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.

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

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

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.

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

Um I strongly believe that whole section should be striked.

And two part reasons.

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.

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.

We've never done so in all these years.

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.

Because I know it was mentioned here during the joint commission that we don't have access now.

Well, we do for the last seven six years.

The finance department had access to that department every Friday, they go there and assist them in their audit requirements.

So we do have access.

May not be the whole finance department, but there is at least one member in finance that does have access.

So if they have access now, what's to say they can't continue to have access throughout the entire year, which we probably do.

So those are my those are my just two quick comments that I have.

The commission.

Thank you for your time.

Uh any other member of the public wish to address the commission.

And it pertains more to the previous two public speaking public hearings that were given.

The commission had a chance to review in its entirety, all the commission members, all the public comments, and have a meeting to talk about that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other members of the public wish to address.

Canada.

Uh Kate Canetta for Top Tilt Road.

I'm also a member of the Board of Education.

I just want to um state again, and I know I spoke with uh the before the commission uh at a previous meeting.

Um the Board of Ed had no direct conversations about this.

Uh it's true that our board attorney participated in conversations, but those conversations did not include Board of Education members as a whole.

So you know, our our the letter that was prepared um in response and the statement that was read at the public hearing.

Um that was the collective opinion of the Board of Education.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Yeah, Jennifer Noran, Long Ridge Road, assistant town clerk.

Um regarding the town clerk.

I know they're going back and forth between is to be um elected or appointed or civil service or whatever, but that was not really the only thing discussed.

It was also the whole way it's written right now in the charter with the revisions as is are is poorly done.

There was a lot of comments that you do need to go over and address.

It's not just the way the town clerk is in, it's also how all the other sections that are written.

It used to be us one little paragraph in the charter.

Now there's a bunch of paragraphs, but pretty much all of them have to be looked at.

It's it's it has to be revamped, kind of like what um Commissioner Hawley.

I guess it's commissioner.

Councilman Holly said.

Sorry, I'm new to all this stuff.

But um, it's more than just how the town clerk is applying.

There's there's a lot of things that were changed that weren't really thought through.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Councilman Jabuck.

Uh, thank you, Claire Jabora, 23 Fairmount Drive.

I also and the council, and then one of two who represents uh Word 7.

I just want to thank the Commission for all their hard work and dedication and time that you took to listen, go through this line by line and put together uh a very thorough draft for all of us to consider.

Um I know I wasn't here earlier because I was coming back from Hartford, so I apologize.

Um, I do know Councilman Rotello did uh speak on my behalf, which I greatly appreciated.

I would just ask that when you go through this one more time and you send a final product to us, you look at it line by line and make sure all the words are consistent.

Words need to have meaning when we're going back through this and interpreting if there's an issue for statutory interpretation.

We need to make sure that all the same words mean the same thing.

So in the positions that require a confirmation, they should be a nominated and then a confirmation and other positions that don't require confirmation that should be an appointed position because those positions require that they just be appointed at the end.

Whereas the ones that are nominated and confirmed are a little different, it requires a two-step process.

And so that was most of my commentary from this is looking through it from a line-by-line analysis perspective.

Uh so I appreciate all your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other member?

Okay.

Thank you, Joe.

Uh Mike Flanagan Gibson Avenue and member of the council also.

One of my constituents is a teacher in the system, and uh called concerned about some of the language and the fact that the teachers union is never approached or by anybody, whether it's the council or you guys, just to get their input.

Um, and they're not happy about that.

And so I don't know if you have the time, but they sure would like to be able to talk, you know, and and comment on what the board of education part of the charter that they have may have a problem with.

Well, I did we didn't go over that on each line by line, but the fact that they weren't contacted or spoken to has upset many.

So just wanted that on the record.

Thank you, sir.

Any other member of the public wish to address the commission?

Ms.

Robinson.

Um you guys know that I was here during the last charter revision process.

Your n your name and address just Al Robinson 7 Gross Avenue.

I was here during the last charter revision process from 07 to 09.

Uh in this room.

Spent a lot of time in here, probably about well over a year of spirited debate throughout this entire charter.

I can tell you one thing that the conversations that you're having right now between the city council and you guys about all their recommendations, all of their recommendations was nothing.

It's light years beyond what the other charter revision went through, which is barely nothing.

Barely nothing.

Very few recommendations.

Very few.

But you guys have like a mountain load of recommendations from the city charter from the city council.

And that's not even involving the ones that they voted down.

Many, many, many hours.

In fact, it might be closer to many hours you guys spent on this entire thing.

These guys went through this thing line after line after line and came back with other recommendations from you guys.

You're hearing from members of this council across bipartisan lines about concerns about what you guys proposed in 11 hours.

I think that you should seriously, seriously slow down this process because it's not going to pass with the voters.

Okay, I'm letting you notice as somebody who's followed this process from 07 to 09, and there are other individuals who've spoken out on this, for instance, Lynn Waller, who's a member of the Charter Revision Commission in 1990.

1990, 2007, 2009, and here, that's it.

Okay.

Look, we need to pump the brakes on this.

Look at this.

This is about all damn variants, not about a political party.

And when you're getting to the point where members of your own party is telling you, hey, the teachers' unions have a problem with this, town clerk has a problem with this, and there's so much going on with this that you you can't rush this through because it's not meant to be rushed through.

That's why this process was done in the first place.

You can't rush it through in a couple of months.

It's amongst all Dan Barons having a full debate on this outside of three minute limits that we're getting right here.

I'm just imploring you guys again.

It's not gonna work.

You should not want to die on this mountain.

It's not going to pass.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to yes, Mr.

Millow?

I'm gonna stand between Robert Willow on Lois Street.

Um, first I want to do clarify, yes, I'm a teacher, I'm a member of the union executive board.

However, being summer, I've not talked to any teachers or other union members, so I'm gonna come out against the language of the board of education, however, it is me personally.

Um I have not been in conversation with any union members.

I'm um I we know just heard from Councilman Flanagan that there are some concerns there, but I'm I'm I've not had conversations with that.

So I want to start with that board of ed section.

Personally, I would prefer to see it not included.

I understand why it's there.

Um, I think it's a little bit too much because the biggest thing is it's it's the incident that happened, and let's remember one thing that we overlooked, the beginning of that whole board of ed audit aspect went back to the COVID years when you know when there were audits that you couldn't do you upload a file, how do you do it?

How do you communicate with you know I mean, as a teacher living through it, we were learning how to teach while we were flying the airplane, we were building the airplane in the air.

And that's what everyone of you remember was doing.

So I wouldn't say, you know, you know, you know, maybe there needs to be an ordinance or something along those lines.

First step to try to resolve it.

I think putting it in the charter is just going too far too quickly, too early.

However, if you disagree with me, then I really think you should accept the board advanced proposal with the term may instead of shall, like I said in the public hearing.

Um, I know attorney Catherine commented the conversation they had with the attorney.

Now, I obviously wasn't privy to that, but I would speculate that if you put the word may in there rather than shall, it helps protect against any um personal information that may be disabled that may be accidentally disclosed because the board of ed, which by the way, yes, the school administration, but they work under the board of ed, so they still can't.

It would be like it's it would be like uh Mike Safrenic as the airport manager, director, going and doing something against the mayor or the council's directive.

He works under that parameter.

The superintendent works under the board of ed.

So it still goes up to that level.

So, you know, and I have the concern with it violating state statute.

Um, staggered terms.

Uh my biggest concern there is just again replacing the whole board in four years.

Um, it could happen.

Has it happened?

I think we learned in 2020 to whether we say, oh, this has never happened before.

I think a lot of us are biting our butt, but but bit our tongue in relationship to that again in 2020, 21, and 22.

We learned then to be very careful about saying it's never happened.

Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it can't.

You know, I would hate to see the whole board of ed be placed.

Um, number one, number two, the board of ed has a due process requirement regarding expulsions where they have to go through hearing trainings to do that, and it has to be done within 10, 14 days from the time of the offense to the expulsion hearing.

If you have a whole new board of ed, you can you have a potential of depriving a student's due process or keeping a kid in school who may actually be deserved to be expelled only because there was no board members qualified to do the hearing.

So that is a potential implication that could come from not having the staggered terms.

Lastly, um, I just wanted to uh comment on the town clerk again.

I said this on the uh during the public hearing.

No, I don't know what you can go back and talk about the public hearing because I think you're limited to what the council said, but I'm in agreement with the council.

Personally, I think it should remain an elected position.

It gives the people or the oversight of that office, they do have professional staff, um, like uh the letter that written by Jan Gigler to the city council in that public hearing um said, you know, they they have certified staff who are doing that job, but if you do need to make it uh non-elected, I really would rather see it being a civil service position and not appointed position.

So you have two options civil service position or appoint or elected, I prefer elected.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to address yes, Councilman Play.

Good evening.

I'm Candace Faye, 31 Old Lantern Road.

I address this commission during the public hearing held in council chambers, and I also watched this commission be bullied into pushing that draft report over to the council.

Tonight I would just like to ask and plead with the commission to be thoughtful about the recommendations that made it through council.

This draft that we considered was definitely not the best work this commission could have done.

This commission is full of smart individuals.

I know that you're capable, and I'm just asking you to be more thoughtful and deliberate tonight and going forward.

Okay.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Any other members, Ms.

Quella?

Yeah, Michelle Coello, 47 East Lake Road.

I just want to comment a couple of more things regarding the Board of Education, which I served on for four years, and also chair now of the DRTC.

Um I found myself having to learn as soon as I got onto that board of ed.

It takes approximately when you go to training, a year and a half to two years to educate yourself to be able to understand what's going on, to get through a one cycle of the budget so that when it comes up again, you are aware of what questions you need to start asking.

You rely on the members of the Board of Education, not staggering the Board of Education will really say hurt our students and the way that the Board of Education runs.

Like Mr.

Malillo had mentioned that it's possible it wouldn't be possible for um basically the superintendent to take the reins and really go too far because she works under the board of ed.

But as a board member here, Kate Canetta mentioned, they were never brought into this process whatsoever.

So every Friday when you're meeting with the city because of the audit, that gave that access, and we and it was needed.

We were all working together.

But there is a reason that those are separate.

There are general statutes, I'm sure you have them written down there, which are in conflict.

Um what we need when we get onto a board of ed, you need that staggering because you rely, you could have won basically cleaned up in the Republican Party, let's say, but you have your veteran members.

If they're Democrats, you as members rely on those Democrats.

That you are working together at the time that you're negotiating, it isn't Republican, it isn't Democrats.

What do we know?

Who is what do we have on our hands?

How much do we have?

How can we help?

What can we do?

Those kinds of questions.

And if you can't rely on those members, what we're basically setting up is a situation where I now have to rely on the administration and the superintendent, who in essence the board of education oversees.

So while these meetings were happening, I'm no longer on the board of education.

I think it was I think a board member should have been involved in absolutely every single meeting.

I don't know why the superintendent who is hired and fired by the Board of Education wouldn't have been in that meeting because there's a reason that she has a position and a and a goal, but you have members of the Board of Education that represent everybody in the city.

But you have members of the Board of Education that represent everybody in the city.

And they have different perspectives and different uh priorities.

And that's why they are there.

So the fact that they were let even a part of this process is very concerning.

But what we would be setting up is basically a situation where the Board of Education who oversees that would have to rely on them to, you know, should most of the new members be elected.

So that is a very big concern for me.

And I thank you for your time.

And I know you put a lot of time and effort into this, but the one thing that I've been getting calls on from every party, every age is the concern about the education and how you know how this would impact this.

And it really is significant.

So please take it into consideration.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Michelle.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Debbie Rizzo, 460 Musket.

I have uh a couple of things.

First of all, I'm a previous Bethel Board of Education member.

So, and I will I I'm gonna sound like a broken record, but if you're setting up a board that's all coming in brand new, that's a disaster waiting to happen.

Because I don't care if it's listen, I was a Democrat when I served on the Bethel Board of Ed.

It didn't matter.

Your your affiliation does not matter once you get in that room.

You depend on your the leaders, you depend on the ones that have been there numerous years.

You can't all clean house at the same time and expect anyone to be up to speed in under a year.

Do you know what I'm saying?

It's just it's disaster.

Um another thing, I will put on my realtor hat.

So I've been in real estate over 30 years uh in Danbury.

And from what I've seen in that town clerk's office, if you if it goes to an appointed, which a lot of people have trouble with, it should be 100% a civil service.

Because you realtors, um, who else?

So many more of the of the public, but especially realtors depend on the expertise coming out of that town clerk's office.

And if we don't have that, then those people aren't going to be able to do their job.

So that has to be an expertise given.

So I I would I would, you know, if it's gonna be appointed, I would say then Bless Go civil service.

Lastly, I am running in district two now for state rep, and I've talked to a lot of constituents.

And they're scared because it's been they hear that it's being rushed, and now they're they're starting to inquire.

There is no everybody just needs to breathe.

Everybody on this sitting in this commission, I give you all a lot of credit.

But just take time to breathe.

And if something doesn't feel right, it doesn't have to, it can be stopped.

You don't have to put it through or make a deadline.

Take time to breathe.

Have you listened to every single have you listened and discussed every single public input and their comments?

Because there were some great comments that came out of that room next door.

And like I said, I'm willing, I'm not against the charter being open.

I'm I'm willing to do that, but not the way it's being handled.

That scares me.

And and it's in it's it's scaring the public.

So I just take it, take what our all of our comments with whatever they're worth.

You know, just if it doesn't feel right, then say something.

Thank you.

Thank you, any other members of the public wish to address the commission.

Any other members of the public?

Mr.

Quello?

Thank you.

Mike Coello, 47 East Lake Road.

Uh, just want to thank the uh Charter Revision Commission's time for everything that you know up to this point that you've done.

I know you've put a lot of work into it.

Uh I've made as many of your meetings as I possibly could, and for the ones that I didn't, I went back and watched.

Um, and I would hope that you would do the same thing.

There were nights that we were here uh uh on the city council, uh 11 o'clock at night, 12:30 in the morning.

We've grinded through, we came up with a lot of recommendations above and beyond some of the ones that were on your revisions as well.

Um there's a lot of great comment and feedback from both sides of the aisle from public comment, uh bipartisan support and opposition to some of the changes that took place that night, uh at the three nights of our committee of the whole.

Um I know it's a lot of time, a lot of footage because you've put a lot of time into this, but I'd ask you to do the same thing that a lot of council members did and go back and watch the tapes of our committee of the whole meetings, like we watched yours.

So you can look at that feedback and you may gain a different perspective.

It may ruminate uh a different position, may you know, you may change your position on it.

And I think it's important uh that we listen to everybody that's out there because I'm not opposed to uh putting the charter revision in front of the voters.

I'm opposed to doing it in a rushed manner.

You know, we don't put icing on a half baked cake and serve it to somebody, right?

And I think you basically have to take your time on this.

I'm not opposed to this thing going out in December and January or March.

I made a comment the last city council meeting the when we had a probably one of the lit largest uh bond issues that I was involved in the council for the new high school was 208 million dollars.

That didn't hit on a November election cycle.

It would have been great if it would have, but it was important enough for the city for decades to come.

It affected parents, children.

Uh you know, it affects the city of Danbury, and and our charter is the same thing.

So I'm I implore you to go back watch to tapes, don't rush this.

And when it gets put out to the public for a vote, they'll know what's right and they'll come out and they'll vote for it.

I think that Danbury deserves better, and rushing this isn't the best thing for Danbury.

So uh thank you for your time, your continued time and effort on this, and uh please can take the under advisement if at all possible and go back and listen to the people on those tapes, please.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, ma'am.

Um any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Any other members of the public?

No, sir.

Or fuel row request.

I am very unhappy to be here tonight.

Um I feel it is my civic duty and a moral imperative to put a stop to what has been going on.

This whole process has been perverted, not rushed, perverted.

What I have to say.

Now, I have some legal questions from the lawyers, Mr.

Cassagran the Immortal Eddie.

Under what construct was this meeting and the one before legal?

So just to be clear, sir, this is not a QA forum.

This is an opportunity for the public to address the commission.

So I'm gonna ask that you respectfully could address them to the commission.

Okay.

Am I to assume that all of this talk you could ignore whatever you want and say no?

That's a recommendation.

We don't like it.

Again, this is not a QA setting.

So you can make your statement.

If you want to ask ask them into the form of a rhetorical question, please feel free.

But the commission will not be engaging in any back and forth.

That's not the forum for public speaking.

Okay.

This whole process has been wrong.

And I'd like to go back to why it was 17 years before this revision.

Who is responsible?

Who is accountable for breaking the general statutes?

Which says every 10 years.

Every 10 years, but no longer than 10 years.

So you this can't happen again.

The people of Danbury have had a great disservice placed on them by what's going on.

Hey.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Any other members?

Any uh yes.

Hi, Andrea Gardner, 112 Lap.

Also serve as a city council member.

Um it's my first time addressing the uh commission publicly.

So I do want to thank you for all the hours that you've put in.

Oh sorry.

That's a 50 dollar time.

Sorry, that wasn't quite three minutes.

What's it?

Sorry.

It's just that it's not me calling her either.

So I just want to again, I apologize for that.

I just want to say that I commend you for um for first of all agreeing to um the project that was laid out for you, which as you knew when you accepted the position was a very aggressive schedule.

And then also keeping to that schedule.

Um I don't know in any certainly not in my universe is waiting 17 years to open this charter, rushing anything.

And I have sat through um and looked at previous charter revision commission notes.

You know, that what we're presenting or what you're presenting here is that is not um it's not anything I think that's uh hasn't been discussed in the past or recommended in the past.

Um so I just feel that again, I don't think you're rushing things.

I think it's very important that the voters have um a chance to weigh in.

The process will net out things for it for the voters and to be able to to vote for it for um those things that are really important.

Um I have confidence in all the commission members that you will come to that that that conclusion.

So I just want to say thank you for that.

And also, I just uh recently read a quote, it's a Dallas quote that when you um make a decision, you close a door.

And I believe a lot of people have already made the decision that this process has been too rushed.

But in the 17 years since the previous charter revisions, we have had advances in technology, right?

That allow us to access every one of your meetings and and know all the comments that have been made, and also not to have to um be burdened by having to show up in person in order to participate, because you invited public comment in all forms.

So um I feel those uh criticisms aren't warranted, and you know, thank you.

I know you've heard excessively those those kind of critiques.

Um, but there are people who also feel that the process is working and to get it on the ballot in November is of um preeminent importance, and I'm one of those people, so thank you.

Council.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Any other members of the public?

Any other members of the public seeing no more?

I will now close public speaking.

Sincerely thank you for all of your input and engagement.

Okay.

Moving on, and I uh item number four.

We have the minutes from the public hearing in our last regular meeting that were included in the packet.

Um I took a look, I thought they were good and accurate for what happened.

Um so is there a motion to accept the minutes from second?

Okay, so there's a motion made by Commissioner Jaddy, seconded by Commissioner Almeida to accept the minutes from the public hearing in the regular meeting.

Is there any discussion on the minutes?

Any discussion, any discussion?

Seeing none, I will try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Any abstentions?

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, now to the meet of the meeting tonight, uh road map for the commission.

We are going to, in a way, mirror the conference, but in a more in-depth discussion amongst the commission.

We're gonna go through each recommendation, um, all 14 of them, and we're gonna just follow the same um sort of format that we've been doing as we redlined the documents.

So we'll go through each one, we'll talk about it, get a consensus, and then um we'll move on to the next one.

So that's sort of the plan for the meeting.

Any questions on that?

Okay.

Uh so we will start on the first one, and that was the recommendation for the preamble to include the word taxpayer.

Anyone want to kick off discussion on that one?

Uh corporation council.

Um, by adding the word taxpayer, does not allow them to be an elector of the uh city of Danbury, correct?

I own a little piece of property, doesn't mean I can vote now to the modern resident and they are a registered voter.

Well, I mean, this is only the preamble of the charter.

So I just want to make sure there's no implications that you know I I have you know on a little piece of land all of a sudden like I'm a voter now.

It's an aspirational provision.

So it doesn't affect substitutes one way or the other.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to make sure that's it.

Someone can quote the charter as a basis for any different rights.

So the pre just to be clear, just so everybody's aware of like a preamble and what it is generally.

It's not an op, it's not operative language.

So that's not by what is located in the preamble is not binding on let's just you know, pull out a section from chapter six.

So what's in the preamble would not be binding on another substantive chapter.

Correct, correct?

Perfect, thank you.

Um any other questions or comments on this section?

Uh procedurally, if we want to accept their recommendation, do we vote on it, or we what's the procedure to do that?

So I think tonight we'll just we'll take a consensus one way or another.

I think yeah, because the only thing that's the the operative vote that we have to take will end up being on the final report.

So I think if we can just get the minds of everybody as we go through each one, that'll make um like in this sense I'm amenable to changing the taxpayer.

Any objections we don't need a full motion or anything, do we?

Not for these for this part.

I'm amenable to taking the recommendation and making the taxpayer.

Same with me.

Okay.

Um okay, so we'll note that as uh there's a consensus to accept the recommendation to include taxpayer to the preamble.

All right, moving on to the second recommendation.

This one was a recommendation from the council to um this is the charter-wide language to change appointed to nominated.

So I'll open that up for discussion for the commission.

I think the comments, I mean, me my personal opinion.

I think the way it was articulated by council and uh Jabor and the other council people that spoke on this, I think it would make sense.

So I'm I'm I'm open to that that change.

Is anybody else?

I slightly changed any objection to that, or do we have the full consensus for recommendation?

Good.

So we will note that there was a consensus to accept the second um recommendation to change language from appointed to nominated throughout the charter.

So noted.

Uh we'll move on to the third one.

This is the language that would um essentially keep staggered terms for the board of education, and as I understand it, still keep the entire city on a four-year term schedule.

So this would be only the board of education on a staggered cycle.

Um we have discussion on that item.

Okay, I'll I'll start it.

Um so this there's been a lot of debate on this to stagger and I've listened to a lot of people and I listened to a lot of what they have to say, and a lot of it makes sense.

Um, but what I come back to is that, and I I did I ran the numbers.

The odds of all 11 people, this is just pure math, is one in 705,000 that all 11 will not be re-elected.

That's not taking into consideration popular people, popular names.

That was a matter of when I look at the zoning board.

We've had people on there re-elected every two years for 20 years, 20 plus years.

I don't think that, and I'm using the term brain drain for lack of a better way.

I don't think that's statistically significant enough to have an election for five people for an entire city, um, every other year, or five and then six for that seven one in 705,000 opportunity.

Um the increase is even more dramatically when you take in the popular names and things like that.

Um, I understand that um that you know there's lots to be learned, you know, you need somebody who takes one and a half, two years to learn that.

It's kind of the same argument that I was making why we need a four-year marriage.

It takes time to learn, and you know, so if you're using the same argument, then you can make the argument for the four-year mayor at the same time of why I propose for a four-year mare.

Um from an election standpoint, and I've been you know, involved in elections and politics and stuff for 25-30 years in Danbury.

To run a citywide election for five people, I think it's just a a just too big of a burden on uh on the registrar and the finances.

Um it's tens of thousands of dollars, and I think that staggering them doesn't get us where we want to be.

The odds are just so overwhelming that it's not gonna happen.

Hasn't happened with the council.

Uh councilman uh Chinese, I think, or Rotello mentioned before that it was a complete turnover of the council.

That didn't happen.

I've been around for 40 years.

The council's never completely turned over.

There's always been five or six, you know, um, learned members who've passed on that.

Um, and I think that that's not a I'm willing to take the chance that it's such a small statistical probability.

Zoning board, you know, we've had the same three two three members for 30 years, you know.

And I my closing statement would be we look at the House of Representatives, our just our entire legislative body for the United States of America, they do it.

They're not worried about every single one of them getting voted out.

Yes, there is turnover, it's gonna happen with the council.

It happened in 21, happened in 23 the other way.

But I don't believe that it's at the level that we need to run an election for five people citywide.

That's my thoughts.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Well, I think um the indication is that the council would be we changes a two-year membership.

And so we would have an election for the council, and perhaps board of members, board of directors, or board of education members.

I don't feel that uh putting a brand a complete slate of new people on a board at the expense of the children is feasible.

I'm opposed to it.

So I do just want to make one correction.

Um the recommendation is I believe the comments about the city council were sort of made as analogy.

The recommendation would be only for the board of eds.

So the city council, as the charter is recommended would be four years, so it would be yes.

I'm I'm opposed to uh complete slate.

I would see a staggered.

One other, if I could, I don't want to cut them up.

Um looking at it from the historical standpoint, uh looking at both parties for many, many years, maybe 15 years, one party only ran the bare minimum that was allowed to run.

So if there was, let's say six people allowed, they only ran six, so that they made sure that those six people got re-elected.

So if there is that concern, a party could do that if they wanted.

Um, you know, there were if so, like in a sense, that's why in some of these people have been re-elected over and over again, they only ran three people.

There's only spots open.

So that's also that possibility, too.

If you're that concerned about a brain drain or whatever, you can protect those seats.

We look back historically, one party did that for many, many years in the last 10-15 years.

So that is also the possibility if that's a consideration or concern.

Any other members of the commission on this topic?

Discussion?

Yeah.

I mean, I have been of the opinion, as I've said at previous commission meetings, that I think the burden of having in perpetuity citywide elections for five or six individuals.

I think the detriment to that is outweighed by the benefit of electing everybody at the same time.

If we are going to go the four-year route for all of the elected offices, which is the recommendation of this commission as the draft is written, I think from a practical standpoint, it makes the most sense for us to have to elect all 11 at one point.

State statute allows cities to regulate the manner in which the boards of ed are elected.

So we are within our statutory ability to unstagger the board of ed as we recommended to the council prior to this.

So we are within our rights statutorily, and I think to forever have elections for five or six people is not worth, I think, the cost associated with having those elections.

I think you have institutional knowledge and memory ingrained in the Board of Education, even if you elect all 11 at one time.

Yes, never say never.

There's always that one chance something can happen.

So I do understand and hear that point, but I think you have that institutional knowledge through your former board members, through political leadership, through your constituents, right?

Through other people, other stakeholders in the city that the Board of Ed ultimately serves, and your superintendent is there to teach, right?

I served on a board of education for three-ish years.

Um takes a little bit to get the hang of it, but it's learnable.

You can do it.

Um, I work for a board of ed.

I see how it works, and electing 11, I don't see as much of a harm as I've heard from some individuals.

And also just to be clear, the recommendation from this charter commission back in 2007 was to unstagger the terms.

So this is not a novel idea.

This was done once before.

Um ultimately, I believe the council rejected it when they opted back to the two-year term.

But unstaggering the terms is not new to this commission.

And I strongly believe that keeping all 11 as we recommended is the right thing to do.

And I think on the whole, having those elections for five people is not the right business decision to make.

So I just wanted to say that.

I have a question.

Is this is there a lot of voter turnout for that particular time frame of board of education?

My kids went to private schools, so I never really zoomed in on.

I mean, I can't speculate if I were if I were a betting man, I would guess that turnout would be horrendous if we had a citywide election in perpetuity for five or six individuals.

Um you see it in other towns that kind of do midterm elections where they'll have like a four-year slate and then two year terms for their legislative branch.

Their turnout is usually less than half of what they would get in a normal election when the mayor's at the top of the ticket.

So you're getting less voices essentially at the end of the day that are having a say and choosing their leaders of the board of that is what would actually happen.

Less people would elect their board of bed if you were to stagger it, in my opinion.

Do we have any other comments in this section?

Um we'll just do we'll do a consensus for this one.

Um so how do we want to just do like a straw straw up or down?

I I'm I'm a no on this recommendation.

I think I'm staggering them.

I'd like to on the stack, right?

Okay.

So that would be a vote no to the recommendation.

Correct.

Right.

Okay.

On balance, I say no too.

Okay.

I say no to.

Mr.

Jody's story.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

So we do have a consensus to reject um recommendation number three.

Um just I'll note Mr.

Jowdy your your yes on that one.

Okay.

Um thank you all for that.

Moving on to number four.

This was a recommendation from the council to replace the word designated in section two-four with appointed.

I believe this was a like one specific word in the reapportionment section.

That's correct.

Okay.

I my opinion, um, I'll defer to the judgment of the count the uh city council on this one.

It was pretty much unanimous.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this one?

No, no.

I think it fits the theme of um councilwoman Gabora's logic on appointed versus nominated.

Okay, so I'll note that we have a consensus to accept recommendation number four.

Moving on to number five.

This is a recommendation.

Um this was the language on the oath of office.

Um the city council to either strike out the entire provision and refer directly to state statute or include both the option of taking the oath under God or I believe penalty of perjury or affirmation.

Is that a correct?

I think that's what the recommendation was.

I think the uh that's I recall through the chair.

Um the idea was to try to mimic uh the statutory uh flexibility on whether someone could either uh want the oath to be under penalty of perjury or into this all be god language.

Correct.

That's my my recognition.

So Ms.

John, just to clarify the the recommendation of the commission was to add the lane uh under the penalties of perjury, and then it's crossed out to help you God.

Don't don't you want to give them the option?

I think that was the most important thing.

Was that that was what the recommendation right to include to get the opportunity for both options?

Or to refer to state statute and not have any of that language in the that's how I read it is it's it was one of two things.

You could either we could either strike the whole thing and just say in line with state statute or include the sort of elective option for the oath taker to take it under God or under penalty of perjury.

Yes.

I personally like having the under God in there and under penalty, give the person the option.

Yep, so that would be accepting the recommendation.

That'd be accepting recommendation.

Okay, so you'd be accepting your recommendation.

Um any other comments on that one?

Well, I guess I just need clarity.

Is the recommendation for us to decide which of the two options?

The person is so what will the language look like in the charter?

I would say under the penalties of perjury.

And I guess or so help you God.

So be either or is it referring to are we adding language here that refers to the state statute?

I don't think you need to.

Um didn't know if that was the recommendation of council.

Um I maybe this is how I'm reading the recommendation.

So we can we can do one of two things.

We can either one strike out the language and just refer to state statute, right?

Or two amend this language however we see fit to include both, so help you God or under penalties of perjury.

Right.

So I guess my question is what are we deciding right now?

Which of those two or both?

Yeah, I think we I think as a commission, we should probably decide which route we want to go.

And then I'd like to see either more playing.

Either or personal yeah, I think it's the either more and not a state statute.

That's just my recommendation.

So then there needs to be additional language added to this draft.

Or help me got yeah.

So I think in terms of readability, it should probably say something like according to law, so help you got or under penalties of perjury.

Right?

Is that how it would read?

Say that again.

So it would be set office according to law, so help you got or under penalties of perjury.

Yeah, that works.

So that way the oath taker can say according to law under penalties of perjury, or they can say according to law, so help you got.

That would be accepting the recommendation.

So we are you would be accepting the one of the the subsection of the value.

Okay.

Yes.

So do we have a consensus to go that route?

Yes, to include both the more inclusive language, we'll call it.

Okay.

So noted.

Uh moving on to number six.

This was a recommendation by the council, uh, almost again unanimously to okay.

This was the quorum language in section three-six.

So this one looked pretty straightforward.

So this was to the recommendation is to remove the term elected.

And the way it was articulated is it would be remove elected and make it the membership of the council.

Okay, it would say majority of the city council members.

Okay.

I agree.

It makes sense when it was defined why they want to do it.

Because if you're appointed, you're not elected.

I think that makes complete sense.

Any other discussion?

I agree.

It was a pretty that's what that one's a pretty straightforward change.

I think it made I think it makes sense.

So we're good on that one.

Consensus, so noted.

Um next one.

This one was recommended unanimously by the council.

This was a motion to amend all of the references to state statutes or statutes to just read general statutes.

This as it was articulated, was would just keep consistency with what when we're referencing law in the document.

Does anybody object to that recommendation?

I think it's pretty straightforward.

Without objection, we have a consensus to accept that recommendation.

So noted.

Okay, moving on to the next recommendation.

This is a recommendation made to clarify the committee language in section 3-13 to include ad hoc standing or committees of the so the language as it's recommended would read the city council shall establish ad hoc standing or committees of the whole standing committees shall be established and rescinded by resolution.

Yes, sir.

Just uh is the intent I see that the after the word established, there's a parenthetical, uh, and then there's a closed parent after whole.

I don't think you parentheticals language.

Okay.

Correct.

And then we would strike the language after the parent the parentheses, correct?

So you wouldn't you wouldn't restate ad hoc committees and/or standing committees.

That would need to be stricken.

Right.

Yeah, that that redundant redundant.

Yeah, okay.

Does anybody have any discussion on that one?

I think it makes it a little cleaner, my opinion.

No objection.

Okay, so noted we will mark that one as an acceptance of the recommendation.

On to the next um recommendation.

This is the recommendation to review the language in section 4-1, which is the acceptance of gifts section, and require the reporting to the council of any gifts being made to the city.

So that's in section four-one on the bottom of page 21.

And I believe as it was um explained by uh councilwoman Faye that it's it's really just there was a red line in there.

This that said the mayor shall report the acceptance of each such donation gift bequest or devise uh to the city council.

Um that's gonna just go back in.

So that's that's the recommendation.

Any thoughts or comments on that?

No objection.

Is it an all documented when a gift is given?

Within the city, yeah.

I I believe something I mean is not public information, perhaps not to the city council specifically.

But it may not be actually pulled out, I think is what the concern was.

That's sort of my nature of what I was getting.

So let's say you give a thousand dollar donation to the city, the finance department makes a makes a log of it because they have to, but they're accepting money, but it may not be like a list, you know.

Oh, by the way, this is the list.

I think uh they just want to say that.

I think the list exists exactly everybody knows, yeah.

Absolutely.

My personal thing.

I mean, I'm inclined if it's the will of the council here to want to get a report on the gifts.

Yeah, and you know, I don't see an issue.

Public information, sorry.

What difference made?

Their report.

So we'll accept the recommendation.

So we have a consensus for that.

Perfect.

I don't see an objection, we will accept the recommendation for that one, moving on.

Um, this is uh one of the bigger ones.

Uh, this is the recommendation by the council to keep uh to essentially keep town clerk in elected position.

So anybody want to take the leap and start debate on that one.

You're grinning, Commissioner Secretary.

No, I'm gonna wait and see.

Let's let's talk about that.

I mean, I elephant the room, right?

It was it's a very uh it's a change that obviously people passionate on both sides of this particular issue spoke in support of their position.

So um I don't have a problem if it stays in elected position, if that's what the people want.

I think some of the concerns that came up during our commission meetings was the two-year turnover um and right the lack of institutional knowledge and um you know the training needed, and I think if the position were to be elected with the changes that we're proposing in this charter to make the position a four-year term, it addresses some of the concerns that were brought up originally.

Um, and so I would have no objection to reverting back to it being an elected um I was very torn on this for 15 years I've debated this on both sides of it, and I do see the merits.

Um, my concern was why I was against making this unelected position.

Uh, I was worried that because it's such a important position.

Suppose we elected someone that wasn't quite intellectually up to the task, let's say that could really hurt the keeper of our documents for our city, and that was my biggest concern that this would be a problem as a popularity, more so than you know, hiring the right person for such an important position.

Um that was my biggest concern, and that's why I was um in favor of making this a civil service or position.

But having waited through and listened through all the the people, and they make good cases on both sides, and I think I'm torn the other way now.

Then maybe we should go back to an elected position and let the voters decide.

Um I don't want to point it off on the future, but if it does not work out, then the next charter commission can say, hey, they really looked at this, like they did with the removing the city uh clerk position 10 years ago or whatever it was, they took a long time to look at it.

They realized that it was the best move to remove remove it.

Now the next charter, if something happens, they'll say, listen, we spent a tremendous amount of time looking this over, working on this, and maybe you know, we'll have to look at it again, seeing how it tracked for the last 10 years.

So I am uh actually in favor of making the taking the recommendation.

I think it maybe would be the best.

Let's see what happens.

Okay.

Any other discussion on commission members on this one?

By the way, for the record, I was adamantly against it, but listening and really listening to the whatever I want that to read.

I get it.

And I really did listen, and I and I changed my opinion.

Appreciate that.

Sorry, just to council.

Um, I just have a point of clarification uh that I just want to still be on the same page about.

Um, as I read the motion, um maybe you know this already.

Um but I see that there's two parts of this.

So one is with respect to the red line amendments that we made over the numerous meetings we had, and then also on whether it's what they're appointed.

So I just want to make sure that we're we're on the same page as far as what the motion is.

I think I I believe there's two parts of this because we also heard comments on you know qualifications, terms, field processes, I make sure I understand this correctly as it being a two-part motion.

So I want to make sure I understand this correctly as it being a two-part motion.

So I I agree that it's a two-part motion.

The way I read part one, so where it says part one to reconsider the amendments made to the town clerk.

I think if I'm this is how I'm interpreting that to mean we're reconsidering everything we talked about for the town clerk and keeping it in elected position, sort of part two.

So we just had the discussion to consider reconsidered our amendments, and now we're keeping it elected.

I thought we're still on the elected point subject matter.

Well, if you make it elected, then I think these become somewhat redundant or so.

This is and tell me if I'm wrong if we're how this would work out in practice.

I think is all of the new language we added for town clerk, if the consensus is to make this elected, would be struck and it would just revert back to what's currently in the charter, and the only change would be the term from two to four.

Right.

Is that correct?

Is that fair to say so everybody knows what we're essentially consenting to?

Um very similar opinion on this issue.

Um, I do think this is a position that should be appointed.

Um, where we are at points were brought up, and I do want to credit uh councilman Hawley for his very articulate uh presentation on this issue that if and when the city does go the appointed route, I I do think there is a lot more that needs to be done to get there.

I think we were on the right track, but considering everything, um I would I would defer to the will of the council on this particular issue.

Any other comments on this one, or should we do a consensus?

Do we have a consensus to I'll just start in the affirmative?

Do we have is there a consensus to accept the recommendation to keep it elected?

Yes, I do so everybody knows it's it would be going back and becoming a four-year elected position.

Any objection to that?

Okay.

So we have a consensus for that one.

Does that make the next two unnecessary?

They're all related back or oh no, I'm sorry, I apologize.

No, yeah, so the next two we can take those together.

Um this is the board of ed section.

So 11 we're accepting and then we're on 12, correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Uh yeah, I think that number is right.

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

Yes, and then it's closed.

Okay, so we are now doing eleven and twelve together.

Because they're both in the same section.

So the first recommendation was to refer the whole section back to the commission.

So we're we're doing that, we're discussing it.

Um the next recommendation was the shall and nay language.

So I'll just open discussion since we're reconsidering the entire paragraph.

Does anybody have any comments or discussion on language for the board of education?

We'll call it the finance paragraph.

I'm not opposed to it going back to May for that reason to protect, you know the students if there's something that fortunately disclosed it shouldn't have been disclosed for their privacy.

I agree.

I mean, financials that's totally different.

Disagree with that.

I agree with what it makes sense to protect students.

So I just want to so to articulate your sort of proposal here would be that the May language would be just for information that might be protected, student information.

But I think if there's an audit going on in the city and this information is needed, then the board of education has the largest line item.

Am I correct on the budget?

Yeah, so it's a lot of money.

I know I have to be accountable for what I spend.

So I think that the board of education should as well and in terms of changing it, you're it's really based on an audit.

I mean the city's gonna be held up and getting information done for an audit, and part of it is the financials from the board of education, then they should provide them, but not I'm totally all for the May for students.

The student should be protected.

I don't know how you restructure work.

That's not being conveyed.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that technically I don't think we distinguish in this draft on the student information versus financial information.

So maybe we have to concern what we should do is to further codify because I I mean my personal opinion, I still think the language we have in here protects the protected student information with that that sentence, but if we want to go a little bit further than that, and and maybe define or carve out student information and financial information.

Um I think that doesn't hurt if we carve it out.

One of the suggestions that was made earlier tonight was around defining the terms that this does right that are excluded, yep.

Um to add specificity around right, would what is exempted from this in order to protect student information, and that might be a more clear way.

Oh in addition to defining what financial affairs or financial information means, and adding to that my thought was the idea of the shall part is so that we are able to do an audit properly.

I'm assuming that's that's where we're going with this.

Yep.

So would it be proper to put in the terminology that only information that's pertinent to an audit?

So I mean, this is another safeguard enough.

I maybe or here's my here's my response to that, Commissioner.

I I think the language we had, and this is probably why the Board of Ed attorney signed off on it, was because we do carve it out.

So at the end there it says the department uh finance full access to the financial books accounts, records, contracts, and expenditure data of the school district for purposes of auditing, budgeting, and financial reporting periods.

So we kind of do that, but I'm fine with if we want to like really hammer that home.

Maybe that's the same.

I think that might quell a lot of fears that you know, personal data.

So what I gathered listening to everybody speaking, they were concerned about personal data, students' personal information, and so forth.

That's their concern.

Our concern, I think, or the city side is getting the right numbers and data, not personal data, but financial data, so we can do an audit.

And like I said, having seen what happened with those audits not being done, it was it was really trouble.

And I'll defer to the treasurer of the city if he wants to make any thoughts.

Well, of course, with the turnover finance directors is one of the biggest problems because we couldn't we couldn't take get enough information out any one of them because there's such a changeover, and we're lacking that information wasn't coming down to us.

So my I my suggestion was to keep May in all of this, except where the financial affairs shall be administered.

Council, if you want to I have a suggestion in this fourth paragraph, the board of education you have to decide whether you have it shall or may provide the mayor and the department of full access to financial books, accounts, records is it of the school district solely for purposes to make it clear that it's solely for the purpose of auditing, budgeting, and financial.

So that's kind of a little bit of a limitation, and then again uh through the chair, uh you know, the the language that farther down in the paragraphs is subject to safeguards, including student data privacy agreements um to ensure compliance with state and federal law you may want to add and and to ensure that no uh protected data uh under state statute will be disclosed to give it a belt and suspenders.

I don't know if that works and the school board does do a good job at keeping that information, yeah, because there's many of invoices that come down to the finance department or students who are in Silver Hill and another hospital, but their names are always that we couldn't get that information under state statute in any event, right?

Right, and and if we want to even go one step further, because I agree well that I think that makes sense in that first paragraph um for purpose for so for the sole purpose of auditing budgeting and financial reporting.

We could even you know put another sort of carve out there excluding any protected student information and just student and other uh protected information, any any protected information under understate statute.

I think if the worry, if the worry is the student information, we should probably just carve out the student excluding any information otherwise protected under student privacy, relevant student privacy laws.

Would we using the term that's anything that's excluded from the FOI statutes be even better?

Or that you don't need that.

You don't want to get you don't open that game.

Okay, because if we're gonna cite the that's good, yeah.

Oh, I never said I never said it.

Those for exemptions would also apply automatically, regardless of whether we explicitly, yeah.

I mean that section one, two.

And 99% of the students are under the age of 18, so you gotta protect their names anyway.

Yeah, all right.

So any questions on that piece?

We're not done yet on this one, but are we okay with sending a consensus to send those changes to council to get us language for the next time we meet?

Yes, yes, yes.

Yes, yes, we're we're essentially the way I'm counting is if we're adding like three new student privacy carve-outs that are gonna beef up that paragraph that I think are gonna quell some some worries.

And are we changing the other shalls to Mays in the remainder of that section?

I so this is where I'm at on that, and obviously the consensus what of the commission is the will of the commission.

I personally don't really like May language because it's discretionary, like obviously, like points were made that yes, this current administration on both the board of ed and the city side have a relationship where there is good sharing of this data already happening.

I think the whole intent of the shall language is to codify that relationship so that it survives the next administration and the next board of administration after that.

So if that, you know, I Commissioner Strange likes to talk legislative intent.

So if our intent here is to codify the relationship currently ongoing to survive future administrations, I think we should stay with shall because it eliminates the possibility that in the future you could have another finance director fiasco that doesn't want to give this information.

And that's my my opinion as one commissioner on shall versus May.

But if we put the carve outs in of what was addressed, we've we've covered what the voices of the board of education and people that got off the book.

Right.

That's what my thinking is.

Students are protected.

So and there's other May language in here that I think statutorily can't be May, like for example, the Board of Education shall elect a superintendent of schools, that can't be May, because the state statute they have to have superintendent.

So that can't be May.

Um and the other section, Board of Education shall possess and exercise all powers and duties, may possess an exercise all powers and duties.

State statute, you can't may that um so the blanket change from shall to may is problematic for other reasons beyond the financial stuff we already talked about.

So that's my appointment, but so we can go down there and all you need to change.

So the way that these recommendations came in, one of them was a blanket referral of 618 back to the commission, which I read to mean that we can reconsider anything in that paragraph and change it, which we did, which we are doing.

And the second recommendation was the um shall to may across the board the way I read it, and to define what financial information means.

So if we break these down into pieces, I think we have a consensus to accept the recommendation to refer it back and reconsider it, because I think that's what we're doing.

Any any objection to that?

No, no.

So that was technically an acceptance of the referral back.

The second piece is the shall to may language.

I'll open that up to a consensus.

I'm against the blanket shall to maybe have any we feel on that.

I feel the same way.

I feel like same.

We'll be up analyzed and everything else.

Is there any objection to to that?

We made the carve outs specific and strict.

Okay, and then the second, the third one, I would say, is what information needs to be defined and what financial information means.

I think we did that by carving out what they get access to and the certain student privacy purposes for the audit specific.

Is that I'll defer to council here.

Is that seem correct?

Yeah the way we're going through it.

Okay.

All right.

So the consensus would be no changes to the term financial information or additions.

Correct.

But what the change would be the carve outs for the protection of the student information is how I understand it.

Anybody correct me if that's incorrect?

But also redefining what financial information we're speaking of.

That it's specifically for the audit.

Yep, for the sole, I think that's already in a line.

Okay, the sole purpose.

That was the second part of it.

They think what they wanted was a better definition.

What financial information means subject to the audit or whatever needs to be if they need to be clarified.

Legislative and time wise.

So those are some subtly pretty significant changes, but I think it beefs up that paragraph.

And I think it listens to a lot of the concerns that were made.

Okay.

And it's it's something super small, but it just might be worth since we're reconsidering the whole paragraph.

But so in the very first sentence, the Danbury Public School District shall be under the control of a board of education consisting of eleven members elected.

A couple people brought this up to me, council people.

Should it should it say consisting of 11 electors?

So that way it specifically carves out that they're the only people that can run for the board.

But I know we have another section that says you have to be an elector to run for office, but I noticed that the other sections say resident electors or electors.

Anybody have any objection to just clarify that?

No objection.

That was my that was my thought.

Yeah, so it'd be like shall be under the control of the board of education, considering consisting of 11 resident electors.

Yeah, redundant.

So eleven electors elected as set forth in this charter.

I think it's consistent because then it just makes it just another paragraph already says you have to live in Dan Bray to obviously run for the board of then, but I just think this is the same as all the other positions.

I think we can say electors as set forth in this charter.

I don't think you need to repeat the word electorate.

Okay.

No objection for me.

Are we good on that?

Yep.

Technical change, but I think it's important.

Public water.

So no, no, no.

Okay.

Um that being said, anything else on this section.

All right, we will move on.

Okay.

Uh two left.

Next is a recommendation that was made.

This is the recommendation to amend the section six-four, which would require a blanket two-third confirmation vote on all department heads and police and fire by the city council.

Um discussion or comments on that?

Yes, sir.

I would love to turn on this one.

I I asked it several times of uh councilman Hawley because I think it was he was one that proposed this, and he was tying it back and being consistent throughout.

I asked him several times about it.

Um to get two-thirds for police, fire department has high.

I think it's just uh too high of a threshold.

Theoretically, eight people in the council can stop the entire hiring process.

Um you see what happens when you know one person can send something to an ad hoc, how it can slow the process.

This makes it 10 times worse to make it two-thirds for the entire life of the charter.

We've had it as a simple majority.

I think that's where it needs to be so that we don't you know clog up the entire government.

I agree.

So would it be a vote of a majority of the entire membership?

Is that your I think would be to keep it consistent where it is now.

So have to change.

This is so here's my question to council.

If we reject that recommendation, does it just default back to correct whatever the language is in the charter now?

Correct.

We would just stop by saying confirmed by the city council.

Right.

Confirmed by the council.

So the council could confirm it by a vote of the members uh um seated uh as long as there's a quorum, right?

Correct.

Okay, like it is like it currently is right, okay.

Confirmed by the city council, yeah.

That's and that's also consistent with where the confirmation is located elsewhere in the charter.

So I don't think we need to go up.

My personal opinion is I don't think we need to go further than that in the charter.

Yeah.

So any other comments on that.

Do we I'm I I disagree with this recommendation.

So I will go around the table.

Do we have a consensus to reject this recommendation?

I think any anybody not in favor of rejecting it.

Okay.

Um so noted with a consensus to reject the recommendation to require the two-thirds confirmation.

So that will default back to the language already in the charter.

And the last one for tonight, this was a recommendation by the city council to reinstate the currently struck language of 8-2.

And that was the section that we were going to eliminate just as cleanup language because we is it really applicable now.

Um there was a good point made by uh Chanice about the add the IT director, so maybe it's good to keep it in there.

I'm I'm fine with putting it back in.

I don't think it's that big of a change.

I'll defer to the judgment of the council if anybody has any objection to that.

Um so we have a consensus to accept the final recommendation, which is too chairman.

I'm gonna stay in on this because this may or may not pertain to me personally.

So no, I don't want to have an opinion either way.

So no it may or may not a much or just I'm sorry, yes, I have one statement.

So no earlier so noted with an abstention from Commissioner Safranic.

So we'll make sure the minutes reflect that.

Appreciate your ethical conscience.

Okay, so that gets us through all of the recommendations.

Good job, everybody.

Um we deferred to the council's judgment on a lot of these, so I do appreciate everybody's work on this one.

Um this will just weave into my chairman's report.

Um so next step in the process is uh corporation council is gonna start drafting the language that we went over tonight.

Um, because those are the only changes that um are going to be implemented that are different from what we already discussed at length in the draft report.

Good question.

Yes.

Um we can only we're gonna have a chance to make any minor changes in the future, or this is the last so this right where we are in the process where we have another the statute.

I mean, I'll defer to council corporation council.

The way I read the statute is our job now is to go based off of the recommendations and either approve them or deny them, and then we create our final report based on that.

Right, and then that's what we eventually submit to the council.

There was one section that we we skipped over and I wanted to add.

Um I don't know if that's at the right time or not with the council recommendations, but back in uh the charter in and of itself.

Would this not be the right time to do that?

We can only look at this.

I will defer to corporation council.

Well, what what section are you?

We've we talked about in section 3.3 the legislative assistant.

We talked about putting with cause in there.

Uh like they have like just to clarify that it's not you know that it is a with cause, and I just wanted to know when we could if that could be discussed now, or is it a later date or what the question would be?

It would be 3.3 legislative assistant uh to remove by the but we removed with cost.

Do you have the statute for the charter?

Or is it only can only discuss what's in the I'm gonna have them look at the state statute?

Yeah, we went back and forth with it several times.

I just want to know when we could discuss that one little order.

As a matter of law, I mean you have the discretion to say should we wait till the next meeting and just do the council?

No, I think the idea tonight is to just have a consensus of what the final report will say.

Okay, so I think if you're in make a motion, you should do it now.

You know, this is 3.3, so they remove the cost, it's just because we're you know that way, you know, there's a stability in in the continuity of I mean the statute says uh after the conference, which we had earlier, says the commission may amend any provisions of the proposed charter charter amendments in accordance with such recommendations, or the commission may reject such recommendations.

So I think technically you're limited to voting on the changes that also made.

So I would say now's not the time to add that language.

Okay, we civil service, she's civil service anyway.

No, I don't think so.

Well, no.

Oh, that's right.

She's not that's why I wanted to serve that's why I wanted to make sure that there was not be subject to the merit system.

Yeah, I think I think putting more from there.

Protection is for two-thirds, you know, the council uh maybe they disapprove the dismissal by two thirds.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for the clerk.

Well, we talked about it several times went back and forth, but just you know, looking back through what what was done for us and how great this worked out.

I just wanted to make sure that this it stays with continuity of the vision.

I mean, I think the most conservative approach to the chair is um to just adhere to the strict language of the statute.

Okay, and that is the two-thirds is a high part of it.

Yeah, as we took it out from the other part.

I mean, you can that's that's part of that's part of the recommendations, right?

You could reconsider the two-thirds vote if you want to.

Okay.

No, not at all.

Yeah, no.

That's no.

Okay.

It is it is a high bar declared.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, we approved 12 out of the 14.

Yeah, you know, we actually 13 out of the 14th.

I think the two thirds will count those wasn't really that was you know, overall with with the clerk part.

So okay.

So do the chat.

Yeah, we'll we'll prepare the final report of this commission.

Uh have a draft of final report put together to get it back in this commission.

Um statute requires the final report back to the appointment authority.

And then the appointment within 15 days after receiving the final report.

Uh acts on that report, the general process going forward.

Okay.

So we are nearing our work.

Um, and I do want to thank every single one of you here, council included, Elisa included, for truly just all of your hard work.

I know a lot of things were said, a lot of unfair things were said that questioned.

I think the true amount of time that we all spent because I know everybody at this table does the reading and does their homework and didn't show up opening the packet for the first time at these commission meetings, like I too often see at city council meetings.

So I do appreciate how serious you all took this process.

Um this was a thankless job.

Um I don't want you to discount the amount of work that you all did for what it's worth.

I'm proud of each and every one of you.

And um, we did a lot of good things for the city, and let's hope the city council passes it and gets it to the voters, and the voters ultimately will have the final say on uh on everything that we did.

So um, that's my report.

Um, I'll be in touch to get a notice out for our next meeting to over the final report and finalize our approval there.

Um I'll go around the table, open this up if anybody has any comments or anything they want to say.

I had a comment uh that I wanted to make.

Um I feel like the Charter Commission has been mischaracterized a lot in in the meetings that I've attended, that there's a lot of words like we were rushed, and uh at no time when we met together, uh we worked collaboratively, we worked respectfully, we listened to one another, we took in different opinions, and I there was no rush.

There was no rush from any other entities to get this done.

And I I feel that there have been people who have who have made statements that have just not been accurate, and I would like to have that in the record that having comments from other people that's fine, and public comments that was great to have them, and and we've thought about them.

So it wasn't any kind of rush job, and nobody was pushed to make a decision one way or the other.

It was very collaborative.

And I feel like it's there has definitely been a mischaracterization of the commission as a whole.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I would just like to add my gratitude um to this commission and to everyone around this table.

Um, and to the public that came forward to each of our meetings.

Um, you know, we made we made time to listen and we considered all of that.

Um, it may have been concentrated into a short period of time, but it was a deep dive into this work with real commitment and dedication by everyone around this table, and I'm proud of the work that we did, and I'm uh grateful to all who um helped support this process, and um, you know, I I I echo all that's been said.

Um, you know, we've we've done our part, and now goes to the people who will make the ultimate decision about what is best for the city, and um just grateful for the time I've had with all of you.

Thank you.

You're here.

I agree with Susan Bowell, and um, I'd also like to thank all the people, the public who showed up and voiced their opinion whether it was favorable or unfavorable.

Democracy works.

I'd like to say the same thing, you know.

After working all day, coming here at night.

I know you all think we rushed it.

This was a lot of reading at night, and um I have a whole family behind the scenes at home and and my children and grandkids.

So this was a huge commitment for me.

I respect all the people in this room and the ones that came to the public hearings.

I think I think Mike Henry and was at most of the meetings, if not all of them, and Mike Well as well.

I mean, that's a lot of time out of your days as well.

So it's you know, I respect what you all do.

I'd be nice if we could get a little respect of what we did.

I don't think it's Rush.

I've learned a lot about uh the Charter Commission.

You know, I'm not gonna this was a learning experience as well of just you know, I'm I have no party affiliation.

I'm an independent, so this was a whole different aspect of seeing what you all do.

Everybody that does have a party affiliation does because it's a ton of work.

I mean, it's it's huge commitments, and uh, and I truly respect what City Hall of us.

It's that's a lot of work.

So kudos to all of you.

The workers here.

Any commissioner?

Okay.

Um couple quick things.

Um I guess thinking it starts with the point of we rush this, we rush this.

Well, looking back, we went through line by line the entire charter.

We spent hours of the clip went through every single piece.

Then we sent it to the council.

They went through line by line, line by line, every single thing.

They came back with 14 recommendations after they spent 10 hours, 11 hours, 12 hours with public input, and we accepted 13 of the 14 recommendations they had.

So we had two public hearings, and every meeting we had the public speak at every meeting also.

So we had a tremendous amount of public input, I believe.

Um there was a comment made about the the board of ed or the union didn't know about it.

Um well, I mean, it was publicized.

I mean, I look at there's a couple a lot of Facebook pages, there's a blogger out there who's talked about it every day, every minute for the last three months.

If you didn't know that we were meeting and had public hearings, it wasn't because it wasn't out there.

Um both town committees were doing an amazing job of publicizing this over and over and over again.

You know, regardless of whatever your opinion was.

We listened, and we had a tremendous amount of input.

And I'm gonna talk on a personal level.

For 15 years, I was adamant about making the town clerk um a regular position.

Listening to everybody talking, I changed my opinion because I did listen.

I think we all listened.

You know, we might have come in with some preconceptions, but we did listen to the public.

And whether or not it's rushed or not, if it if if you went through every line, us and then the council and then came back to us and we took 13 of their 14 recommendations.

I think we did what we're supposed to do.

It just didn't need to be taken eight, nine months.

You know, that's my thoughts.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

We're doing an amazing job in keeping us all corralled and on focus, and also to corporation council.

I had a lot of dumb questions, and you answered all of mine.

No such thing as that question.

I like you.

Anyone else?

I'd like to say I enjoyed it very much.

I think part of the whole thing is that maybe the document was that good to start with in the requirement of it, didn't take as much effort as people think it might have needed uh great outcome of the time span.

Well, thank you for everybody.

One more comment.

I liked Taylor's comment when she wanted it to be gender-friendly because this when it was written in the 60s, let's face it.

No offense to all the guys in the room, but men dominated and women were in the sidebar.

So it should reflect you know everybody that puts time in.

Thank you so much.

It has been a wonderful civic experience for me.

First time that I'm part of a commission like this one.

I have learned a lot.

I wish many other people would have the same experience because we need to get involved in what becomes to all of us.

At the end of this, the voters will decide either in November or anytime in the future.

So we should not be afraid of the changes that we have proposed.

Thank you so much to the voters at the end of the day that will decide whether our work is necessary or not.

And the council can make the questions as they see fit.

Okay.

Thank you all very much for your input.

Uh we have no night.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh is there a motion to adjourn?

So move.

Let's stay in a couple hours.

Any discussion?

None.

All those in favor, aye.

We are adjourned.

Thank you all very much.