Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boards And Commissions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bridgeport charter panel pauses on removal rules for boards, orders clerk to publish expiring‑term report
Summary
The charter revision commission debated residency and removal language for boards and commissions, tabled a proposed new removal section for further drafting, and approved language to require the city clerk to publish an annual report of commissioners whose terms expire at year‑end.
The Bridgeport Charter Revision Commission reviewed proposed changes to Chapter 2 of the draft charter and paused action on a new removal procedure for appointed board members, while approving a requirement that the city clerk publish an annual list of commissioners with expiring terms.
Commissioner John read the clerk‑report language the commission will draft and circulate: “The city clerk shall submit to the mayor, the city council president and the chair of the ethics commission and shall make available on the city website an annual report no later than September 30 listing all commissioners with expiring terms at the end of that year.” The commission directed staff to produce redrafted text consistent with that language for a future vote.
Members spent the bulk of the discussion on a proposed new Section 12 that would set out grounds and process for removing appointed board and commission members. Several commissioners said the draft did not clearly identify which body would conduct hearings (the appointing authority, a personnel body, or the ethics commission) and questioned whether the appointing authority should both refer and adjudicate charges against its own appointees. Commissioners pressed for clearer process language and higher removal thresholds, citing examples of long-term holdovers and concerns about conflicts of interest.
Commissioners agreed to table Section 12 for further revision and legal review. In the discussion, several members suggested routing contested cases to the ethics commission where an independent review is appropriate; others argued the appointing authority should retain disciplinary power but with safeguards. The commission did not finalize a single approach.
Separately, commissioners discussed how long appointees may serve beyond an expired term when no successor is available (90 days was proposed by some, others mentioned up to a year). To reduce habitual holdovers the panel approved the clerk‑report requirement to improve transparency and give mayors, councils and incumbents advance notice of impending expirations.
The commission also flagged several highlighted edits in the draft (including newly inserted language on registrar duties and term‑of‑office provisions) and agreed to circulate revised redlines before reconvening. The commission set a follow‑up meeting to complete drafting and assigned staff to prepare a version of Section 2 and the clerk‑report language for consideration at the next session.
The commission paused Chapter 2 business until the redrafted language and legal review are complete; members said the clerk report will become public record and should help appointing authorities avoid unintended holdovers.
