Simsbury selectmen send charter revisions back to commission after days-long review over staff direction, commissions and term length

At a March 9 meeting, the Simsbury Board of Selectmen debated and voted to return parts of the Charter Revision Commission’s draft for clarification, singling out language that members said could change how elected officials interact with town staff.

The board approved a motion to send selected recommendations back to the commission “subject to final review,” after extended discussion about three core issues: a new provision that lets chairs request information from department staff, whether to keep the Economic Development Commission (EDC) in the charter rather than by ordinance, and proposals to change selectman terms from two to four years (including whether terms would be staggered).

Why it matters: the charter defines who may direct staff, which bodies are required to exist, and how long elected officials serve. Changes could reshape how the town manager’s office and elected officials coordinate, and would appear on a future referendum if the board forwards the commission’s final report to the ballot.

Board members said the commission did useful work but that some wording needs more precision. Concern centered on a redrafted passage (section 403 in the commission draft) that says chairs “may request and obtain in a timely fashion information, data or reports required for the conduct of said board [or] commission duties.” Selectmen who opposed the wording said it could be read to let individual members bypass the town manager and place extra burdens on staff.

“You have no ability to ask this; you have to go to the town manager to ask for anything to be done of people that the town manager supervises,” said a legal adviser during the discussion. Other members said the intent was narrower — allowing chairs to request information, not to give orders. First Selectman Wendy (first reference: SEG 021) said she would accept the commission’s language for now but recommended the commission add clarifying text if necessary.

On the Economic Development Commission, members divided over whether the EDC should remain in the charter or be created and adjusted by ordinance. Supporters said leaving EDC in the charter signals a long-term town priority and ensures stability; others favored removing non-statutorily required commissions from the charter to allow more flexible, ordinance-based management.

A third hotly debated topic was the length of selectmen’s terms. Some members argued four-year terms (with or without staggering) would provide continuity and institutional knowledge, while others favored keeping two-year terms to preserve voter accountability. The board did not adopt a final position; instead, members asked the commission to re-examine the language and to return with options (including a four-year alternative without staggering).

Votes and next steps: the board voted to ask the Charter Revision Commission for targeted clarifications and told staff it would review any revised draft the commission returned. The commission generally has a statutory window to reply; the board may accept or reject any changes the commission proposes. If the commission’s final report contains changes the board wants to forward, the board will determine ballot questions and timing.

Quotes that capture the debate included First Selectman Wendy: “At this point, I’m willing to accept the language that was presented by them, but I also understand that we can ask for clarification.” And a legal adviser: “You have no ability to ask this. You have to go to the town manager to ask for anything to be done of people that the town manager supervises.”

The board also approved the consent agenda, accepted several minutes, and recessed after completing the charter discussion. The meeting record shows the board will receive the commission’s revised language and consider whether to place any recommended charter changes on a future referendum.

Ending: The Charter Revision Commission is expected to reply within its statutory timeframe; the board’s action sends several discrete questions back to the commission for wording that explicitly preserves the town manager’s supervisory role while clarifying which kinds of information requests are appropriate for chairs and the circumstances under which commissions remain in the charter.