Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Term Length topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury commission reaches unanimous consensus to pursue four-year terms for elected offices
Summary
After public comments and comparative data from counsel, the Charter Revision Commission agreed unanimously to ask counsel to draft language moving the city’s elected offices to four‑year terms, while flagging term limits and ethics language for further work.
The Danbury City Charter Revision Commission on May 13 conducted a workshop on Chapters 1 and 2 of the draft charter and recorded a unanimous consensus to move forward with four‑year terms for the city’s elected offices.
Chair opened the meeting and, after public comment and presentations, asked commissioners for their positions. The chair said, "We have a, unanimous consensus amongst the group to move forward, for the 4 years for the elected offices across the board." Commissioners cited continuity for department operations, reduced administrative burden and alignment with practices in similar cities as reasons to prefer longer terms.
Public commenters were split. Warren Levy told the commission that extending the mayor’s term "does not hold up under practical and structural review," adding that "Long terms do not reduce politics. They reduce accountability." In contrast, Barry Rigsberg, a lifelong Danbury resident, argued that "Half of the country has 4 year terms for their municipal offices now," saying longer terms help long‑term planning and reduce campaign distractions.
Elected officials and department representatives who attended emphasized practical considerations: a zoning chairman said four‑year terms would help commission members learn complex land‑use rules, while the town clerk cautioned that the clerk’s office is complicated and that frequent turnover is disruptive. The registrar reported that election costs have increased since early‑voting rules were added, noting that "each location is about 15 to 20,000" for early‑voting sites and that municipalities have borne additional expenses.
The commission did not adopt ordinance language that night; instead members asked corporation counsel to draft red‑line charter language reflecting the preference for four‑year terms and to address associated issues the commission raised, including whether to pair term extensions with term limits, how to align school board timing with state statutes, and how to phase in staggered terms for multi‑member bodies.
Procedural notes: the commission approved the minutes by voice vote earlier in the meeting and later moved and seconded to adjourn; both actions carried by voice vote.
The commission directed counsel to prepare proposed language and return a draft red line for review at a future meeting, where the group will consider formalizing any change and deciding whether to place a change before voters.
