Simsbury charter review moves to public hearing after split over Economic Development Commission

The Simsbury Charter Revision Commission voted Jan. 6 to send its proposed charter to a public hearing on Jan. 21 at the town library after heated public comment and internal debate over whether to keep the town’s Economic Development Commission in the charter.

Charmaine Seavey, chair of the Economic Development Commission, told the commission the EDC is “far from a dormant or stagnant commission and should not be taken off the charter,” arguing the body provides a public, bipartisan forum for work that affects the town’s taxes and business climate. Matt Arthur, who said he has served as the EDC’s vice chair, warned that “eliminating the economic development commission removes one of the town’s most transparent tools” for shaping economic policy.

Commissioners spent much of the meeting weighing two approaches: leave a requirement for an EDC in the charter (which offers permanence but requires detailed definitions) or move economic‑development responsibilities to an ordinance and the town manager (which allows more flexibility). Supporters said the EDC brings volunteer expertise at no direct cost; opponents and some commissioners argued an ordinance would let the Board of Selectmen and town staff align the group’s structure and goals more nimbly with changing town priorities.

Ron Jodes moved “to not strike the EDC commission requirement from the town charter.” The motion was seconded and put to a vote; the chair later announced, “Motion does not carry,” and the proposal to retain the EDC in the charter failed.

The meeting also included a separate discussion of a charter paragraph that read in part, “The members of the police department, except clerical and other personnel without law enforcement responsibilities, shall have the same powers and duties with respect to the service of criminal processing as are vested in police officers.” Commissioners and staff said the police chief had advised keeping language that makes clear sworn officers enforce criminal law but raised concern that the paragraph’s wording could be ambiguous about who within the department is authorized to act.

A motion to remove that paragraph was offered and seconded. After discussion, commissioners reached a compromise: they would retain the paragraph in the draft but remove the single word “members” to address concerns about the opening word and phrasing. Commissioners asked staff to make that edit.

Commissioner 10 moved to approve the draft charter as revised and to send it to a public hearing; the motion carried. The commission also voted to accept the draft report and set the public hearing for Jan. 21 at the library, where the commission will take public input and may further revise the draft before transmitting a final report.

The commission noted some minor editorial changes to the draft (including clarifying effective‑date phrasing) and discussed organizing statutory versus nonstatutory boards in Chapter 6 for clarity. Commissioners and staff reminded members that adopting the charter revision process requires additional statutory steps after the public hearing and that further edits are possible based on public testimony.

Next steps: the commission will hold a public hearing on Jan. 21 at the library; after the hearing the commission may amend the draft and will transmit the report and proposed charter consistent with statutory timelines.