Charter commission votes to strike attorney‑drafted council changes after marathon public comment from city council members

The Bridgeport Charter Commission voted to strike newly proposed language on city council size and compensation after a prolonged public comment period in which many current council members described their constituent work and disagreed about reducing council size or changing stipends to salaries.

Chair (S1) reopened discussion and a commissioner (S6) moved to reconsider previous action on Chapter 5, section 1. The meeting then shifted into a long public‑comment and exchange period: several city council members and residents spoke in favor of keeping 20 district seats and adding 5–6 at‑large seats to improve minority representation, while others said fewer, paid councilors could be stronger and more professional.

"The stipend affords me the ability to travel and learn," said council member Denise Taylor Moy (S10), who described years of constituent work and said a salary would change who could serve. Another council member, Alfredo Castillo (S5), described long hours and said he does the job full time despite being retired.

Legal counsel (S4) cautioned that changing stipends to a salary has tax and benefits implications: "If it's gonna be in lieu of the stipend... then you can't simply make it the same amount because the stipend is an expense reimbursement and it's not taxable. A salary will be taxable," S4 said.

Process and outcome: commissioners debated two procedural options — sending a 'hybrid' draft to the city council for its reaction or striking the newly proposed attorney language and returning to more deliberation. Commissioner Garrett (S6) moved to "strike all the proposed language" in Chapter 5, section 1 (subsections a, b, c and e) of Draft 8. The motion was seconded and called for roll call.

The commission chair read responses during a roll call and announced the motion passed. The transcript records multiple commissioners answering 'Yes' and the chair announcing the motion carried; the commissioners then discussed timing constraints tied to ballot deadlines and the next public hearing.

What to expect next: commissioners instructed staff to clarify whether the council may respond with targeted edits to sections not included in the draft report and asked counsel to confirm statutory deadlines (a September 5 ballot date was cited by staff). The commission scheduled a public hearing the following day and signaled it will refine draft language and legal advice before forwarding any charter amendments to the city council or ballot process.

Ending: The commission approved the motion to strike the attorney‑drafted council language and left open the broader policy questions about council size, at‑large seats and compensation pending further legal guidance and public input.