Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Town Clerk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury residents and officials split over proposal to make town clerk an appointed position
Summary
Town clerk, board members and residents gave contrasting testimony at the June 25 hearing: the elected town clerk warned appointment could disrupt continuity while supporters said appointment would improve professionalization and operational stability.
The proposal to remove the town clerk as an elected office and make it an appointed, potentially civil‑service position drew sharply divided testimony at the Charter Revision Commission’s June 25 public hearing.
Laurie Esposito, the current town clerk, told the commission she had been elected twice and argued that two‑year terms leave little time for certification and continuity: "Two years isn't even enough time to become certified," she said, urging the commission to be mindful of staff disruption if the selection method changes. Esposito asked commissioners to consider how vague charter language could affect the office’s ability to serve residents and preserve records.
Opposing Esposito, Diane Lapine said she supports changing the clerk to an appointed or permanent city‑hall position because of the job’s complexity and need for continuity. Lou Giordano and other speakers argued appointment could ensure the office is filled based on professional qualifications rather than electoral politics.
Ryan Hawley, a city councilman speaking as a private citizen, criticized removing the elected clerk: he warned of a structural conflict if the mayor controlled an office that certifies absentee ballots, candidate petitions and campaign filings. Hawley cited benchmarking data and the clerk’s financial output in arguing for retaining an elected clerk: "These records belong to the people, not to City Hall," he said.
Why it matters: The town clerk administers elections, maintains permanent records and issues licenses; how the post is filled affects perceived independence and administrative continuity. Speakers proposed alternatives: keep the office elected, make it appointed but civil‑service, or retain an elected model but extend term length.
Next steps: Commenters urged the commission to clarify statutory duties in the charter text and to specify safeguards if the office becomes appointed, including council approval or civil‑service protections.
