Charter commission weighs 4‑year terms, staggering for Board of Selectmen

The Charter Revision Commission met May 25 in Simsbury to consider changing the term length and timing for members of the Board of Selectmen, reviewing research on incumbency and discussing three options: retain two‑year terms, move to four‑year terms without staggering, or move to four‑year terms with staggering.

Why it matters: the commission said the choice affects continuity, the learning curve for newly elected officials and voter accountability; the change would require charter language and subsequent public review before adoption.

Commissioner Bob (Charter Revision Commission member) presented historical election data and a summary he said shows incumbents who run are re‑elected roughly nine times out of 10. “The bottom line is 91% of the time, whoever's running is gonna get reelected,” Bob told the panel, citing compiled results from elections dating to 1991. The research included party control patterns and year‑by‑year incumbency rates the commission asked for at a prior meeting.

Commission members debated tradeoffs. The chair, Chair (Charter Revision Commission chair), said the choice is between giving newcomers frequent opportunities to change leadership and giving elected officials more time to implement policies: “If I had to make a choice between the two, I would give the public the ability to decide — that's democracy,” the chair said. Other commissioners argued four years gives officeholders more time to learn complex town issues and carry initiatives to completion.

Members also discussed staggered four‑year terms as a way to preserve continuity while lengthening terms; some commissioners called staggering technically complicated to implement and noted minority‑representation rules could add complexity. Staff advised that Connecticut municipalities use a range of approaches: some towns have moved chief elected officials to four years while legislative bodies remain on two‑year cycles; a small number of Connecticut towns use four‑year staggered legislative terms.

No formal recommendation was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners agreed to continue the discussion and to take a vote at the next meeting; the chair asked members to come prepared to make a formal recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. Franklin (Town staff) reminded the commission of statutory deadlines tied to the charter revision process, including the commission's statutory deadline to submit a draft to the legislative body (the Board of Selectmen) by 2026‑01‑26, the requirement to hold a public hearing on a proposed draft before submission, and subsequent notice and referral timelines.

The commission asked staff to circulate the detailed election spreadsheet in cleaned form and to post supporting materials before the next meeting so the public can comment in advance.

Ending: The commission set the matter for final discussion and a scheduled vote at its next meeting and encouraged members of the public to submit comment in writing or attend the next session to speak during public audience.