Danbury public hearing draws divided views on charter revisions; supporters urge voters decide, critics warn of centralizing power

Dozens of Danbury residents spoke at a Committee of the Whole public hearing on the Charter Revision Commission's draft, and speakers remained split over whether the council should forward the package to a public vote or send it back for more changes.

Chairman Peter Bizaid opened the hearing and recognized the mayor, who asked the council to allow Danbury voters to decide the proposed changes at the ballot box. "What I'm asking you to do is to give the Danbury public the opportunity to vote yes or no on this charter revision," Roberto Alves said, arguing a council 'no' would deny residents that choice.

Proponents said the draft would modernize city governance. Jan Maria Jagas told the council that moving mayoral and other elected terms from two to four years would provide stability for multiyear projects and free officials from near-constant campaigning. Several speakers, including Mary Keating Tahan and Jim Lapine, said the town clerk's duties are highly technical and favored an appointed position so a qualified professional could ensure continuity. Jagas also supported raising the charter's bonding threshold from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 "to reflect today's costs," saying routine projects should not be delayed by outdated limits.

Opponents countered that the draft centralizes executive power and reduces direct voter oversight. Ashley Fawn, a nonprofit founder, said language defining the mayor's chief of staff is too broad and could blur the boundary between coordination and executive authority: "Where does coordination end and executive authority begin?" Michelle Coelho, chair of the Danbury Republican Town Committee, warned that eliminating elections for certain offices would remove an important accountability check and cited roughly $18,000,000 in unspent funds to question financial transparency.

Board of Education oversight and student-privacy concerns also surfaced. Kate Kanetta and others said draft language that would grant broader access to district financial records could conflict with state law and federal student-privacy protections (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). Kanetta urged protecting the statutory separation between municipal government and the school board to avoid creating "legal gray spaces" that invite conflict.

Several speakers criticized the revision process itself. Karen Palanto, Paul McAllister (reading for another citizen), and others said they expected more thorough public documentation explaining why each change was proposed and argued the commission moved too quickly. Al Robinson and others asked for transparency about how commission members were selected, raising possible conflicts of interest.

No formal council vote on the charter occurred during the hearing. The chairman closed the public comment period after a final call for speakers; a motion to adjourn the Committee of the Whole was made and recorded in the meeting transcript with no roll-call vote on the motion itself.

What happens next: the council will determine whether to take up amendments to the commission's draft, forward the package to the ballot this November, or return the draft for additional review. Several speakers repeatedly urged the council to "let the people decide" by placing the revisions before Danbury voters.