Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chapter 8 Conflicts Employees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury panel debates striking employee-retention clause and cross-referencing Board of Ethics in Charter
Summary
Commissioners reviewed Chapter 8 red‑line language including a request from the Mayor’s Office to remove Sec. 8‑2 (retention of present employees), discussed gender‑neutral conflict‑of‑interest language and linking the Charter to the city’s Board of Ethics, and deferred mayoral requests for a future meeting.
The Charter Revision Commission reviewed several Chapter 8 provisions on May 27, including a Mayor’s Office request to strike language that would guarantee present employees retain positions and discussion of conflicts‑of‑interest language.
Chair Joseph W. Britton reported that the Mayor’s Office asked the commission to remove Sec. 8‑2 (Present Employees to Retain Positions); he said mayoral representatives would be invited to the next meeting to explain the request. Commissioner Glenda M. Armstrong asked who reviews and determines conflicts of interest; Corporation Counsel Dan Casagrande explained that the Charter provides guidelines while the City’s Code of Ordinances and the Board of Ethics address enforcement and additional detail.
On Sec. 8‑3 the commission requested that language be made gender neutral and discussed adding a cross‑reference so the Charter would state that the City’s Board of Ethics provisions in the Code apply to Charter conflicts-of-interest rules; counsel suggested drafting a subsection to that effect. Commissioner Isabel C. Almeida asked for clarification of a subsection related to gifts and whether exceptions should be removed; counsel said the reference to the Board of Ethics would allow consistent application and further clarification.
The commission also reviewed provisions on transfer of records and property (Sec. 8‑4), legal proceedings (Sec. 8‑5), retirement of municipal employees (Sec. 8‑8) and the periodic charter review schedule (Sec. 8‑10). Members noted that the current draft uses “at least” in the schedule language, which permits charter review sooner than a strict ten‑year interval.
No final changes were adopted at the meeting; commissioners asked legal counsel to draft proposed text (including a suggested subsection referencing the Board of Ethics) and to present mayoral representatives at a subsequent session.
