Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury residents press commission to slow charter revision, citing lack of notice and scrutiny
Summary
Dozens of Danbury residents told the Charter Revision Commission on June 25 that the proposed charter is being rushed and lacked sufficient public notice, urging broader outreach and clearer analysis of major changes including mayoral term length, town clerk selection, and school-finance language.
Dozens of Danbury residents urged the Charter Revision Commission on June 25 to slow its work on a proposed city charter, saying the draft was rushed, poorly publicized and lacked sufficient opportunity for meaningful public input.
At a public hearing in City Hall, Kevin Guidotti, who gave his Danbury address for the record, asked the commission to "slow the process" and broaden engagement, saying a city charter "defines how power is distributed" and should be shaped "through the process that truly belongs to the people." Michael Coelho, a city councilman who spoke as an elected official, told the commission substantial revisions should meet three tests: transparency, public participation and accountability.
Why it matters: The charter is Danbury’s foundational governing document. Commenters said changes that appear procedural — from how the town clerk is selected to how large borrowing decisions are made — have substantive effects on who holds power and how residents hold officials to account.
Several speakers said they had not seen adequate advance notice of changes or of public meetings. Lynn Waller said she learned about the hearing only by watching meetings online after the fact and urged clearer, earlier public notice. Others asked for more documentation of the commission’s rationale, supporting data, and a fuller record of pros and cons before changes move to a referendum.
Speakers also asked the commission for targeted clarifications: make explicit whether reference to "citizens and residents" in the preamble is meant to apply specifically to Danbury; explain the process and timeline for referenda-signature collection (several speakers said a 10% threshold in 30 days is unrealistic); and clarify how frequently the mayor may exercise new borrowing authority included in the draft.
The hearing closed without the commission taking policy votes on the text. Chairman Britton recorded a unanimous voice vote to close the public hearing and later to adjourn the session; the chair announced a five‑minute break before the body’s regular meeting.
What happens next: Commissioners did not announce a change of schedule during the hearing; the record of public comment will be part of the commission's record as it finalizes recommendations that may go to a November ballot.
