OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Charter Revision Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026

Meeting Portal — Monday, July 27, 2026
BodyDanbury, Connecticut
SessionMeeting Portal
DateMonday, July 27, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:36:06

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

All right.

0:02

Nobody can see that.

0:04

Okay.

0:06

I am calling the meeting of the Charter Revision Commission to order at seven o'clock on Monday, July 27, 2026.

0:19

First, we are going to do we're going to hear from members of the public.

0:27

So at this point, I'm going to ask if there are any members that wish to address the commission.

0:31

If you would please direct your questions to the matter before the commission, which are the 14 recommendations made by the city council.

0:40

Ms.

0:40

Chairman, do we need to take a roll poll again?

0:42

Is there any of I have it as number three on the agenda?

0:45

Is there any objection during the roll call before public speaking?

0:48

Just said that we have a quorum and so that was that three or okay.

0:52

So we're going to move without objection.

0:53

We're going to move number three to number two.

0:55

So Madam Secretary, if you can do the roll call from this.

0:57

My pleasure.

0:58

Commissioner Britton present.

1:00

Commissioner Sopranic.

1:01

Present.

1:02

Commissioner Talmud is present.

1:04

Commissioner Armstrong.

1:06

Present.

1:07

Commissioner Jowdy.

1:08

Present.

1:09

Commissioner McCarry.

1:10

Present.

1:10

Commissioner Putnam.

1:11

Here.

1:12

Commissioner Rivero.

1:13

Here.

1:16

Thank you very much.

1:17

Madam Secretary.

1:18

Present.

1:19

Perfect.

1:20

All right.

1:20

Now we will hear from members of the public.

1:22

Again, uh, keep your comments for the item, the matter before the commission, which are the 14 recommendations made by the city council.

1:29

Would you please keep your comments to uh no more than three minutes?

1:34

So at this point, do any members of the public wish to address the commission?

1:40

Please and please state your name and address for the record.

1:46

It's uh Benjamin Chen Asian five Briar Ridge Road, hearing Danbury, also a member of the City Council.

1:54

I just want to speak on two parts here regarding the town clerk.

2:00

Um I know that was a close vote during the council, but I do believe in having the town clerk to be appointed.

2:10

But I do also believe that it'd be a civil service position, similar to the finance director by having it as civil service, it goes through all the testing requirements, the interviews, just like any other civil service will come to as well.

2:25

And we'll also give the um the independence, as a lot of us here on the council would like to see as well.

2:33

And I also like to see it to be a um a certified town club to be one of its requirements.

2:40

Um it doesn't have to be immediately, but it can be within five years of one of the retired as such.

2:45

But I think it's such an important um position here in our city.

2:50

Um I have also spoken to the Connecticut Association of Town Clerks as well.

2:56

And they also see that the town clerks are slowly moving towards the appointed position throughout the state of Connecticut.

3:06

So we're kind of be like um on the forefront of it, but it's happening.

3:10

So we'll probably within the next 10 years this will be appointed throughout the state.

3:15

Um so we do I do agree that it'd be a civil service position just for the protection of the person in that office because they they really need to be protected.

3:25

Um the other thing is regarding um board of education regarding their requirements here.

3:32

Um I strongly believe that whole section should be striked.

3:37

And two part reasons.

3:38

One is the state statute already gives us guidance to what the board of education needs to give the city council, and two, as a long-standing member of the city council, I can say that over the years I've been here, the city council has never officially asked the board of education to give us access to this financial systems.

4:03

We've never asked them to an MOU to give us certain reports in the in the matter to which we wish to receive them in.

4:10

We've never done so in all these years.

4:13

So I would think that let us do our jobs and request this information from the board of it officially, either through a resolution or through any other documents that we can come up with to allow them.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Charter Revision█████████████████████████████████████████████71%
Procedural█████████████21%
Public Engagement███5%
Public Safety██3%
Summary of Proceedings

Charter Revision Commission Meeting - July 27, 2026

The Charter Revision Commission met on Monday, July 27, 2026, at 7:00 PM to deliberate on 14 recommendations from the City Council regarding proposed charter amendments. After public comment and extensive discussion, the commission accepted 13 of the 14 recommendations, with one rejection and one modified acceptance.

Consent Calendar

  • Unanimously approved minutes from the public hearing and regular meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Benjamin Chen (Briar Ridge Road, City Council member): Supported an appointed town clerk as a civil service position with certification requirements; opposed the Board of Education financial access section, stating the council never formally requested such access and noting the finance department already has access.
  • Kate Canetta (Top Tilt Road, Board of Education member): Stated the Board of Education as a whole was not involved in conversations about the charter changes; the board’s public hearing statement represented their collective opinion.
  • Jennifer Noran (Long Ridge Road, assistant town clerk): Expressed that the charter revisions regarding the town clerk were poorly written and needed thorough revision.
  • Claire Jabora (23 Fairmount Drive, City Council member): Thanked the commission for their work; urged consistent language throughout the charter, distinguishing between "nominated and confirmed" vs. "appointed."
  • Mike Flanagan (Gibson Avenue, City Council member): Reported that constituents and the teachers’ union were unhappy about not being consulted on Board of Education charter changes.
  • Al Robinson (7 Gross Avenue, former charter revision participant): Urged the commission to slow down, arguing the process was being rushed and the proposals would not pass with voters.
  • Robert Willow (Lois Street, teacher and union executive board member): Opposed the Board of Education language personally; preferred it not be in the charter; supported staggered terms; favored an elected town clerk or civil service if appointed.
  • Candace Faye (31 Old Lantern Road, City Council member): Asked the commission to be thoughtful and deliberate on the recommendations.
  • Michelle Coello (47 East Lake Road, former Board of Education member and DRTC chair): Opposed unstaggered Board of Education terms, citing loss of institutional knowledge; concerned that no board members were involved in discussions; urged careful consideration.
  • Debbie Rizzo (460 Musket, former Bethel Board of Education member and realtor): Opposed unstaggered terms; advocated for civil service if town clerk becomes appointed; expressed public concern about rushing.
  • Mike Coello (47 East Lake Road): Thanked the commission and asked them to review recordings of council meetings; opposed rushing but not opposed to a charter revision.
  • Andre Smith (no address given): Criticized the process as perverted and asked legal questions; stated the process was wrong and the city had failed to follow the statutory requirement for revision every 10 years.
  • Andrea Gardner (112 Lap, City Council member): Defended the commission’s schedule, noting it was not rushed after 17 years; supported getting the charter on the ballot in November.

Discussion Items

  • Recommendation 1 (Preamble – taxpayer): Clarified preamble is aspirational and not binding. Accepted unanimously.
  • Recommendation 2 (Charter-wide “appointed” to “nominated”): Accepted unanimously to align with council logic.
  • Recommendation 3 (Staggered terms for Board of Education): Rejected after debate. Commissioners cited low probability of complete turnover (1 in 705,000), cost of separate elections, and historical precedent of unstaggered terms in prior charter drafts.
  • Recommendation 4 (Replace “designated” with “appointed” in section 2-4): Accepted unanimously.
  • Recommendation 5 (Oath of office – include “under God” or “under penalties of perjury”): Accepted with revision to include both options, allowing the oath-taker to choose.
  • Recommendation 6 (Remove “elected” from quorum language in section 3-6): Accepted.
  • Recommendation 7 (Change “state statutes” to “general statutes” throughout): Accepted.
  • Recommendation 8 (Clarify committee language in section 3-13 – ad hoc, standing, committees of the whole): Accepted with removal of redundant language.
  • Recommendation 9 (Section 4-1 – report gifts to council): Accepted; no objection.
  • Recommendation 10 (Town clerk – keep elected): Accepted after hearing public input. Position will remain elected with a four-year term; civil service or appointed options rejected.
  • Recommendation 11 & 12 (Board of Education section – referral back and shall/may language): Accepted the referral back; rejected blanket shall-to-may change. Instead, kept “shall” but added explicit carve-outs for student data privacy and limited financial access solely for auditing, budgeting, and financial reporting. Also added “electors” language for board membership.
  • Recommendation 13 (Two-thirds confirmation vote for department heads, police, fire): Rejected. Current majority vote confirmation retained.
  • Recommendation 14 (Reinstate struck language in section 8-2): Accepted with one abstention from Commissioner Safrenic.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved minutes of previous meetings unanimously.
  • Accepted 13 of 14 council recommendations; rejected Recommendation 3 (staggered BOE terms) and modified Recommendations 5 and 11/12.
  • Directed corporation counsel to draft revised language incorporating changes (student privacy carve-outs, oath options, etc.) for final report.
  • Final report to be prepared and submitted to the appointment authority (City Council) as per statute.
  • Commission adjourned with thanks to members and the public.

Meeting Transcript

All right. Nobody can see that. Okay. I am calling the meeting of the Charter Revision Commission to order at seven o'clock on Monday, July 27, 2026. First, we are going to do we're going to hear from members of the public. So at this point, I'm going to ask if there are any members that wish to address the commission. If you would please direct your questions to the matter before the commission, which are the 14 recommendations made by the city council. Ms. Chairman, do we need to take a roll poll again? Is there any of I have it as number three on the agenda? Is there any objection during the roll call before public speaking? Just said that we have a quorum and so that was that three or okay. So we're going to move without objection. We're going to move number three to number two. So Madam Secretary, if you can do the roll call from this. My pleasure. Commissioner Britton present. Commissioner Sopranic. Present. Commissioner Talmud is present. Commissioner Armstrong. Present. Commissioner Jowdy. Present. Commissioner McCarry. Present. Commissioner Putnam. Here. Commissioner Rivero. Here. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary. Present. Perfect. All right. Now we will hear from members of the public. Again, uh, keep your comments for the item, the matter before the commission, which are the 14 recommendations made by the city council. Would you please keep your comments to uh no more than three minutes? So at this point, do any members of the public wish to address the commission? Please and please state your name and address for the record. It's uh Benjamin Chen Asian five Briar Ridge Road, hearing Danbury, also a member of the City Council. I just want to speak on two parts here regarding the town clerk. Um I know that was a close vote during the council, but I do believe in having the town clerk to be appointed. But I do also believe that it'd be a civil service position, similar to the finance director by having it as civil service, it goes through all the testing requirements, the interviews, just like any other civil service will come to as well. And we'll also give the um the independence, as a lot of us here on the council would like to see as well. And I also like to see it to be a um a certified town club to be one of its requirements. Um it doesn't have to be immediately, but it can be within five years of one of the retired as such. But I think it's such an important um position here in our city. Um I have also spoken to the Connecticut Association of Town Clerks as well. And they also see that the town clerks are slowly moving towards the appointed position throughout the state of Connecticut.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com