Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Article Ii topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press to clarify Article II language on town officers, treasurer duties and minority representation
Summary
During Group 2's Article II review commissioners flagged unclear wording that conflates elected and appointed officers, proposed a separate article for the town treasurer to align with state statute, and discussed lowering party-concentration 'ceilings' to increase unaffiliated representation.
Commissioners in New Canaan’s Charter Revision Commission (Group 2) spent substantial time reviewing Article II (Town Officers), flagging sentences that they said dated to 1935 and recommending modernized, clearer drafting.
The group identified a muddled opening paragraph that lists town officers and mixes elected and appointed entities. Several members recommended punctuation and structural changes so the charter distinguishes elected offices from appointed commissions and enumerated boards. One commissioner noted the document “dates back to 1935” and called for updates to match contemporary governance practices.
The treasurer provision was described repeatedly as an "orphan"—a sentence added in the last revision that appears out of place in the present paragraph. A commissioner explained that the line was intended to align the charter language with Connecticut statutes and proposed moving those duties into a separate article devoted to the treasurer (to cover whether the treasurer is elected or appointed and to list duties explicitly). One participant referenced Connecticut General Statutes chapter-level guidance governing treasurer duties.
Commissioners also discussed minority representation on boards and commissions. One member suggested lowering the party-concentration limit (a so-called "bare majority" rule) so that no more than a simple majority of a given party could occupy a commission seat (for example, limiting a seven-member body to no more than four members of a single party). Speakers debated whether such a change belongs in the charter or should be pursued first as an ordinance and whether federal or state constraints affect the design.
Other drafting items raised included clarifying which committees require electors (a conflict was noted between a clause that allows some appointed committees to be non-residents, cited as the TDAC example) and adding formal definitions (committee, commission, officer, elector) in Section C1-2 to remove ambiguity.
The group agreed to take these editorial and structural suggestions forward for further drafting and to consult counsel before finalizing text that could alter legal meaning.
