Waterbury aldermen vote to enter executive session on water superintendent’s resignation amid transparency complaints

The Waterbury Board of Aldermen voted 8–4 on April 30 to enter an executive session to discuss the resignation of the superintendent of water that city officials said is tied to a Waterbury Police Department investigation.

A motion to go into executive session was made and seconded after the meeting’s presiding officer said the closed-door discussion would include the mayor, the corporation counsel, the police chief and the human-resources director. Corporation Counsel Angela Giuliani later told the board that two-thirds of members present were required to approve executive session and that eight of 12 met that threshold.

The vote followed heated objections from multiple aldermen who said they had not received adequate notice. Alderman Feliciano said she would not enter the closed session and accused the administration of poor communication, saying she and some caucus colleagues had learned details from social media rather than from city officials. "We are innocent until proven guilty," Feliciano said, adding, "I'm voting hell no," and saying she would walk out rather than take part in a session she described as lacking transparency.

Alderman Grasso and Alderwoman Martinez McCarthy also criticized the timing of the meeting and the lack of public notice. Grasso said he had sought a special meeting after a recent house fire and malfunctioning fire hydrants, and he pressed for information about what the person who resigned is alleged to have done and how taxpayer funds would be used in the investigation. "Taxpayers deserve to know what their taxpayer dollars are going for," Grasso said.

After the roll call vote produced eight yes and four no votes, Giuliani clarified the legal standard: "You do need two-thirds of the members that are in attendance," she said, noting that two-thirds of 12 is eight. The board then proceeded into executive session. The record shows Alderman Hunter joined while the board was in closed session.

Upon returning from the executive session, the board stated for the record that no votes were taken during the closed session. With no further business, the special meeting was adjourned.

The dispute over notice and timing came against the background of aldermen’s concerns about recent fire-hydrant performance and public-safety questions; several members said they want fuller public briefings before personnel matters proceed. The city has not released additional details about the resignation or the police inquiry on the record at the special meeting.