Danbury charter panel weighs formal application process, residency requirement and ethics linkage for boards

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission on May 27 heard a public call for clearer rules on appointments to city boards and commissions and discussed whether the Charter should require residency for appointees.

Michael Henry, identified in the record as a City Council member, urged the commission to adopt “an application process for selecting and appointing members to Boards and Commissions,” to create oversight for filling vacancies and confirming that commissions remain active, and to consider establishing a Board of Ethics and reviewing term lengths and limits.

Commissioners said those issues overlap with the commission’s review of Chapter 5 (Appointed Boards and Commissions). Commissioner Isabel C. Almeida said a residency clause had been discussed previously and asked legal counsel to provide possible language; she and Commissioner Joseph G. Putnam said they supported considering such a requirement and asked staff for the current count of non‑resident appointees.

Chair Joseph W. Britton said changes to the appointment process might best be addressed during the commission’s review of executive functions, noting that appointments are subject to City Council approval under Sec. 4‑1. Corporation Counsel Dan Casagrande confirmed that some boards are established by state statute while other bodies are covered by a catch‑all provision in Sec. 5‑4.

Commissioners also debated how much detail to include in the Charter itself versus publishing commission purposes or background information on the city website, with Commissioner Glenda M. Armstrong urging clearer, reader‑friendly presentation.

The commission did not adopt binding language at the meeting; members requested draft legal language and data on non‑resident appointees for a future session. The meeting record shows the item will return for further discussion.