Selectmen ask Charter Revision Commission for clearer language on staff access, commissions and term lengths

The Simsbury Board of Selectmen on March 9 voted to send a set of targeted questions back to the town's Charter Revision Commission, asking for clearer wording on how the charter treats requests for information from town staff, the status of several boards and commissions, and how term-length changes would be implemented on the ballot.

The board spent most of the meeting reviewing the Commission's redlined draft. Much of the debate centered on a proposed change to section 403 that would allow the first selectman or chairs of elected or appointed boards to "request[ ] and obtain in a timely fashion information, data or reports required for the conduct of said board/commission duties." Some members said the language as written could be read to let multiple elected officials approach staff directly and create conflicting priorities; others said limited access to information was necessary for boards to do their work.

"You can't have 20 bosses because that creates chaos," said Selectman Mike, arguing that allowing individual members to make repeated requests of staff could interfere with priorities assigned by the town manager. First Selectman Wendy said she supported improved clarity but wanted to ensure the charter did not overly restrict the ability of a board member to get information needed to do their job.

Town Manager Mark Nelson told the board that department heads report to the town manager and that the proposed language should not be read as authorizing orders to staff. "Everything has to go through the town manager," he said, while also noting that department heads can and do make themselves available to support commissions under the manager's oversight.

The board also revisited whether certain non‑statutory commissions should remain in the charter or be created and changed by ordinance. The Charter Commission recommended removing some boards from the charter so they could be more easily adjusted by ordinance; members were split. Several selectmen and legal counsel urged preserving the police commission and the board of ethics in the charter for stability, while leaving others — including the Economic Development Commission (EDC) — open for reconsideration. Selectman Diana said she preferred keeping some commissions codified to ensure long-term priorities such as open space and design review are preserved.

On the question of term lengths, opinions diverged. Some board members favored moving selectmen terms from two to four years, or introducing staggered terms, to preserve institutional memory and reduce election-cycle disruption. Others preferred retaining two‑year terms to preserve voter accountability. The board asked the commission to revisit the term-length language and to clarify whether a simple change to four years (without staggering) or a more complex staggered approach would be proposed for referendum.

At the end of the meeting the board voted to send the charter draft back to the Charter Revision Commission with a list of requests for clarification, including clearer limits on staff requests, whether and how the EDC should be restored to the charter, and alternate framing for term-length proposals. The board approved sending the requested clarifications while reserving the right to accept or reject the commission's final report once it is returned.

What happens next: the Charter Revision Commission will have its statutory period to respond and may return an amended report. The selectmen said they will review that report and decide what, if anything, to place on the ballot for voter consideration.