Charter commission delays council-size change, approves draft language on pay and studies party composition

The Norwalk Charter Revision Commission voted Feb. 4 to pause work on a proposal to expand the size of the Common Council while staff collect new district maps and party-composition data and to advance revised charter language on council compensation.

The action follows public comment urging changes to council structure and pay. Diane Marcello, who identified herself as a lifelong Norwalk resident, urged commissioners to “consider expanding the size of the council,” and to keep compensation on the table in some form so that service is “fairly compensated.” Lisa Britton, Independent Party town chair, urged commissioners to adopt rules to increase representation from voters who are unaffiliated or affiliated with minority parties, saying “what’s undemocratic is having 45% of voters in Norwalk without representation on the council or board of ed.”

Why it matters: council size and minority‑party representation affect how many residents each elected official represents, how committee workloads are shared and whether minority viewpoints are routinely represented. The commission’s decision to pause expansion was procedural: members agreed more data (the new redistricting map, party composition by district and residents-per-representative) is needed before making a charter change.

Commissioners debated several approaches raised in prior meetings and public comment, including keeping the current 15-member council, moving to more district-based seats, or adopting a “mini at-large” system like Waterbury’s that divides the city into several large districts with multiple seats per district. Commissioner John Levin and others warned that simply increasing the number of seats does not guarantee more effective representation and can create new operational burdens.

The commission did approve revised charter language for Section 4‑7 (council compensation) prepared by staff. Commissioners voted to send that language forward; the vote was recorded as unanimous. Separately, commissioners directed staff to gather data on the population per council member under the new districts, and party composition by district, so commissioners can re-open the expansion discussion with concrete numbers.

Quotes from the meeting illustrate the split between reform goals and practical concerns. Diane Marcello told the panel: “I really appreciate all the work you’re doing ... please do consider expanding the size of the council.” Lisa Britton said minority‑party mechanisms address representation shortfalls: “Independent and unaffiliated voters tend to be the most frustrated by the extremism they were kinda seeing with the 2 major parties. More than anything else, we want balance.”

What the commission did: members voted to table the council-size/expansion discussion until staff deliver the new district map, party-composition analysis and residents-per-representative counts. They also approved staff language revising Section 4‑7 on compensation for later submission.

What’s next: Staff were assigned to obtain the new redistricting map (the registrars’ map for the upcoming election), an analysis of the party makeup of the new districts, and a per‑representative population calculation (commissioners noted a working figure of ~93,000 city population divided by five districts implies about 18,600 residents per district). The commission will reconvene with that data before deciding whether to propose an increased council size or alternative structures.