten our way as far as consistency or be able to have some type of ongoing discussion from straight strategy perspective, especially with the public school system, is our inability to have a standing committee.

Um, I think there are opportunities to have standing committees if the council does see fit, and I worry that by taking it out now after we've seen um what has been hurdles and obstructions by not having the ability to have a standing committee um is only gonna impede our progress more.

So I think you know, there'll I'll use as an example the school and city um ad hoc having to go to having to write a letter, submit it to um the mayor, have the mayor say okay to send it to get all of everybody sign on, send it to Elisa, put it on an agenda just to have a temporary ad hoc for a specific purpose instead of being able to have a standing committee that meets um you know with some purpose more regularly, has really affected our ability to get some business done.

Um instead of being able to have a standing committee that meets um you know with some purpose more regularly has really affected our ability to get some business done.

So I mean, everything obviously will still come back to the council, but I just you know I really strongly recommend this one of all the changes is very imperative to our ability to have smaller group committees, get the due diligence done, bring it back to the city council, um, and not have to have every single thing go into the weeds at a city council meeting of the whole.

Um it's I I just think it's a really big uh provision here that we still have control over how those standing committees are are um set up and how they're dismantled as well.

Thank you.

Any other remarks from anybody uh who has not yet spoken regarding this?

Councilman Cheneys again again thank you uh through the chair.

Um again, as a member of the audit committee, as you know, for the last few years that our audits were behind.

And one of the reasons I believe is that there's not really an oversight by this body regarding the financial audits of this city, which is the responsibility of this dais, not the mayor's office, not but that this dais.

And in the past, you elect an ad hoc committee for the go-over the audit, they give a report, and then you get maybe another ad hoc committee is is given.

But the being part of an ad hoc committee for uh is more than for the audit committee in this example is more than just being on there, you gotta have some type of expertise.

And the accounting as an accountant myself, the accounting standards change constantly.

And you really got to be an expert really to understand what the general accounting standards are.

To be popular to be, you know, on an ad hoc, just like to be an attorney or anything, you gotta have some type of expertise.

And by having a standing committee, at least on the audit committee, gives you that opportunity to where you can actually learn how to be a better audit committee member.

I mean, uh I've been giving tons of information to the audit committee at the time that's at least a half a page to uh an inch thick of information that constantly changes.

By having a standing committee, it though it gives you continuity to the committee, that it oversites the finance department to make to ensure that the current financials are on target to meet the audit requirements.

We really can't like for example, what what's happening now is the June of 2025 audit has not yet been completed.

There's no audit committee established for that at this point in time.

And we're in aug we're in July of 26 already.

So we're already late.

And then the June of 26 audit is going to be late because we didn't finish the June of 25 audit.

So the audit committee would be part of that decision to keep us moving forward.

If there's a problem, if you need money to continue it, you you need that expertise.

And I think these the audit, these committees allows that.

Since it's by resolution, you know, the this body consider whether we want to establish one or not.

I mean, I'm not looking for a public works committee.

I'm not looking for uh on a budget committee or anything like that, but look at the uh our um our um ordinances that we have.

Hold on.

Here it is.

This is our ordinance book.

Twenty-one of you on this diet student, actually 20 people on this diet does not have this book.

It's online, but no one has read it.

You have ordinances in this book that are so old, they talk about chickens.

Councilman I'll finish.

Let's just so I think the importance of having a standard committee for an ordinance standard committee that looks at these ordinances on a quarterly basis.

So we don't have to constantly come back and make these little tweaks because things change.

So that's why I think an audit a com I think committees are important to establish.

So uh I yield the floor to the chair.

Thank you.

Councilman Rotello, since it's your second bite of this apple, please try to keep your mark.

I think you did.

I do.

I made a motion.

I don't remember commenting.

Two thousand for the session.

Just okay, you're no let me talk, please.

I may be I be mistaken.

I apologize.

I'm just noticing a little tension with the chair because he thinks I'm maybe dominating the proceedings.

But for the record, this is the first time I'm speaking on this.

I I agree.

But boy, oh boy, if you want me to rock and roll, I'm I'm up for it.

Okay.

A lot of unicorn stuff about standing committees.

Generally, the only communities that want standing committees are communities that don't have them.

Standing committees are unbelievably dangerous.

Tip O'Neill, the legendary, you know, Speaker of the House used to walk down the hallways saying, Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chairman, because everybody in Congress was the chair of a standing committee.

And boy, were they powerful.

That's how the money came in.

They were fiercely protected by them.

The same thing will happen to this community.

It's in Hartford, it's in Waterbury.

These are not towns I want to emulate.

Bridgeport has them.

I don't want to be another Bridgeport.

No offense to Bridgeport.

Lovely place to visit.

I don't want to run Danbury like it's Bridgeport.

And generally we hear, um, and we've been hearing this for 30 years.

We we hear uh from people who assume that they will be the chair of the standing committee as the major proponent for a standing committee.

It it's it's lovely that Councilman Shinezie does not want a standing committee for public works.

That's great.

But he does want one for that.

Um the uh uh uh councilwoman Robinson maybe doesn't want one for that, but she wants one for the education thing, which is the largest part of the budget, and would be by far the most powerful standing committee in the history of Danbury.

And they don't just become powerful, they become like an octopus, and eventually they have staff and they make appointments and they do all of this stuff, and it goes on and on and on like a snowball rolling down a hill that gets bigger and bigger and bigger.

I mean, you're smirking, but what you're saying is you don't have enough power to get things done.

You want more power.

That's what this is about.

Otherwise, if you didn't have more power, there would be no point to this.

You're saying basically we can't do this, it's just it's too unstructured.

I have to do this, I have to do that, it's too diffuse.

I want it concentrated.

That's what a standing committee is, and that's why we don't have them.

That's why when you're the chairman of something, you're the chairman of something that's relatively ephemeral and it's relatively insignificant.

It's uh it is created to do a job and then it disperses.

A standing committee is forever.

There's nothing in here, by the way, about who gets to be on a standing committee.

Do you have to be on the council to be on a standing committee?

What happens if you lose your seat on the council?

Do you stay on the standing committee?

Is this a lifetime sinecure?

With will there be pay eventually?

Will there be insurance?

Will there be a staff?

Will you get franking privileges?

We don't know any of this stuff, but this is what happens to standing committees, and you may not want what Councilman Chinazi wants, but somebody else will want something else.

Somebody else will want a standing committee for public works, and there will be a standing committee for everything in this town within the next seven years.

And whatever you want to do on the council, you will have to go with hat in hand to the chair of the standing committee and beg for your stop sign on your street.

Or I will have to go to the standing committee and beg.

I see that uh I I'm amusing uh our our our esteemed chair of the of the uh of one of our political parties.

You will have to go.

If I want uh I want I need a school in the reserve.

That's what they need.

I will have to go to the standing committee of the education department, you basically, and talk to you to get this done instead of doing it the normal way.

I I will be ceding power, the council will be ceding power to standing committees.

That's why we don't want them.

That's why the city hasn't wanted them.

You may want them.

Councilman Chinazi may want them.

But that's why the city has never allowed them since the last, I don't know, 30 or 40 years.

It becomes too focused and it becomes too ripe for corruption and and too ripe for fiefdoms, cronyism.

My suggestion is since the committees at present have the ability to continue, that any chair who feels strongly enough that the committee is not lasting long enough to convince their members to continue the committee until such time as the chair feels the business is done.

There's nothing that prevents that in our charter.

There's nothing that says you can't do this for the next year and a half.

We've had committees that have lasted a very long time.

You do not have to have a standing committee.

But at some point, whether you lose your seat, whether you retire, whether you move on to Greener Pastures or whatever, at some point, you cede the right to sit in that chair, and the council gets to appoint somebody else.

It's true, the mayor makes the appointment.

But the council gets to determine if there's going to be a committee or not.

This will not happen.

These will be permanent committees with essentially permanent members.

And they will be unelected by the city of Danbury, and they will be making decisions of massive import.

An education standing committee will be making decisions concerning the largest portion of the city budget, and they will not be elected.

And again, we see this thread that's running through this charter commission where you cede more and more power from the council to whether it's a standing committee or the mayor's office.

This is a very dangerous precedent.

This is not the direction the city council should be going in.

Twenty-one people here elected by everybody in Danbury, except for the ward people, which are elected by their own wards.

And there's a collective here that the people want and need to represent them.

It does not help that process to give that power away.

You're like an attorney.

That's what they need.

That's how the system works.

And if you give that up, those people don't have a voice anymore.

So yeah, you can have a standing committee.

And maybe like Mussolini making the trains run on time, it'll there'll be a couple of things that become more efficient.

But by doing this, you are going to take power away from the people who elected you and put it in the hands of people who are not elected and not answerable.

You can say, well, if they get really out of hand, you know, the council will step in.

Yeah, good luck with that.

I I I cannot stress enough that a standing committee will be a fundamental change to how the city of Danbury operates, and it will not be a change for the better.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman Coella.

Uh Councilman Rotello.

Councilwoman, uh, you've already spoken.

Um anybody else who has not spoken regarding this topic, attorney uh uh councilman Cheneys has already spoken on this topic.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I agree with all of the things Councilman Rotello said.

Um this all is part of what what I used to teach in my students uh with uh supervision and organizational behavior.

There was a little picture, a little graphic that I used to hand out that it had a man sitting in a chair pushing dominoes standing on end with his right hand, and as you look at the picture, you can see that those dominoes are circling back around right at that individual sitting in the chair.

That that this is all part of systems thinking, systems theory.

One small offset can have rippling effects throughout the entire city.

That's where we're on our way to taking power away from the council and transferring it to a smaller group of people, whether it's the mayor or now we're talking about standing committees.

Um, you know, so that's what you don't want to do is you don't want to take information, take votes away from your constituents.

You want to keep those with the council, and that's why I'm opposing the standing committees.

And again, it does create a power grab for those individual chairs of those committees.

And if you look back at the uh history, we haven't implemented those for a reason.

And the reason is for a lot of uh uh areas that you've already heard, they're just not good for the long-term longevity of a city.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, President.

Anyone else who has not yet spoken on the motion?

There are none, so we're gonna go to a vote.

Okay.

Councilman Cheneys, you spoke once on the motion, right?

Did we do it for a second?

No, not this time.

We're on the main question.

All right, so I'm ready for a vote.

Is all those in favor of the motion.

Wait, we're missing two members.

Um the chair restate the motion.

Sure.

I I believe the motion by councilman Rotello, please, uh, is that the it's a recommendation to the charter revision commission to go back and and re-establish ad hoc committees only for the city council.

I believe that's correct.

Specifically, it was simply to end that sentence at ad hoc committees.

That's everything and/or standing committees, et cetera, was struck.

That's the motion.

That that's the motion.

So all those in all those councilman goella.

Sorry.

You mind if I make my statement?

Thank you.

Go right ahead.

But just a quick statement with regard to uh the city charter protecting the balance of power and having standing committees, in my opinion, does not uh does not do that.

Uh the just you know the original proposal, not the one that uh councilman rotello was proposing, which I agree with, uh authorizes permanent standing committees without basically defining their authority membership or safeguards.

And once adopted, uh our future councils could create or eliminate or restructure committees by a resolution alone, which would concentrate influence to a handful of members rather than preserving equal participation by the fully elected council before granting the authority charter should establish clear rules, uh protect our transparency, minority representation, and the legislative role of every council member.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That said, um or all the I will take your try your minds.

All those in favor of the motion by councilman Rotello, uh please say aye.

All right, all those opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

I believe the uh motion fails.

Thank you.

Um moving across again the lower dais for uh the last time through section uh chapter three um to my left the lower dais.

Any other comments?

Councilman Chineese.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman.

I just want to continue.

I have a couple of questions comments, but just on section three-13.

Uh Councilman Cheneys, I believe we've kind of addressed that.

Yeah, but you wouldn't yeah, but you didn't let me ask my questions that I had regarding the what was what was stated.

It's and that that's gonna be whether or not I have to make a recommendation on 3-13.

But it's my understanding again to corporation council that the committees is city council members only.

It's not open to non-council members to be on this committee.

Am I correct in stating that?

Does this say that, or do we need to add it to this?

Through the chair.

Council, can you can you answer that question?

I can't.

I can't answer that question.

Yes.

I mean, yes, the the intent of 313 was to apply to committees of the city council.

The language was expanded to not just limit committees to ad hoc committees, but also to include standing committees.

That was raised uh quite a bit at the public hearings in the beginning of this entire process.

So, yes, the the idea of Hand 313 was to expand the committees that are available to include standing committees, and of course, those are committees of the council.

Okay, so it's city council members only.

Okay.

Now this is drafted.

So again, just uh I'm just throwing it out here.

I know standing committees could be a source subject to some members on this dais, and to establish them, it's not it doesn't it doesn't state where the where we have an ordinance that says any council member can send an item to an ad hoc.

That's in an ordinance we can do that, but it doesn't state here which standing committees who can create a standing committee.

Can a council member create a standing committee just by putting something on the dais and says I want a standing committee and it exists, or do you feel that we should expand this to where it requires like a two-third vote of the entire membership body to create a standing committee?

Just to give it some teeth that it's important that it it's it's it's an important resolution that the council is considering it's not just by a majority vote.

Just throwing it out there.

I mean, is that something I should make a motion for, or are you making a motion now?

Um so I'll I'll make a uh uh a suggestion to the ad doc to the charter commission to add the to consider adding the language that the standing committee shall be established and rescinded by a resolution of a two-third vote of the entire city council membership.

So it tells us how we're going to need to establish one.

So this is it's it's a recommend it's all these are recommendations.

So you're you're making a motion, uh Councilman.

Is that motion seconded by anyone?

Is there a second seconded by Councilman Dwayne Perkins?

The motion's been made and seconded.

Any further comment on the on the motion to recommend uh requiring uh two-thirds of the council to establish a committee standing standing committee standing committee and two-thirds of the council to rescind such committee.

Councilman Rotello.

Thanks, Mr.

Chairman.

You obviously know my feelings on this, but uh Councilman Chinazi brings up a good point.

With an ad hoc, it's by unanimous consent.

As long as one person does not decide to go forward with a an agenda item, it has to go to an ad hoc committee.

I'm assuming that we're not going to use the same system to create standing committees, but there isn't anything in here that directs us on how to do that.

So beyond having a two-thirds majority, there should really be baked into this if you guys are going to do this.

It's a big mistake.

But if you're going to do this, you should do it properly, because right now it's insane.

So what you should do is you should hand this bill.

It's a free contribution you want.

But what I would do if I was advising you, even though I I can't stand this idea, not my idea.

I can't stand standing committees.

What I would do is I would send this whole thing back to the Charter Revision Commission to come up with a structured way of creating what will become, I guarantee you, the most powerful committees in the city.

So just just for reference, um, because we already made an amendment to this section, it is definitely going back to the Charter Revision Commission.

Uh if the council as a whole votes on it, that was our recommendation.

Um this would be an additional recommendation uh for a two-thirds requirement rather than a vote of resolution to establish uh a standing committee and a resolution to rescind it.

I thought the last motion failed.

So there was a motion prior to that regarding uh committee of the whole that did pass for that section.

Okay, so it is going back to the charter revision committee.

That was so long ago, I forgot.

So now we're we're now we we're making yet one more recommendation of language.

That's the motion made by attorney chienese.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Can I just ask a clarifying question of Corporation Council?

So just to clarify that there's the that section on committees of the council, the there is standing authority that that what that committee does, an ad hoc committee, they come back to the city council with their minutes and their recommendations, and the city council has to vote on those recommendations.

So this section on committees does not change any power of authority or decision making of those committees in any way.

Is that correct?

It still has to come back to the council to be reviewed thoroughly and voted on by the council.

Through the chair, that's correct.

Yes.

Yes, we're not we're not um uh removing any obligations, duties, rights that committees have as they stand today.

This is just to distinguish what kind of committees may be formed by the city council.

Okay.

Um I I think we're ready to to have a vote on uh councilman Chinese's motion to add another recommendation to um the charter revision commission regarding that standing committee should only be established by a vote of two-thirds and be rescinded by a vote of two-thirds of the council.

So all those in favors, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

Um it's kind of close, but I think the nays have it on this, and we'll leave it at that.

The motion fails.

So moving again in the lower part of the dais.

This is the last group regarding other parts of chapter three.

Councilman Cheneys.

You again that through the chair, if I may.

This may have already been stated on section three-three.

Um I think councilwoman Jabbar may have mentioned it before.

I just want to make sure that when it says the mayor shall appoint.

I thought was this previously made that it should say the mayor shall nominate.

Is that still true?

Is that need to be made as another motion, or that was previously done previously?

Is that inquiry?

That's an inquiry at this point.

Councilwoman Jabbar, do you understand that?

I do, but I think we voted on the we did.

We voted to do that.

Without the whole yes, okay.

Okay.

And did it does it also say nominate and renominate as well?

Because a lot of times people that we appoint, we would have to renominate.

And sometimes the council changes, so the body changes.

So I would think the mayor would have to reappoint that person as well.

Is that part of your suggestion as well previously?

Through the chair.

My assumption, and I I could I am happy to stand corrected.

My assumption as this happens every time there's a new city council.

No?

Okay.

Then I guess I misunderstood.

Okay.

So perhaps uh Mr.

Councilman Sheenies, maybe you want to make a question.

So um I know it's a small I'd like to like uh make a motion, a recommendation to the Charter Commission to where it says the mayor shall nominate.

They should say nominate and renominate accordingly throughout the charter.

Do it.

And we are at section 3.3.

That's why I'm making the the note, but there may be other sections in the charter that may have the mayor shall nominate, but I'm just adding and or renominate if if appropriate throughout the charter.

Just a better clarification.

Because the council can be object to two-thirds, so they should have that opportunity.

So council councilman, I I just want to understand this.

Is it is renominate taking the place where reappoint appears in the charter?

It says the mayor shall appoint.

So where it says appoint, I think the previous recommendation is to change that to nominate, and I'm adding nominate and or renominate accordingly.

I I guess I'm not quite understanding uh the motion.

I apologize for that.

Let's understand.

So I think previously, Councilwoman Jabbar has mentioned that she wanted to change the wording of a point to nominate.

I think that was mentioned before.

We did vote on that.

Correct.

So I'm going to try to amend that to add nominate and re and or renominate where it says nominate.

So I'm this adding the words and or renominate.

Okay.

Is is there a second for Mr.

Councilman Cheney's motion?

This the motion's been made and now seconded by Councilwoman Fay.

Is there any discussion?

Councilman Hall.

I thought we weren't talking about specific uh language where amendments are.

Recommendation.

Right.

Got it.

Councilman Rotello.

Isn't it traditional when someone's appointed to when you appoint them again, you reappoint them?

I mean, isn't isn't that how we normally do it?

That's that would be normal language.

I can understand nominating, but renominating someone who's who's already appointed seems to me awkward.

It would seem to me that if they're in a sitting position and we want them reappointed, we should actually use that language.

That do you do you agree?

I agree with that.

Yes.

Well I agree with that.

I'm through.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this additional word adding of the word renomine?

Councilwoman Faye.

So I think in general, we're asking the Charter Review Commission to revisit the language in 3.3.

But what I understood, uh Councilman Shanese motion to say that it has to come back before the council to be to for that person to actually be appointed.

It's not the mayor who's appointing.

They are renominating and they come back before the council to be reconfirmed.

That was my understanding of his motion.

So that was what I understand the semantical difference between the reappointment and renominated, which is why I seconded the motion.

Not because I think it's a huge difference, but because we're already asking them to revisit this language another idea.

Okay, so this is a suggestion or recommendation of wording.

So uh if there are no other comments or or uh statements, I will try your minds.

All those in favor of the motion by Councilman Cheneys to add and re-nominate to section three-three as a recommendation of the Charter Revision Commission.

Please say aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

Okay, I I think again the nays have carried the day on this.

The motion fails.

Um moving on.

Are there any further discussions?

We're on the lower dais.

We've already done the upper dais regarding chapter three.

Councilman.

Councilman Perkins.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'd like to revisit section three-13 committees.

I'd like to make a motion to add two-year term limits to all chairmen of all standing committees.

So the motion has been made to recommend to the charter revision commission that there be a term limit to any chairman on a stand of a standing committee of a two years.

That was seconded already by Councilman Rotello.

That is the motion, Mr.

President.

Right.

Is there any further discussion on that?

Okay.

Councilman Chinese.

Again, to the chair.

Couldn't the resolution say it's a two-year committee?

If you're asking me, the answer would be yes.

The resolution determines that.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So it it doesn't have to be required.

It would be voted on at the time.

That's correct.

So is there any other comments, please, regarding the motion?

But if it's baked into the charter, we can't play with that going down the road.

Correct?

That's correct.

The charter would govern.

I mean, you can do a resolution for whatever you want, but if it's in the charter, the terms are limited to two years.

That's correct.

No matter how powerful they get.

That's correct.

No matter if their kids take over.

That's with Donald Trump and Harry Trump and Junior Trump.

It stays at two years.

That's correct.

If you want a standing committee, and you're telling me you're not going to have huge powerful chairman, you should support this.

If you don't support this, what it's telling me is maybe you want to be in for the duration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Or we can have standing committees that are whatever length of time we determine they be shorter or longer by resolution.

Okay.

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Not your Honor.

I um I I like this amendment, and I think it's well uh well meaning and well taken.

And I think in today's day where we're talking about no kings every day, all day.

This really helps avoid that fiefdom that some council members had vocalized a concern about.

And I think this is a creative way to attack that issue, and I would urge that the Charter Revision Commission do contemplate uh term limits for standing committee chairmen.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there are no other remarks, I will try your minds.

All those in favor of Councilman Chinese's uh motion.

I'm sorry, it was Councilman Perkins' motion to limit to limit the length of time a person can serve as chairman on a standing committee to make that recommendation to the charter revision commission.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

I believe the ayes have carried uh that recommendation that motion uh to recommend that you want a roll call vote?

Okay, councilman Coello.

This is to approve a two-year term limit.

This is for a limited that's correct.

Yes, Councilman Flanagan.

No, Councilman Hawley, no, Councilman Woman LePine, no, Councilman Bazade, no, Councilwoman Gardner, no, Councilwoman Faye, Councilman Henry, yes, Councilwoman Wallace Smith, Councilwoman Spain Reichel, Councilman Giordano, no, Councilwoman Jabbar, no, Councilman Rotello, Councilman Chinese, no, Councilman Dwayne Perkins, Councilman Britton, Councilman McAllister, Councilwoman Robinson, Councilman Laughing House.

Okay.

One, two, three.

Okay.

Continuing to make our way through chapter three.

I think we've reached our limit.

Um we're about to move into chapter four.

Before we move into chapter four, I would like to take a 10-minute recess.

Um and we'll return to our seats in 10 minutes, so you can have water, soda, or or snack, or bathroom break.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we're ready to get started again, and we're gonna start.

I I call an uh councilwoman Gardner for a motion.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

I make a motion to approve the recommended changes from the Charter Revision Commission in chapter four, correct?

We're at four.

Thank you.

Chapter four?

Yes.

Second.

Chapter 4 second.

Motion's been made and seconded.

We'll try to follow this along.

I'm gonna start, huh?

We are that's where we're gonna start right now.

We're gonna start in and I'll look to my right in the upper level of the dais.

Anyone had a motion regarding um section four of the charter.

No, on the on the right, on the left-hand side of the upper dais uh going around, Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

I would like to move that the Charter Revision Commission revisit section 4.1, page 21, specifically the language that allows the mayor to accept donations, gifts, bequests, or devise of real or personal property or services.

Um to five thousand dollars.

Second.

That motion's been made and seconded.

Uh any discussion regarding um the recommendation that the Charter Revision Commission revisit um section 4-1 regarding um gifts or or uh bequests or donations to the city of Danbury, uh five five thousand dollars and less.

Anyway, I do.

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you.

Um I think as written up to five thousand dollars is destined for uh corruption.

I think we've learned by watching a number of other cities.

We just had New Britain and Aaron Stewart.

Have we learned nothing that we're gonna allow one single individual to accept gifts in the amount up to five thousand dollars each?

There is absolutely no benefit to the city by allowing the mayor to do this.

It does not cost them money to come in front of the council to accept donations.

Nothing is stalled.

We meet each month.

I don't see any rational basis to exceed the current provision that allows uh I believe a thousand dollars.

That's that's correct.

Uh councilwoman Gardner.

Yes, I just want to note that it's um the sh the mayor shall be authorized to accept on behalf of the city of Danbury.

This is not about personal aggrandizement, it is about being a representative of the city and accepting gifts up to five thousand dollars.

Councilman Councilman Henry second the motion.

I I thank you.

Council I thought I did, but that's okay.

Council Councilman Coello.

No, I thought I seconded it, but that's okay.

But I'd like to make a comment regarding that.

Sure.

Um so basically every month or so we see a donation there for $1,000 for the popsicle truck and all those things.

I I it's counterintuitive to not want to have more transparency.

That is all we've heard in the last four years.

Transparency, transparency, transparency.

So I don't understand why there's a motion to change it by five hundred percent to take those donations on behalf of the city, right?

It to me it just doesn't make any sense, and I don't understand why we wouldn't want to also acknowledge the people that are giving gifts.

That gift is two thousand, three thousand, four thousand, whatever it may be.

I I just don't see the reason why you wouldn't want to be able to put it in front of the council and share it as a checks and balances with everybody in the city to see that.

Thank you.

Any other comments or remarks regarding the motion?

Councilman Rotello.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The the big problem with unannounced or unrecorded donations to the city as opposed to the pocket of the mayor.

I mean, I don't think anybody's suggesting that this is gonna go into the mayor's pocket.

Hope they're not suggesting that, but I haven't heard that being suggested.

Is that very often people who donate money to a city have business in front of the city?

That's what they do.

And in Danbury, where you make your fortunes with a couple of things, health care, maybe uh high-tech arms and real estate, you often have a lot of business in front of, or you're an attorney whose client has a lot of business in front of land use boards.

And the mayor, not necessarily this mayor, but any mayor is their boss.

And if a uh, you know, the famous example of a past chair of a land use commission could never get a permit to convert from oil to gas, it took over a year.

This is the guy's the actual chairman of the of the zoning commission, and the mayor was so peotal and he wouldn't, he wouldn't, he had the planning commission of the planning department slow walk the permit.

He had to give up after a year.

So uh in order to expedite, I'm not saying in Danbury, but in in some communities, in order to expedite this issue, you give the mayor some money to his favorite charity, to his favorite thing, whatever his thing happens to be, like the popsicle truck, or it could be a baseball field, or it could be this or it could be that doesn't make any difference, whatever it is.

And in return for that, as Donald Trump says, when I give somebody money, I expect access, this person expects access.

This is the way the world works.

I'm not some major cynic, but we kind of understand what campaign donations are all about.

We kind of get that.

But what we generally do is we build in a safeguard.

So when you give somebody 5,000 bucks for a popsicle truck, they have to say this is from this particular guy who wants to build a 40-story plutonium reprocessing plant next to the kindergarten.

So you're like, oh, oh well, well, that's kind of interesting.

Maybe I don't know if I want to accept that donation.

So it it keeps it keeps the process of money in politics, it doesn't keep the money out of politics, but it keeps for the most part the money that's in politics, and that will always be in politics.

To paraphrase the Bible, Jesus said money will always be in politics.

The money will always be with us.

To keep that somewhat honest and transparent, we require that our chief executive, if he's going to accept donations of $50 or $50,000 to inform the elective legislative branch so that we know, or not me, the people who come after me know and come after you, come after all of us, know what is going on as opposed to guessing what's happening behind the scenes.

It's not that accepting $5,000 or $500 on behalf of the city is a bad thing.

There's nothing bad about it.

I mean, a lot of these people want to give money for oxygen tanks for the fire department, or they want to do this or they want to do that.

And it's good, but my family's given money to the police department and to the fire department.

We did it right here on the dais, wrote checks out, handed it to them, and no strings attached.

Do whatever you want.

I told uh Chief Harold to tell your guys, buy pizzas, have fun with it.

Do whatever you want.

But it was done here in the open on the council, not from my own family's aggrandizement, but just so everybody knew what was going on.

And I I think that's a very healthy way to operate.

So I don't mind the mayor with inflation raising the limit, whatever it was, a thousand dollars or twenty five hundred to five thousand.

That's not really a problem.

But you really need to report it to the council so that we know what's going on.

So I I I I don't recall exactly the wording of the amendment, whether it was to lower it back or to to or to to to force a reporting, but if it's to force a reporting, I certainly support this.

Absolutely, 100%.

It's healthy.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Um Councilman Giordano.

Um through the chair and direct it to Paul.

The last sentence just direct it to me, please.

Okay.

Not to it.

The last sentence says the mayor shall request the acceptance uh of any donation gift uh to the city council at its next special or regularly scheduled meeting.

So that what you were looking for is already in there.

All right.

Thank you, Councilman Giordano.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Yeah, just I I mean, from a point of clarification, I think in I think councilman's phase motion was for the amount, right?

I mean, it was on the reporting back.

That's correct.

Um so I think as far as the reporting back, I mean, maybe just keep in mind maybe that's something that could be revisited under a different motion back to the um commission that if we want to continue to have that recognition of the and the in the record of the donations, I think that's the phrase there.

But I think the motion on the floor was about the dollar value.

And I think the second part of that was maybe a question for counsel is that last sentence that Councilman Giordano just referred to was part of the original language, right?

So initially the charter, if I'm reading this correctly, said that um he the mayor only had the ability to accept something in the aggregate value of a thousand dollars from any one donor in a fiscal year, and then the sentence at the end of that paragraph said the mayor shall request the acceptance of any donation gift bequest or devise in excess of five thousand dollars to the city council at its next special or regularly scheduled meeting.

So that language was already there.

So anything in excess of five thousand dollars was already in the charter.

So it seems to me that this recommendation for $5,000 change that's in the red is just aligning with what's already there.

And I don't know if that's a question through the chair to corporation council.

So if you so councilwoman Robinson, the motion, the motion before us is only about changing the amount back to a thousand dollars.

Right, but my point of clarification is is that that five thousand dollars is the intent of that change from one thousand dollars.

Does that align with the last sentence of the current charter as it was currently written, not revised, where it says that anything over five thousand dollars will have to go to the council.

Or am I reading this entirely wrong?

Because it there's a gap if if it's not amended.

Am I wrong?

So through the chair, um before I answer that, I do see Councilman Faye trying to make a point, I think on your very question.

Um was there something you wanted to say about it?

Yeah, the the copy before all of us is wrong.

So the city charter currently says the mayor shall report the acceptance of each such donation gift bequest or devise to the city council at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

That is not um I don't know, struck through or underlined to indicate to us that it's a change, but it is actually a change.

So it is not currently there.

You know, I understood what you were saying, Councilman Robinson, where you know, to get the two numbers to align, but it that number does not appear in the last sentence at all.

I was gonna make a point of order about that too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, if I may.

So I'm looking at uh an older version of the charter, it does indicate that should a donation exceed a thousand dollars, uh the mayor would um um would then report you know the acceptance of that amount to the council.

So yes, it's the um that should have been a red line uh in the version that's before the committee of the whole.

Um so yes, I'll I'll I'll acknowledge that language.

Um I I do want to uh clarify though that the language that is before this committee of the whole is on uh is an issue of acceptance in authority to accept.

Um this this section doesn't speak to whether the mayor's office would or not uh report back on the five thousand dollar donation.

Um it simply says that the authority is now uh given to the mayor's office to accept up to five thousand.

So it's it's silent on what happens after that donation comes in.

If the if any mayor's office wanted to report back to the council, they could certainly do so.

Nothing forhibits that this just gives them a higher uh ceiling of acceptance.

Um but I yes, I I uh agree that it should be redlined at the end of section four-one.

Say so we changed it from one thousand to five thousand as to uh reporting back to the council.

Thank you.

That's that's fairly clear at the explanation.

If I may, can I ask why?

I mean, why did you feel it was uh in the public interest to eliminate a reporting of up to five thousand dollars?

Why did you make that Trump?

What what is what is the benefit of having you know there's 20,000 municipalities in the United States that they all did this would be 100 million dollars?

I mean, that money coming, that's the kind of money that we get Donald Trump interested.

It's a lot of money we're talking about for a town like Danbury to not have to report.

What was the public benefit that you felt came from the commission that allowed them to raise this limit of non-reportable funding donations?

What was the point of that?

Uh attorney Mortaletti, are are you aware of that the answer to that question?

It's not necessarily a legal question.

It's not a legal question.

Um I I could offer uh an opinion on what the commission's thoughts were at the time when they tried to increase it.

However, candidly, I would uh I think Councilman Motel's question would be appropriately reserved for that joint conference where he has an opportunity to talk to the commission directly on why they wanted to make an increase.

I mean, I can certainly say that you know, as we all know this charter hasn't been amended in quite a while, uh so a thousand, the thousand dollar total um is is quite dated.

Um that's not I'm not representing that that's the only thought the commission had on why they made that adjustment, but that did come into part of the discussion.

Um but if we need uh comprehensive explanation from the commission, I think that would be appropriate to raise uh when we get to the joint conference, which would happen at a at a subsequent date.

Um this is this language is simply to uh authorize the mayor's office to uh uh to get a higher amount of donations from any one donor annually.

I mean, uh right now a donor is limited to a thousand.

Uh that's the way this language is drafted, unless these red lines get approved.

Um so we are actually uh increasing the city's ability to receive donations from any one donor in any fiscal year.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Faye.

Thank you for my second time.

Um I I just want to be clear.

My concern does arise from a a single actor, the mayor, accepting donations of four thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine dollars from a family of five people, say, to get little Joey to be a fired firefighter, right?

To it it could be anything.

That's it it there's no it is unlimited, up to five thousand dollars for any one thing.

It it doesn't need to be you know just proton donated to Danbury, and now we're gonna give them the uh variances that they need.

It could be any family of a hundred people, it could be any organization, community group, anything, and I just my concerns do not arise about the the it's the corruption of the city that I'm concerned about, not an individual gift, right?

Not not one individual copsical truck or something like that.

Um and and to Councilman Coello's point and Councilman Rotello, like the transparency is what we've heard about for the last three years, and everything in this document eviscerates transparency.

Everything in this document makes more and more able to occur behind closed doors.

And I also want to point out that the joint meeting that we have with the commission, the charter review commission, we can only discuss those areas that we have moved to make a change on at this well at the committee of the whole and then later at the council meeting.

We can't carte blanche discuss uh sections that we haven't touched on.

So if we want the Charter Review Commission to consider language, to consider reviewing something, we have to make a motion that passes so that we can have that discussion with them.

Otherwise, pursuant to the statute, that discussion is foreclosed.

Thank you for that.

Um there any other remarks about the motion to um uh look at the paragraph regarding the acceptance of gifts on behalf of the city of Danbury um in an amount less than five thousand dollars.

Um through you to the uh corporation council um Joe, you you said the you know they're limited to a donating of a thousand dollars.

The they're limited to donating a thousand dollars at present to the mayor without reporting, they can give whatever they want to the council.

Am I correct?

We got donations of five thousand, fifteen thousand, twenty-five thousand.

Nobody is limited in giving money to the city of Danbury.

We've had Richter families given entire estate to the city of Danbury.

So you let's be clear about this.

I mean, you the to begin with, the language in here is wrong, and it sort of bolsters the position of the Charter Revision Commission, and thank you for pointing out that that language was wrong and catching that mistake.

And now you're basically implying that people can only give a thousand dollars, so we need to raise that because of inflation.

That's completely not so.

What they're limited in is secretly donating to the mayor, and you want to raise that to five thousand dollars so they can secretly donate even more.

But if they want to openly donate to the council, there's no limit.

So to speak.

Right?

Uh I think I think that we're when I say we're donating to the mayor, what I'm saying is that the mayor shall report the acceptance of each such donation.

Gift, bequest.

It says right in here, the mayor shall be authorized to accept on behalf of the city of Danbury any donation.

I'm not authorized to accept it.

You're not authorized.

If it's Joe isn't authorized, correct.

The mayor's authorized.

That's correct.

So when I give the mayor five thousand bucks on behalf of the city, I'm giving it to the mayor, and the mayor pats me on my head and says, thanks a lot, pill.

What is it that you need?

Or or doesn't.

But he's not giving it to me, he's not giving it to Duane, he's not giving it to Andrea.

He's giving it to the mayor, and I think we need to be clear about that.

We are discussing what it is the mayor can accept and report.

Right now, a thousand dollars.

Soon to be five thousand with no reporting.

To me, that's unacceptable.

And it's dangerous.

Perhaps perhaps I disagree with that that characterization.

He's giving it to the city.

It's accepted by the mayor.

That's that's what that's what this is about.

So with that, if there are no other if there are no other know that he's doing that, then if that if you really believe that, that it's going to the city.

Why is the city's in the dark?

Is the mayor of the city or are we the city too?

Thank you, Mr.

Rotello.

Councilman Chinese.

Thank you again through the chair.

You know, I I do remember like 15 years ago, this very same topic came up by the Charter Commission.

I think back then it was $10,000.

Without coming back to the city, and now $5,000, which I'm not against it, but I just want to understand here, because all this so uh the proposal is that the anything five thousand dollars or less, the mayor does not have to report to the council the gifts.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Do the through the chair of the corporation council?

Is any type of reporting is required on the five thousand dollar or less gifts?

Because you have to give a report to the council.

Uh attorney Muraletti, can you answer that question?

I mean, I think the I think the language is quite to the chair.

I think the language is quite clear as drafted.

The mayor, as an agent of the city, can accept a gift of up to five thousand dollars.

It doesn't say it doesn't speak to what uh disclosures happen or don't happen with respect to the five thousand dollar gift.

That's uh certainly there could be uh uh a notice or some sort of disclosure on the gift.

Uh if the uh and then again as redlined, you know, the mayor is required to request acceptance if it's over five thousand, but that's uh again the the mayor's office could elect uh even if it's under five thousand to still bring that uh before the council and notify whoever deems you know whoever is appropriate.

So I mean I think it's I think it's fairly clear from the language.

Does he have to?

Thank you.

Did uh councilman Cheney's did he answer your question?

No.

Okay.

So the question is does he have to?

So I guess it's his discretion.

Does he have to what?

Does he have to report?

I guess it's his discretion whether he wants to or not.

He has he's required the mayor's office is required to report if the gift is over five thousand.

Uh if it's under five thousand as currently drafted, there's not an obligation to report, but the charter is silent right now as to um as to whether the mayor's office does or doesn't decide to report.

I can't you know I can't speak to the judgment of that.

Okay, because I feel uncomfortable myself.

I think the mayor should report to the council that the gifts are given.

I know it's not this, uh it's not this request, but uh I've I I'm gonna make that suggestion when I get the speaker.

That would be a recommendation to make.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, there is there is a motion.

I was just gonna say I am my motion to include language about reporting acceptance of gifts.

Second.

Okay.

Okay.

So the motion has stated is the the gifts, any gift exceeding a thousand dollars uh is has to be accepted by the council, not by the mayor.

Right.

But the the provision that's struck out about reporting to the city council.

Yep.

I I would amend my motion to replace that language.

I understood that when you made the motion.

Oh right.

Okay.

I I would simply ask your indulgence and separate those two questions.

I think they're the two conceptually very different.

One is saying that the mayor cannot accept anything above a thousand dollars, got to report it, can accept it.

The other one is saying he can accept up to five thousand, but he has to report it.

I'm not uncomfortable with him accepting donations on behalf of the city up to five thousand dollars as long as he reports.

So I think we could separate those two if if that's if if you can okay.

Thank you.

I'll second that as well, if that's the change.

All right.

So uh so uh the the motion is to to leave it at a thousand dollars and also requiring um the reporting of the acceptance of of each gift above five thousand dollars.

Right.

I but I accepted the recommendation or suggestion.

So why don't we take it?

Why don't we take two votes with two motions?

Could the first motion by attorney fay seconded by uh rat by councilman henry is is to leave to leave that language alone at one thousand dollars.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

All those in favor of leaving the of recommending to the commission uh to leave the language at a thousand to look at this provision and leave the language at a thousand dollars.

Please please say yeah.

Aye.

All those opposed, nay.

Nay.

The nays have it.

The motions defeated.

Um councilwoman Faye, could you make your second motion regarding this section?

Thank you.

I would like to move that the Charter Revision Commission revisit section 4.1 to include language that any gifts that are accepted by the mayor shall come before the city council at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Second okay.

Um that motion being made and seconded.

Um all those in favor, please say aye.

All right.

All those opposed say nay.

Nay.

All right.

Now we're now we're close.

So I ask for a roll call, please.

A roll call.

Yep.

Fine.

Can I ask for a question?

Sure.

I I just want to clarify.

Are we leaving the five thousand dollars and we're only changing the second part?

That's correct.

Okay, that's the recommendation.

We're vote making a motion to recommend that.

Um this attorney, uh, rather councilman Coello as to this motion.

Which is to report that's correct.

Yes.

Councilman Flanagan.

Yes.

Councilman Hawley.

No.

Councilwoman Lepine.

No.

Councilman Bazade, no.

Councilwoman Gardner.

No.

Councilwoman Faye.

Councilman Henry.

Yes.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Yeah.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Yes.

Councilman Rotello.

Yes.

Councilman Chinese.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Yes.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

I have it.

Seven.

That's correct.

The eyes have it.

The motion carries.

Has to uh the language in section four-one at the bottom of page 21 of our sheets.

Moving on.

Um in chapter three.

Chapter four.

Chapter 4.

I apologize.

Losing my mind.

Um other comments or motions regarding chapter 4, making my way now on the right side of the upper dais.

On the lower part of the dais regarding chap language in chapter 4.

The lower dais, the entire lower dais.

Any any remarks or motions regarding the language in chapter 4?

Okay.

Returning again to the whole council regarding the language in chapter 4.

Um, the language in chapter 4 before we move on to chapter 5.

Okay.

Councilman Rotello.

In 4-2, I would strike the changes.

My amendment would be to strike the changes.

This would be provided, however, this 4-2 chief of staff to the mayor.

There shall be a chief of staff to the mayor who shall be appointed by the mayor and may be removed by the mayor, provided, however, that the appointment may be disapproved by a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the city council at a meeting not held later than et cetera, et cetera.

I would I would simply unstrike that.

So you're moving that we recommend to the council that it be that they look at that and take that language out.

Right.

Okay.

That the current charter remain unchanged.

Got it.

For section four-two, chief of staff of the mayor.

Is there a second?

Uh motion made and seconded by attorney uh by councilman Perkins.

Um is there any discussion on this?

Council Councilman Coello.

Uh through the chair, just a question for corporation counsel.

Perhaps you could maybe elaborate how that came to be, what prompted them to strike that.

So do the chair.

Um again, I I uh cannot offer a complete comprehensive answer because I can't speak for every member on the commission, but I do know that you know there was certainly um a long discussion about you know the importance of the chief of staff to uh to any mayor or any mayor's office.

Um chief of staff does certainly serve a critical role in the mayor's office uh in many ways analogous to uh how the legislative assistant, you know, serves the city council.

So uh I do know there was uh quite a bit of discussion on the importance of um allowing the mayor to be able to work in lockstep with the chief of staff, and I think that the commission did have concerns about whether um you know that that bond between the mayor and chief of staff could be uh could be ended or disrupted through uh through a two-thirds vote of the council to disapprove of any chief of staff.

So I think it was really more to maintain the continuity between the mayor and his or her chief of staff.

That's there may have been other reasons.

Um I do remember that was uh one of the reasons that was most clear to me during our commission discussions.

Um I can look through the minutes to see if there's anything else, but I think that was one of the one of the most important reasons why.

Thank you.

If I might ask one quick follow-up, and I'm not sure if you know the answer to this through the chair.

Has there ever been an issue that's been brought up where a chief of staff has been denied because the council voted down in two thirds in the history of the city of Danbury?

Are you able to answer that question?

Mr.

Chair, I do not uh know that.

Um I don't have an historical knowledge of whether that's happening.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions or remarks uh regarding um the motion made by uh Councilman Rotello?

I will try your minds.

All those in favor of the motion by Councilman Rotello to recommend to the Charter Revision Commission that the the letion in section 4-2 uh not be approved or not be accepted.

Please say aye.

All right.

All those opposed to that motion, please say nay.

Um the nays have it.

That motion is failed.

Um we now I believe that concludes our discussion of chapter four.

There are no changes in chapter five.

So we're gonna move uh to chapter six.

Is there a motion?

Yes, Mr.

President.

Um, I make a motion to approve the recommended changes from the chapter revision commission in chapter six.

The charter revision seconded.

The motion made and seconded, uh consider the changes of the charter revision commission in chapter six.

There's a lot of meat here, so we're gonna try to check this carefully.

Um let's let's go through the council from right side.

Councilman Hawley.

Thank you, Ronor.

So um I'll make a motion first and then I have some remarks after that.

So um I move to amend the pending recommendation by striking the language converting the town clerk from an elected office to an appointed office, and by requesting that the charter revision commission reconsider the appointment model with safeguards protecting the integrity of the office.

That's section six-two.

That motion is made by councilman Hawley, seconded by councilwoman Jabar.

Is there any discussion about uh regarding that motion, which is uh taking away the appointment and making it retaining it as an elected office?

Councilwoman can I have remarks first?

Council Councilman uh Hawley.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So first I admire the work that's been done by the Charter Revision Commission trying to find some innovative solutions for increasing the professionalism or ensuring continuity and qualified leadership in the town clerk's office.

And I think those are all worthy goals.

And Mr.

Listen, I don't think there's any perfect solution with elected with appointed or with a hired town clerk.

All of them have their drawbacks.

So when this recommendation was first presented, I was skeptical of changing the town clerk from an elected office to an appointed position.

And I remained cautious, but like many of my uh fellow elected council members, I could potentially support an appointed model if the proposal demonstrates that the change is necessary and includes the protections required to make it work.

A change this significant could carry a meetingful should carry a meaningful burden of proof.

We're not discussing a minor administrative adjustment.

We're proposing the end to the independent election of a long-standing municipal office and transferring that authority into an appointment process.

My concern is that the proposal before us changes who selects the clerk without fully designing the office that would exist afterwards.

In my research, I reviewed how other Connecticut municipalities have approached this issue.

Among 10 largest municipalities in the state, eight of them continue to elect their clerks.

Hartford is the one municipality larger than Danbury that appoints its clerk, but they use the indefinite appointment through its council and included charter level transition protections for the clerk serving when that change took effect.

That clerk will serve the rest of their life as the clerk of Hartford.

That's their appointed model.

I also reviewed Watertown's charter.

Watertown recently did a charter revision and they changed it from elected to appointed.

And when they did that, they changed the provisions to allow their previously elected town clerk to remain the appointed town clerk with provisions that outline the cause for removal and what situations might occur, including a written removal process, which provides a hearing and it gives that town council the removal authority and requires defined professional certification within a defined period.

Now, these examples don't prove that Danbury must keep electing its town clerk like we have for 140 years.

They also don't prove that they that we should copy Hartford or Watertown.

We're Danbury, we have our own home rule here.

But they demonstrate that the word appointed is the only the beginning of this conversation.

The protections surrounding that appointment are in the actual system.

So before we send this proposal to the voters for them to opine, the charter should answer several fundamental questions.

And I'll list them here.

First, will the clerk serve for a fixed term or an indefinite term?

Can the clerk be removed only for cause?

And who makes that decision?

What continuing oversight does the council have after confirming the appointment or nomination?

What professional qualifications and certifications and requirements apply?

How will the current elected clerk and the transition be incorporated?

How will that transition be addressed?

And what protections allow the council to perform statutory and election related responsibilities independently without political retaliation.

And finally, what enforceable protection in this draft replaces the independence that currently comes from a separate election?

Now, these are not minor implementation details that should be simply left to a future ordinance to figure out ordinances are appropriate for day-to-day operations of an office, but tenure, removal authority, independence, and division of power between the mayor, the council, and the town clerk are fundamental questions of a governance structure.

These protections belong in the charter because the structural change itself is being placed in the charter.

We should not only ask voters to give up their direct authority to elect the town clerk while telling them telling them that the safeguards replacing that accountability, they'll be developed later.

An ordinance adopted today can also be amended or repealed by a future mayor or a council.

That could leave the permanent charter change in place while protections used to justify it are weakened by future administrations.

The structure and its safeguards should travel together.

I also want to be clear about what I'm saying.

I'm not accusing anyone in our current administration of seeking improper influence in the future.

I'm also not questioning the professionalism or integrity of our current town clerk, but a charter must be written for future administrations of either party and for circumstances that we cannot predict today.

So if this commission develops a complete appointed model with defined tenure, removal protections, council oversight, professional standards, transition provisions, protections for our current clerk, and safeguards for independent statutory duties.

This council can evaluate that model on its merits.

But I do not believe the current recommendation has yet met the burden needed for such a significant structural change.

Until those protections are written written in the charter, the existing elected model remains the most complete, established and accountable system.

For those reasons, I support striking the current appointment recommendation and ask the commission to reconsider these issues before before returning any future recommendations for appointment.

Appointment may be a defensible destination, but this draft has yet built the road to get there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jabor.

We had a motion already.

That was remarks.

I seconded it.

And then Councilman Hawley had remarks.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

And thank you, Councilman Hawley.

I echo a lot of councilman Holly's concerns.

My main concerns are the destruction of checks and balances.

Again, we're not concerned about this administration.

I'm not concerned about the qualifications of our current town clerk.

I'm concerned about the future, like our founders of the United States Constitution.

They were not doing a constitution for the here and now, they were doing a constitution for the future and the protection of the integrity of our democracy.

And I believe moving a town clerk who holds such a high amount of power, especially over our votes to an appointed position will remove the ability of checks and balances that currently exist right now through our elected population.

Our electorate chooses our town clerk.

Our electorate chooses our town clerk, our electorate chooses who fits that entire role perfectly or imperfectly, or however our electorate chooses to pick that town clerk.

And that system works and they are responsible and accountable to the voters that are electing them.

When we make it an appointed position, we're deeming no better than right now in recent memory, the president of Nicaragua, who destroyed any possibility of elections at this point, so that he can concentrate power within his executive branch of the presidency.

And I think that's a terrible precedent to set.

That really does concern me going forward, and as we're seeing across our nation, that the ability to vote is being challenged at this point, and we keep trying to concentrate power away from the voters and into elected officials, that concerns me deeply because we are a democracy.

We're not a theocracy, we're not a dictatorship, we are a democracy, and the power of the people and the voices of the people should be elevated.

So I echo uh Councilman Hawley's concerns, and I would support his motion.

Thank you.

Any other remarks or comments on Councilman Hawley's motion?

Councilman Rotello.

Thank you.

Somebody said that private property is the basis of all political systems that a little patch of land that you defend if you're a farmer or a village or a town or something like that that you defend against marauders from another place are really the basis of why we create societies, why we create cities, why we create laws.

And whether you get to inherit from father to son or mother to daughter, ancient families to new families, or whether under a different system like communism, it goes to the state, and the state distributes it, records have to be kept regardless.

And maybe nothing is more important than the record keeper in any society.

Uh it's hard, it's hard to tell who owned a house in 1785.

And in Danbury, a lot of the records were burned at that point.

But we do have the ability to go back and look things up when there is a dispute, and it in attorneys can tell you that going back to those old records, doing title searches can be critical in the in the dispensation of a lawsuit or a many, many other things.

And it is imperative for any organized society to have records as impeccable as they possibly can.

And that is why in this day and age, we continue to give the office of the town clerk funding to transfer those records which are now on discs, microfiche, and a million other things, um, to keep them transferred in in in a physical space.

I don't know if we still use vellum or not.

Raise your hand if we still use vellum if we just use paper, uh, whatever, but we actually hire people to put those in books, and those books are bound and they're stored in a physical space off site.

It's critically important, and it's critically important that this office is run by capable people.

I I do not have a definitive answer as to the best way to appoint election, nominate or create or somehow bring in the best possible person with the best possible qualifications.

But I can tell you I I agree with my esteemed colleague, Councilman Hawley, who made essentially the same uh motion for an amendment that I was going to make to strike all the changes and and at some point in the future maybe come up with a new system because the the system that's in here now is lacking any safeguard at all.

It's purely a patronage appointment.

There's nothing in here about qualifications at all.

Zero.

Uh you you don't have to be a light, you don't uh I I get that the state has some minimum requirements for town clerks that any municipality has to abide by, but there's nothing in here that protects the people of the city of Danbury against a mayoral appointment from a mayor who's out of his mind.

Or a mayor who wants to appoint his brother or his sister or something like that because the guy's broke and you know his gambling debts are too high, so I'll make him the town clerk and we'll call it a day.

It has to have something more robust than that.

And for all the work that went into this document, there is nothing really in there that speaks to that.

So I think the most expeditious thing that we can do is simply to turn back the clock and keep it an elected position.

And if the city of Danbury really decides that that's not a model that's working, even though it's worked for generations in Danbury and it's worked for generations throughout the state, uh I don't know why we want to change it.

I was against changing the city clerk from an elected position to a uh an appointed position.

We discussed that a little bit this evening already.

But if at some point in the future the city decides that it has to be something else to being elected every whatever it's going to be now, four years is is absolutely beyond the pale and untenable, and we have to make it some sort of a civil service or meritocracy or whatever.

We can do that whenever I want.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other remarks or comments regarding the motion, which is pretty clear and simple.

Councilman Cheneys.

He wants to talk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Well, I I do respect Councilman uh Hawley's comments there.

I think he made some valid points to it, but I see it the other way as well.

I think the town clerk should be an appointed position.

I believe that it should be subject to the merit system as as well.

And um, but as I read some of the qualifications in the in the document as far as shall possess certain certifications in here, and it mentions the Department of Human Services or the Mayor, which I disagree that that should even be in here.

But I think after they hear from all the other 21 members of this council, I think the Charter Commission, once they hear it to take another butt at the apple to see what's the best course for the city, whether it should be elected, whether she appointed, or what safeguards should go in here.

This is such a big decision that it really needs to hear from us to heard from the public to take another to go back and as a commission to take all this on the advisement and come back to this body with a with a recommendation to w which way we want to go.

So that'll be my uh my suggestion is for this body is this to send this back, take the comments that we gave this evening, and make another determination whether it should be uh elected or appointed, because I think councilman Hawley made some valid points that we can incorporate in here and still keep it uh an appointed position subject to the merit system.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councilman Flanagan, thank you.

I have a question first.

I want to make a comment on um uh section 6.2, but section C.

But I don't know if we you need to resolve your uh motion first.

You can make a comment on it right now if you want to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, my only comment would be this.

Um, so the town clerk duties are pretty well laid out here.

However, I'd like to know, or I'd like to suggest at least that we talk to the town clerk and their staff.

There may be many things in here that are required by the Secretary of State or other state agencies that we may not be aware of that should be included in if we're going to keep this as a list of records, land transactions, and all these other things, we may be missing some points there that might down the road bite us.

Councilman.

I don't know that.

Councilman Flanagan, the the beginning phrase is the town clerk's duties shall include but not be limited to I'm just gonna point that out.

Thank you.

Um is there anybody else who has not yet spoken regarding this?

Um councilman Faye.

I I agree substantially with Councilman Hawley's remarks, and um during both of the public hearings.

There uh one being um the public hearing for the charter review commission as well as the public hearing held before ourselves on Thursday.

Uh I think there were a lot of different ideas on how to fill this position.

And one thing really stood out at me, um, and it might have been councilwoman uh Jabor's comment.

Um not certain who made it, but it's you know, making it from elected to appointed doesn't remove much of anything because the mayor could change each term, which means that our town clerk could change each term.

We're not doing anything to professionalize the office and encourage someone to get their certifications.

So I think I understand the intention in addressing the town clerk.

Um, but I don't think that this revision gets there.

Um in fact I don't even think it comes close.

And I would say um there were several remarks about it being a civil service position, and that seems to make a lot of sense to me that the Civil Service Commission would, you know, test for this position and would also consider the qualifications, not just one person, the mayor, who may be a first-term mayor, maybe doesn't know what the town clerk does, maybe had no interaction with that office, doesn't even know what the city needs in that person.

So I I subscribe uh substantially to Councilman Hawley's motion, and I will support it.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Councilman uh Perkins thank you, Mr.

President.

I think it might be uh repeating some of the things that have been said already, but uh the appointment is no better than being elected because it could change as soon as a new administration is in.

So I'm leaning more toward something that provides a lot more continuity to the office.

I mean I'm in that office, if not to say hello, uh maybe looking certain things up, and um they do a fantastic job in there, but I think I think there just needs to be a little bit more of a comfort level of stability, and like I just said, neither appointing or uh rolling election terms provides that something more stable should be in place, and this would be a good idea to send us back for a complete revisit.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Uh President.

Thank you.

Any other remarks?

Councilman Coello.

Yes, thank you through the chair.

Um I went back and looked uh under section 2.8 and was pointed out to me as I look at the proposed language in 6.2 there, and I want to thank Councilman Hawley for uh you know uh lucid arguments, and I think they're great points that he made.

But one thing I'd like to add to that is that in our original charter, it listed that the town clerk shall have all the powers and duties prescribed by the general statutes.

So I don't know why that would have been left off and the proposed revision changes.

Uh my other concern is that under um 6.2 B or C where it says the town clerk duties shall include but not be limited to supervising, as much as I appreciate the fact that somebody needs to supervise, they need to also be qualified and do those tasks as well side by side with the people in that office.

Um and I also think that that's where um we need to add back in, or the charter revision commission needs to seriously consider uh what was there originally with regards to the powers and duties that are in the general statutes that are probably too long to list, but I think that's something they need to take a real deeper dive and understanding because it's that important to the city of Danbury as Councilman Rapello mentioned the importance of that office, and uh hopefully they will also take the time to sit down as was requested and get feedback from the people that do that job every day, right?

They probably forgot more about that position and no disrespect the bit than anybody on the charter revision really knows about.

I think there's a wealth of knowledge there, and we need to tap into that and get some feedback from them.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other remarks?

Seeing none, I'm gonna try your mind.

Sure.

Let me just find my sheet.

I'm filling them up.

Yes.

Councilman Coello.

As to the motion, are you in favor of it?

For elected, correct?

Yes.

Councilman Flanagan.

Yes.

Councilman Hawley.

Yes.

Councilwoman Lepine.

No.

Councilman Bazid.

No.

Councilwoman Gardner.

Yes.

Councilwoman Faye.

Councilman Henry.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

No.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Councilman Giordano.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

Councilman Rotello.

Yes.

Councilman Chinese.

No.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Councilman Laughing House.

No.

No.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven.

The motion carries.

11 to 8.

So that recommendation will be made.

Okay.

Moving on.

We're in chapter sixth.

Um to the to the right side of the upper dais.

Any other uh motions or remarks regarding any sections of chapter six.

Now is your chance.

Councilwoman Lepine.

Um looking at uh six dash eight a regarding the director of public works, powers, duties, and qualifications.

And um what I picked up here is that um there are no qualifications in this these paragraphs.

Okay, councilwoman, are are you looking at changes that were proposed by the uh you're right, I'm not I don't see any red, but there's no qualifications.

So I said it.

Okay.

All right.

Are are there any um any other uh remarks, comments, or motions from people on the left side of the upper dais regarding chapter six but I don't think we're limited to changes.

I think we open the charter, right?

We're we're we're rejecting or we're we're we're we're we're looking at what was presented to us as changes by the charter revision commission.

Well, I actually disagree.

I think we're looking at what has been respectfully.

I'm what I see is we're looking at the charter as a whole, what has been changed and what remains unchanged.

So I I mean I I believe I just I believe all of us, including Councilwoman Le Pine can comment on the existing charter, the existing charter that was.

Yes, once we opened it up, we opened it up.

All right, I I think that's true for the charter revision commission.

I will defer to council and and ask his opinion if he understands the question.

I do understand the question through the chair.

Um so I would direct this committee of the hall to section 7191 of the general statutes, and it goes through the entire back and forth process between the city council and the charter revision commission.

So under subsection C it says that if the appointing authority makes recommendations for changes in the draft report to the commission, the commission shall confer with the reporting authority concerning any such recommendations and may amend any provisions of the proposed charter, charter amendments uh in accordance with such recommendations, or the commission may reject such recommendations.

So the language is saying that if there are recommendations made to the draft report, which is the document before you go back to the uh charter revision commission.

So I don't I actually don't think we are limited to uh to what was redlined because it's simply it's simply recommendations.

Um so I that's that's how I read this.

Um okay, you're our attorney, so that's how I read 91C.

So um council councilwoman, does that answer your question?

Uh you're correct.

Thank you.

I'm gonna go back to Councilwoman LePine.

Councilwoman LePine, is there is there a proposal that you have regarding um section six-eight of of the charter?

Six-eight a I just thought that the uh I would like to recommend that the uh commission um add the required qualifications for the director of public works so you'd like to refer this section six-a back to the charter revision commission to review qualifications required in the charter of the director of public works, yes.

Okay, and that's a motion.

That's a motion, all right.

Is there a second?

That motion seconded by um councilwoman Cheryl Wallace Smith.

Is it is there any discussion regarding that particular section and that motion councilwoman Jabbar?

Uh through you, Mr.

Chair, I I my understanding was there are qualifications, they are just a bit broad.

It looks like it's the last sentence of subsection A states the director shall be chosen on the basis of significant technical training, demonstrated executive and administrative qualifications and experience and general construction.

Does that not constitute qualifications Le Pine?

I just noticed that all of the jobs under that position have requirements for higher qualifications.

Degrees.

And there's many under.

There are many parts of it that are under that big job.

So I just thought that it should be a little more explicit.

Okay.

All right.

Any other comments or questions regarding the motion by a tur by Councilwoman LePine.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Of course, now that the Councilwoman DeP Lepine drew our attention to the section, I think it is a little concerning to have qualifications specifically as far as years and things like that in these jobs.

So I mean it if if really truly the this is going to go back, I would amend the motion to just verify and have the commission just look at all the jobs in that subsection and make sure that's aligned with you know best practices for something that is wouldn't be revisited potentially for another 10 plus years.

So instead of just looking at that one job, I would kindly ask that if the commission if the motion carries for the commission to go back and just do a revisit to that one section, subsection A, that the motion be amended to include um the other positions in that full section to just make sure they're aligning with best practices.

Councilwoman LePine, if you wish to amend or change your motion, I really don't because I read all of them and I thought that it was just that one main job where everybody else is uh under that title.

Thank you.

Right.

Um has to councilwoman Le Pine's motion regarding section 6-8 subdivision A.

Uh is there any other remarks?

Is that you have a remark, uh, Councilman Rutello?

Yes.

You know, often in a political system, you'll make a department head more political than necessarily qualified to institute the changes that the political system, the voters elect the mayor and the city council, and then their job is to make sure the roads get paved and all that kind of stuff.

And the person who's gonna be the boss of the experts and the engineers may be more of a political appointee and less of a school person with degrees from MIT.

There's there are political reasons to have broad and amorphous qualifications baked into a job description when it comes to a department head.

It's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, if you think it's a bad thing, I I personally feel no disrespect to the commission that it's beyond the scope of the commission made up of lay people to actually define qualifications.

You need to be a civil engineer.

Do you have to have a PE from Stanford?

I mean, what where are we going with this?

Normally, what a community will do is hire a consultant, and the consultant will then report back to the mayor's office or the city council as to what qualifications we should have going forward as we migrate from a small city to a large city as we as we hire more engineers.

How are we going to do this?

Maybe a health director, what kind of qualifications do they need to have?

We'll get into this a little bit in a minute with the IT department, which is which is becoming its own department.

So I I think I I certainly appreciate uh councilwoman LePine's uh concern that the qualifications may not be as clear-cut as she would be normally comfortable with.

And and and while while it's true that there may actually be a reason, and there have been in the past reasons for that, if we go down that road where we have to start defining these qualifications, I think what the I think the only thing that the council could do uh uh external to the to the charter commission is to get a consultant in here and go through the entire department and tell us exactly what we're going to need for a community the side the the size that it intends to be again in population of another 20,000 people in the next 15 or 20 years.

This is what you're going to need.

These are the kind of qualifications that people have to have, et cetera, et cetera.

I I I think putting that on the shoulders of a charter revision commission, dialing down into actual qualifications of engineers and public works officials is a little bit beyond the scope of the of the charge that uh you guys made when you decided to form a charter commission.

I don't think I don't think it's workable.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other remarks or comments on the motion by Councilwoman LePine?

Councilman Coelho.

Yep.

Uh I appreciate Councilwoman Lepine's uh attention to the detail, and I would just like to comment and say, since every other department had has at least five years experience, I know they're gonna take a look at that, but I think that's important too.

It ties back into what Councilman Rotello said, because in the event that that does become an appointed position uh to carry out perhaps a plan or a goal.

I think it's incredibly important that the individuals uh in that uh director of public works have some type of minimal years experience that they can draw back on with regard to their qualifications.

I I don't see that in there, and hopefully the Charter Revision Commission uh takes a hard look at that and perhaps add that in there.

Could have been an oversight on their part, um, especially when sometimes we have uh individuals doing more than one position at the same time for the city.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other remarks?

Okay.

Hearing none, I will try your minds.

All those in favor of councilwoman Le Pine's motion re requesting that the Charter Revision Commission um consider the language in section six eight subdivision A regarding the qualifications of the public works director.

Um please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay, nay.

Great.

Um I think uh we're gonna we're gonna just show hands if you don't mind.

For those who all those in favor of councilwoman Le Pine's uh motion, please raise your hands.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

All those opposed, please raise your hands.

One, two, three.

Ten.

The motion fails.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um we are still in chapter six.

Uh uh, and I'm on the upper level of the dais.

Is there anybody who has any motion or comment or uh wishes to discuss any other section of chapter six?

Looking to my left in the upper dais, councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Section six-18 Board of Education.

Chapter 4.

The last two lines.

I make a motion to amend and recommend back to the commission to revisit the language change that states the board of education shall change that language to May.

Submit to the mayor and the city council a complete financial order setting forth all.

Okay, so just I I apologize while you were talking, I wasn't looking at the section to get it correctly.

This is this is the change of one specific word, and I think it's in the fourth paragraph.

Is that what you said?

Fourth paragraph.

Second to last line.

Substantial change, shall to May.

I understand that.

Okay, thank you.

Is there a second to that motion?

That motion is made and seconded.

Are there any remarks as to that motion regarding section six-18 uh of the charter revision commission report?

Councilman Robinson.

I um I actually would ask if Councilman Henry would entertain expanding his motion um to include um a revisit of most of section 618 as far as board oversight to um define full access in that section uh in condition the section's obligations on data sharing agreements addressing student data privacy and at a sunset provision regarding renewal by ordinance.

Um I think there's specific language uh by at least myself and other members that are.

Councilwoman, could you restate that a little louder?

I don't think councilman Henry can hear you.

Sorry, I'm requesting if Councilman Henry is willing to amend his motion to expand uh the revisit of section 618 um to the section as a whole, including but not limited to the definition of full access, um, and consider um that there's conditions on the full access of the city's um requests that include data sharing conditions, student and data privacy being protected, and also potential sunset provisions requiring uh renewal by ordinance as well as other things.

I do have some proposed language that I'm willing to submit for the record, um, as well as I know other members of the council have recommendations, recommendations, yes, councilman Henry.

Did you understand uh the councilwoman's request?

She could reclarify, but unless the substantive change of the shell in May does cover what she's asking, I would stay with she's adding more language to that.

Um she didn't disagree with May, but she wants you to add, she wants to add to that motion a recommendation that the Charter Revision Commission uh look very carefully at language regarding what type of financial reports, what kind of information is being requested of the Board of Education, and and make certain that there's limits on that written in the charter.

I would agree with that friendly uh okay.

So recommendation.

So if if I may try to restate the motion, um if you can bear with me, I believe the motion has restated as as made is to eliminate to change the word shell, which appears on the second to bottom line of paragraph four of section 618, and also to have the charter revision commission look carefully at what types of information are gonna be supplied to the city and define carefully um what financial information means to the to the extent that it definitely does not include private information regarding students or teachers or anyone else.

Um I I believe that adequately summarizes what her motion is.

I agree.

You agree with that okay.

The motion has restated, um has been seconded.

Is there any uh remarks or discussion from any other members of the council?

Councilman Cheneese.

Thank you.

Again, through the chair.

Uh I know section 618 is pretty con there's a lot of my opinion.

I think there's a lot of potential issues to this.

I don't I don't think a lot of people on this diet truly understands the difference between the Board of Education and the City Council or the City of Danborough's authority on this.

So I would like to just if it through the chair, just to stay on section 618, so the whole dais can opine on it.

Because I don't want to see go from councilman Henry's, which made some valid points, they'll go to Councilwoman Robinson when she speaks about bouncing around on this, because I think we all are kind of in agreement that it needs to go back.

So to this, I just wanted to have it one discussion on this instead of having 21 discussions on it.

So so I may make a suggestion, uh, Councilman Henry, um, that you withdraw your motion uh it it and and and re-offer a motion first that um you recommend that the council send this section back to the Charter Revision Commission, and then we can discuss recommendations for the council for the Charter Revision Commission to look at it, and that way we'll be done with this entire section all at once.

Um I believe that does that answer your question?

If you would consider that through the chair, I think I did make a recommendation to uh have the commission revisit this also in the motion.

So I I I what uh my suggestion is it it's one motion.

We vote that the charter revision commission, we vote that this be referred back to the charter revision commission, the whole section, and then we vote on what we would recommend as a second vote.

Okay, so my new motion would be to have the charter revision commission revisit this as a whole.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Okay, seconded by uh uh Councilman Chinese.

I do not believe this needs a lot of discussion, but Councilman Robinson.

Thank you.

I just wanted to state because I know that I brought this up initially, and I did have some recommended language.

I think that there's gonna need to be some digging in with the commission itself.

Um, but I think that part of our recommendation should be that they really consider what full access means, um, how that will be restricted.

So we're not there yet.

We want to just do this part, uh, just to send it back, and then we'll vote on what we recommend.

Okay.

Is there any discussion about sending this section back and recommendation that the charter revision commission look at this section?

No.

So all this section I want to make sure I go ahead.

Go ahead, go ahead.

Is there a question?

Okay.

No, no, no.

It's all of section 18.

Yep, correct.

So we are going to discuss.

There's going to be a second motion as to what we recommend.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

Um all those in favor of councilman Henry's motion is seconded by Councilman Chinese to return section six-eighteen to the Charter Revision Commission.

Um, please say aye.

All right.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

The ayes have it, the motion carries.

Now, Councilman Henry, do you wish to make a second motion as to what recommendations this body would like to make to the Charter Revision Commission regarding section six eighteen?

Yes.

Through the chair, uh make the motion to amend and have the commission revisit the language in chapter four.

First line, the Board of Education shall submit, change the language from shall to May.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um is there anyone else who wishes to make any recommendation to the language that the Charter Revision Commission needs to consider as to Section 6-18?

Councilwoman Robinson.

Thank you.

Um I have I do think that there should be a revisit of full access.

Um, I think there should be a definition as far as what that means, including the personnel who will have access, what it is uh the data that we will have access to.

I think there should be an agreement between the city of Danbury and the Board of Education regarding um the privacy under FERPA for student data being restricted.

Um, and then I think there should be some um clarification that full access does not include the city's authority to make any financial or budgetary decisions outside um of the reporting requirements.

So essentially definition of full access, the personnel involved, um, restriction on the data, including student privacy or um student data privacy um reporting cadence and the um information to be uh provided in those reports um and what that would include.

Okay, thank you.

Um there is there anyone else who wishes to make a remark or or or proposal regarding section six eighteen?

It it was I think we're gonna get to a motion.

I just want to hear every all the possibilities regarding the section.

Councilman um Perkins.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Just to continue with uh Councilwoman uh Robinson, that whole full access thing.

I mean, once we do get access to certain types of information, you know, maybe software, does that also allow us to make any kind of edits or modifications to it?

I mean, that probably should fall in the auspices of full access as well.

Thank you.

I I councilman Perkins, I I didn't quite understand that.

Well, I'm just saying, um, you know, full access could mean um being able to have access to the different software programs, financial programs.

Would that also would that full access also allow us to make any kind of edits or modifications to that software, that information?

So that's something that I would like to have the um the uh commission reexamine or look at.

Okay.

Continuing on our conversation as to what language needs to be recommended to the uh board of education, Councilman Chinese.

Yeah, thank thank you again through the chair.

You know, um it seems like here is that we're asking the public to grant us permission to go to the board of ed and says you will give us this.

Because I know this has gone on for many years to ask them politely to say, can you give us access to your systems?

And they always did yes and no.

But the council never really formally asked them for permission.

We never gave them an MOU saying, will you agree to allow us to do this formally?

So now we're asking the public, the charter just says you may or you shall do this without us really doing due diligence to say, hey, let's work together on this.

Just give us the access that we need to do to assist you to do to help you.

Like here, like for an example, it's in here that we're gonna require you to give us financial statements records.

Well, under section 210-248C, it's already in there.

It clearly states for the fiscal years ending June 30th, 2020, and each fiscal year thereafter, each local and regional board of educational educational shall is that famous word shall on a quarterly basis, post the board's current projected expenditures and revenues on the internet website, and submit a copy of the current and projected expenditures and revenues to the legislative body of the municipality.

And Councilman Chinese, that's a statute, correct?

That's a statute right here.

Now I've been on the council for 20 plus years.

I have never gotten that ever.

Now I have asked for it, and I have gotten because I was on the audit committee.

So they gave it to me.

But none of you have gotten it.

And what's the purpose of it?

When is it projected?

It's gonna tell you where you're gonna end up at the end of the year.

Are you gonna have a access?

Are you gonna be in deficit?

It's it's physical, it's here.

So why do we need the charter to restate it again when this body has never required the board of ed to give us this information?

And I have given this information to the superintendent and the finance director to give us this information.

And I still haven't gotten it.

And I asked for June 30th to do it.

But there's no penalty if they don't.

What's the penalty?

There isn't any.

So do we really need this or not?

Would be my recommendation back to the Charter Commission.

It's unless there's teeth in this, it's not gonna work.

It's we're not gonna be any better off we are now, as with the charter, because there's no penalty if they do so.

We can't withhold money, we're not allowed to.

Um by resolution, we could take over their accounting.

We could if they authorize it.

The charter may say they shall, but they still got to agree to it, which we can.

So the ultimate thing here is have the city have more oversight of the Board of Education Finances.

Why?

Well, let's go back the last five years.

We know why.

You know, late audits, eight million dollars excess over the last four years.

The current access they're projecting over 630, 2025, which could be seven million dollars.

That's why we need this.

So I do think we should send this back.

I still think they look should look at every paragraph, take a look at the the state statute, which I have here, and see how they can incorporate the state statutes into the charter and and better do it.

Because a lot of this stuff is already in there, we just don't do it.

As it was mentioned before, uh software.

Do you know they're supposed to come to this body and ask?

Hey, we're doing this software.

Do you agree?

No, because their accounting software is different than the municipal's counting software.

It's the same company, but yet it's two different contracts, which means it could be 200,000 just to break it.

So, but they didn't ask us permission to, so I think a lot of the stuff's in here, we just don't enforce it.

So without the teeth in the charter, I don't think we're gonna we're not gonna gain anything.

They'll just ignore it.

So that's my my suggestion.

I think it should go through my recommendation again is to have the charter commission review the chapter sections 10 to 40 down to 10, 248 C, and it goes through all the stuff, the do's and the don'ts, whether or not what needs to get done on the charter.

Otherwise, we're not gonna gain anything here.

And what the altar, what's the ultimate here?

What does this council want?

I think we want is to oh we want to take control of the board of ed finances, not tell them how they spend it, because we can't, but how to do the accounting of it, which do we really want that burden?

I don't know, but that's where this is leading.

So I just think we need to be careful of what we ask, because we might get something we may not want.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other remarks or comments?

Uh Councilman Laughinghouse.

Yeah, I just wanted to um through the chair.

I think uh part of this module or you know, kind of uh meeting in regards to the charter was the intent of it is there's already kind of a handshake agreement that's going on via uh the Board of Ed and the finance department.

I think uh part of this module or you know, kind of uh meeting in regards to the charter was the intent of it is there's already kind of a handshake agreement that's going on via uh the Board of Ed and the finance department, and I think the intent behind this is just getting some of that definition, and I believe that's where Councilwoman Robinson's coming from is making sure that it's a little bit more concrete that that handshake agreement that's occurring today is continuing on after um so we erase some of the mess that we may have been in previously is that correct um to the chair is that a question to question you know if if I interpret my when I watch that specific meeting yes, that was certainly part of the intention behind the creation of section 618.

Um I will just note for background, because I know many of you were at those um at those meetings, but maybe not all.

Uh what it's worth, the board of ed was was okay with uh almost all the language we have here in this current version.

We had uh meetings with the Board of Ed's attorney um uh at a at a pretty lengthy meeting, uh multiple versions were exchanged back and forth.

The the biggest issue that the Board of Ed had was on you know certain SHAL language.

Um HIPAA violations and yeah, right.

Now, I mean, as a matter of law to the extent that HIPAA FERPA would apply to any documents you request, clearly we're prohibited you know from from getting that information.

I mean, the law is stands on its own, regardless of what the charter does or doesn't say on that.

So I mean there are there are legal safeguards to uh make sure that the city doesn't you know commit any sort of um missteps legally.

Um but to answer your question, yes, that was the uh some of the intent of 618 was to further that that handshake agreement as you as you described it.

If if I could just make a recommendation, I don't know if uh Councilwoman Howley uh or Robinson is gonna have any recommendations in terms of language, but is there a possibility to define, you know, because we've already agreed to send this back to the charter to define what that person's role is and put it a little bit more pen to paper, um you know, just in regards to this document.

Sorry if I may through the chair.

Could you just clarify you said this person who you are the handshake agreement, what their actual roles are, what their responsibility, what their oversight and what they have today.

That's not be within the purview of the charter revision commission.

To be able to, I think that's where uh councilwoman Robinson is defining what their oversight is today to be able to via that handshake agreement to be able to put it into our charter.

Um so there's a little bit more of a defined role in terms of what they have access to and how they obtain it and if there's any type of um timely audits or things of that nature.

You're you're referring to the to the city.

Right, okay.

Anybody else, Councilman Rotello, regarding section 6-18, which we're already gonna send back to the uh Charter Revision Commission.

Did someone gotcha?

Okay.

Uh a question through the chair to uh councilman Henry.

Um the Board of Education shall submit to the mayor and the city of Council, the City Council Committee Annual Financial Report.

Setting forth all the etcetera, et cetera, et cetera.

This is something that has to be done, it has to be submitted to the state Department of Education.

And it looks like what this is asking for is essentially the same thing they are already submitting to the state, and they want it more formalized and actually be submitted to the city as well.

Uh this does not sound like proprietary information, this sounds like it's just regular information that they have to provide to the State Department of Education.

So I'm curious as to as to why I mean when you change when you uh when Mr.

Henry uh changes from Shell to May, he's making it he's going from from you know required to optional.

Um my question would be why would we want to make that optional?

What would be the problem with ensuring that the board of ed or the administration sends us a copy of the thing same thing they're sending to Hartford?

So that's issue number one.

And you know, you don't have to answer that right now, or or ever.

I mean, you're right, do whatever you want.

But I mean that that that that is my question.

What what's the downside to getting that information that's already being submitted to another authority?

The other thing that's a little bit more nuanced is that we did hear from a member of the Board of Education of the potential danger of allowing the city of Danbury to intrude on their own proprietary board software systems, and that could lead to well, we know what it could lead to.

We don't need to get into that tonight in the public forum, but we know that information technology is can be leveraged um in in ways that were were unintended and and and never ever for the good.

So my my issue with the city of Danbury demanding access to those systems uh would would since that's such an extraordinary request, it would need to satisfy me to come with extraordinary safeguards, and they're not in here.

So I would certainly request that the Charter Commission ensure that if they go forward with this and then winds up in the hands of the voters, um that they are confident that whatever procedures uh they are demanding of the uh board of ed in terms of uh intrusion to their systems that it be um uh accompanied by something that is at least as robust as the city's own systems and the board's own systems.

Those are my two comments.

So the first thing is what's the problem with requiring something that they're already submitting, and the second thing is to the commission itself is to just ensure that we don't have any problems with ransomware, et cetera.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other remarks or comments for the first time uh regarding this?

Um councilwoman Robinson.

I I just have two additional recommendations that I would like to propose that um the the count the commission consider the cadence and frequency, not only of the types of reports of of when we would get any sort of financial reports from them, um, and also just that the I think the intent really is that not necessarily for us to control expenses, but for us to be able to have um that transparency back and forth for long-term um capital planning and strategy.

So I mean, I think just I want to make sure that the point is you know, a cooperative view and and to consider the cadence to align so that we're not seeing something only at budget cycle, um, so that we have some ability to have more back and forth.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

No, Councilman Henry.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, and this is directed toward corporation council.

So census is newly adopted or will conversation be adopted.

We've never had board of education in the charter before.

If there is a conflict of or violation of state statutes, and the charter in qu encompasses the board of education now, who's paying for the litigation for any issues?

Is the city of Danbury paying for litigation?

Does it the city represent the board of ed now that they're not autonomous anymore?

Uh council, are you able to answer that question in applying to it?

Through the chair.

I just want to first make sure I understand Councilman Henry's question.

Can I can I recite what I think is his question?

So uh Councilman Henry, you're saying that in the event of uh a claimed um uh legal misstep either by the city or by the board of ed, you want to know how uh litigation expenses would be handled and covered?

Is that your question?

Because I mean that would I mean my first question back would be well who's who's committed the alleged breach?

Um so it's you know it's I'd be giving you a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question.

I'm asking hypothetical question, but as it stands now, the board of education has their own attorneys.

They do.

Yep.

So now they're incorporated into the board of education.

Does that now give them legal representation to the city?

No, no.

Uh through the chair, if I may.

Uh no, the board of ed uh in this case, to the extent that there's a conflict with the charter, they would consult with their own attorney.

They they did so when we actually drafted uh this language, the board of ed um, you know, was present for for our uh for the commission meetings, they consulted with their outside council.

Uh we met with their attorney, so I suspect they would do the same thing uh in this case, and um I would further suspect that if that were to happen that attorney client privileges would be maintained between the city and its legal council as well as the board of ed and its legal council.

So hopefully that answers your question.

Thank you.

But we won't know that situation too.

We wouldn't know that until we get to that point.

Okay, thank you.

That's correct.

Okay.

So uh if there are no other remarks, there's a motion on the floor.

Oh, councilwoman Jabbar.

Is there anything we could vote on each motion separately?

Excuse me.

Is there any way we could vote on each motion separately?

Well, there's a motion pending if if anybody wants to make a second mo uh um we'll vote on a motion that's pending right now.

Which is Councilman Henry's motion, which is which is in in two parts.

Okay.

He's got two things in his motion.

One is the elimination of the word a recommendation that the word may be eliminated from the fourth paragraph of section six eighteen, and it also shall show I apologize in place by May, and then that um langu the language uh regarding what's to be provided uh would be uh referred back to the Charter Revision Commission with a recommendation that they clearly specify what they intend, and that's in the fourth paragraph of uh section six-18.

Can I request that be that motion be split into two?

We did just combine it.

No, I I understand can I request that it be split and the shall can be one and the rest of it can be so you want to vote for us to split the question.

We just combined it.

Completely understand.

I I understand.

I'm happy to vote against it.

I am not in favor of changing shell to May.

I just I understand that.

But I am in favor of the rest of the motion.

I understand.

It's already in May.

I believe what he what councilman uh Henry is stating is sort of piggybacking off of what councilwoman Robinson that's correct.

Yes, I'm in support of what council is part of it.

Yes, part of it, not the other.

So I was asking if we could.

I understand that's fine.

Any other remarks?

Councilman Coello.

Yes, thank you.

Um, some of the concerns I've had the opportunity to speak with um past uh board of ed members and some current ones regarding some of their concerns specifically to state statute uh 10-uh 222 and how these changes affect it.

Um the broad language in the third paragraph where it says the uh financial affairs um it's it's very broad, especially when it comes to uh further down in the uh sentence about the lawful directive of the city.

Um financial affairs could be interpreted as purchasing approvals, etc.

etc.

I think it's very very broad language, especially as it ties back to uh state statute, like I said, 10- uh 222.

And I don't know if I could ask this question through the chair to corporation council.

Um have we had uh a legal opinion written on that with regard to the potential conflict because uh I don't think anybody want to get stuck gets down get down the road here in future administrations where we we try to we strip not with the intent but with the good intent of trying to clarify this and thread a needle and strip power away from the board of edward now we're in a lawsuit um where we have the potential attorney from the board of ed suing the city of Danbury.

So have we do we have an opinion letter from corporation council with regard to this specific potential conflict?

No.

So through the chair, can I um I can respond in two parts if I may.

Yes.

All right.

Um we don't have any a specific opinion letter drafted, so that's part one.

Part two I would say is that when this provision was drafted, um the commission was uh very uh mindful of uh the need not to conflict with any provisions of the general statutes.

So when this was prepared, we uh added uh the final paragraph to section 618 uh to try to avoid uh any sort of clash between what we're seeking here and what the Board of Ed is allowed to do under the general statutes, and then we uh we also tried to make that clear through paragraph two, section six eighteen, because again, we were cognizant of you know not wanting to uh inadvertently create a scenario where uh the charter revision commission is proposing charter language that's not consistent with the general statutes.

So uh although there's no opinion letter on 10 22 specifically, we did uh attempt as a commission uh to to guard against that view again, paragraph two and the final paragraph of 618.

Could we request that as a council an opinion letter?

Yep.

Um I'm not quite sure.

We're not a council, we're we're a committee of the whole.

Correct.

So the council might be able to do that.

Um we're asking questions at the I and that's my question through the chair for for corporation council.

The the intent here is I I I think I know what the intent was with this, right?

To gain more transparency because for voters that's half of our budget.

I I get it.

I just think that why not get an opinion letter to avoid a potential problem if this charter does not get opened again for another 10 or 20 years.

Our job is to plan that far in advance with this, and I can't imagine that uh you know an opinion letter uh could hurt in any way.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for those comments.

Um is there any other comments before we take a vote on councilman Henry's motion?

Seeing none, I will try your minds on on the motion by Councilman Henry to uh change the language to recommend that the Charter Revision Commission change the word shell to May in the second to last line on page 42, and also that they define more clearly what full access to the records, books, accounts, um, and data, financial expenditure data of the school district is and in a manner that protects that information.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say nay.

Nay.

Okay, we're close again.

I'm gonna have to, I'm losing my ability to discern.

So let's raise our Can we ask for a roll call vote or is it too late?

A roll call vote, it'd be fine.

Thank you.

Make it easier for you.

It does.

In favor of councilman uh Henry's motion, uh Councilman Coello.

Yes, Councilman Flanagan.

Yes, Councilman Hawley.

Yes, Councilman Lepine.

No.

Councilman Bazaid, no.

Councilwoman Gartner.

No.

Councilwoman Faye.

Councilman Henry.

Yes.

Councilwoman Wallace Smith.

No.

Councilwoman Spain Reichel.

Yes.

Councilman Giordano.

No.

Councilwoman Jabbar.

No.

Councilman Rotello.

Yes.

Councilman China's.

Yes.

Councilman Dwayne Perkins.

Yes.

Councilman Britton.

Councilman McAllister.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Yes.

Councilman Laughinghouse.

Council.

All right, that's it.

One, two.

The ayes have it.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

So that would be recommended that that go along with the send back of Section 618.

Okay.

Um through chapter six.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

As I mentioned earlier, the IT department has gone through some substantial changes.

Not only since I've been serving the City of Danbury on the zoning commission and the city council, but now in this document.

And it appears to me that it's going from an appendage of the Department of Finance to its own standalone department.

That's called the Department of Technology Services.

Unlike, however, every other department which has a director because every department has a director.

This particular department has a director, but it's a director appointed by the mayor with no confirmation by the council, which is a little unusual.