Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Revision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Danbury council votes to open Charter Revision Commission after heated debate over nominations
Summary
After hours of public comment and council discussion about notice and potential conflicts, the City Council voted 17–4 to open a Charter Revision Commission and accept a nine-member slate the mayor proposed; opponents raised concerns that the mayor's list favored political allies.
The Danbury City Council voted on April 7 to open a Charter Revision Commission, setting in motion a process that will allow a nine-member panel to review and propose changes to the city charter.
Council President Peter Busey (S18) presented the ad hoc committee's report and the mayor's proposed list of nine nominees. Several council members publicly questioned the process and the composition of the slate.
"Tonight, we're presented with a list of nine people, which is .01% of the city's population," Councilwoman Faye (S14) said, adding that the mayor's selections appeared "handpicked" and raised concerns about political allegiance and conflicts of interest. She urged greater transparency and questioned whether the mayor's slate complied with state statute limits on public-office holders serving on commissions.
Councilman Rotello (S13) defended opening the charter for consideration. "If it is a living document, it has a life. It has an existence," he said, urging the council to allow the process to proceed so voters would ultimately weigh any changes.
Corporation counsel Michael Casagrande (S36) told the council he was not aware of any legal impediment to presenting the slate to the ad hoc committee and then to the council for consideration. "In my opinion, yes," he said when asked whether the ad hoc meeting had been properly noticed.
The meeting featured repeated procedural motions: members asked for ad hoc referrals, a split of the resolution into separate questions and, after an initial voice vote with disagreement about whether to call a formal roll call, a motion to reconsider that allowed for a roll-call vote. On the final roll-call count the chair announced the motion carried 17 in favor and 4 opposed.
Opponents said they would continue to press for transparency as the commission organizes; proponents said the ad hoc process and public hearings will provide further opportunities for input.
The council did not adopt charter changes at the meeting; the motion approved only creates the Charter Revision Commission and appoints a slate of nominees to begin the commission's work and hold public hearings before reporting back to the council.
