Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Term Limits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Canaan charter panel debates term limits and forms working groups on appointments
Summary
The Charter Revision Commission debated term limits for appointed boards and a separate overhaul of the appointments process. Commissioners split on whether to add limits broadly or only for land‑use panels; a working group will draft specific language and a straw poll showed narrow informal support for pursuing limits.
The New Canaan Charter Revision Commission spent much of its March 31 meeting weighing whether to add term limits for members of appointed boards and commissions and how to make the appointment process more transparent.
Commissioner Jennifer, who prepared a detailed 'term analysis V3' using town clerk records, said the data show a mix of long‑serving members and newer appointees across commissions and argued that term limits "bring in fresh blood" and update perspectives. Several other commissioners, including Steve and Russ, urged targeted approaches — for example limiting terms on land‑use bodies such as planning and zoning, the zoning board of appeals and wetlands — rather than a blanket charter‑wide limit.
Opponents warned of unintended consequences. "I worry about the potential loss of experience and a smaller candidate pool," said Commissioner Russ, noting the difficulty recruiting volunteers for some roles. Commissioners also flagged mechanics that would need careful drafting: whether limits would be consecutive or cumulative, whether a hiatus period would allow reappointment, and whether grandfathering language would apply to incumbents.
Several members suggested chair rotation, stronger reappointment protocols and clearer public posting of vacancies as alternatives or complements to term limits. Chair Corbet and others pressed for a practical schedule and clear questions for any ballot proposal: "If we vote yes, what exactly are we asking voters to approve?" she asked.
Rather than adopt language on the spot, commissioners formed two working groups: one to draft specific appointment and transparency proposals (posting deadlines, application windows, and the role of the Board of Selectmen) and another to produce term‑limit options (length of terms, pause/return rules, and targeted boards). The commission held a non‑binding straw poll on whether to pursue term limits; the informal result was 6 in favor and 5 opposed, which commissioners characterized as a narrow "sense of the body" rather than a binding decision.
The working groups were charged to return recommended wording for discussion at upcoming April meetings so any charter language could be completed before the CRC's May 4 submission deadline.
Ending: The commission set near‑term deadlines for the groups and scheduled follow‑up meetings in April. Commissioners said they wanted concrete draft language — not general principles — before asking voters to weigh any change.
