Town-council straw poll, proxy votes spark legal dispute as Charter Revision Commission advances draft

The New Canaan Charter Revision Commission voted June 30 to proceed with “version three” of its draft charter after a contentious discussion over whether a town-council straw poll and proxy votes constitute formal recommendations under Connecticut law.

Kim Norton, a member of the town council, told the commission that the appointing authority speaks “through formal action taken by the body,” meaning motions and votes in a duly convened meeting, and argued that straw polls and proxies are informal and should be treated only as informational input. “Informal tools such as straw polls may be useful during discussion, but they are not binding actions and do not constitute official decisions of the body,” Norton said, urging the CRC to treat council materials accordingly.

Counsel to the CRC, Nick Bamante, said the statute uses the word “recommendations” at this stage rather than a requirement for a written resolution, and that the town council’s June 17 deliberations and attendant materials provide usable input to the CRC. He cautioned, however, that adopting changes based only on informal discussions increases litigation risk. “If you call [a prior draft] the final report now, you’re opening the door and playing with fire,” Bamante said, urging commissioners to weigh legal exposure while continuing their work.

Several council members and commissioners expressed sharply different views. Christina Ross outlined a stricter statutory reading that, she warned, could make the CRC’s next steps vulnerable to legal challenge if the council failed to transmit valid recommendations within the 15-day window set by statute. “The statute requires ‘recommendations’ from the appointing authority — that means the council acting as a body,” Ross said, arguing that proxies and straw polls likely do not qualify as formal action. Heather Russell and other speakers also raised concerns about process, recusal and transparency.

After extended debate and a roll-call that included a mix of yes, no and abstention votes, the commission’s chair called a motion from Commissioner Chris Lee that “version three is the operative version of the draft and is to be taken up for further discussions immediately.” The motion was declared passed and the CRC agreed to continue substantive review at its next meeting, scheduled for July 7.

The commission also voted on — but rejected — a proposal to hire independent outside counsel to provide a separate legal opinion on the statutory deadlines and the finality of recommendations. Supporters said the step would reduce litigation risk; opponents cited time and cost constraints given the approaching schedule for finalizing the text for publication.

The exchange underscored procedural fault lines even as commissioners agreed to press forward. The CRC’s next meeting is expected to focus on several items raised during the June 30 discussion, including term limits, the structure of the board of finance and ethics language.