Residents urge Danbury City Council to send charter revisions — including four-year terms and Town Clerk changes — to voters

Council President P. Buzaid opened a public hearing on July 16 on a draft report from the Charter Revision Commission and invited public comment. Dozens of residents spoke, with many urging the City Council to submit proposed amendments to the voters rather than deciding them in-house.

The hearing collected repeated calls for longer elected terms, changes to the Town Clerk’s status, and stronger oversight. Roberto Alves, a resident, told the council he wanted voters to have "the opportunity to vote on these amendments," saying a 'No' vote would remove residents' opportunity to approve the document. Several speakers, including Jan Marie Jagush and Mark Stanton, said four-year terms would allow officeholders time to learn and perform their duties.

Opinion divided over the Town Clerk. Multiple speakers, including Mary Tahan and Paul Bomba, supported reclassifying the Town Clerk as an appointed position to provide continuity; others, including Rob Melillo reading a letter from former Town Clerk Jan Giegler and Debbie Rizzo, argued the clerk should remain elected or be placed under Civil Service to preserve voter accountability and prevent politicized removals. Assistant Town Clerk Jennifer Dorin explicitly raised concerns about the proposed Town Clerk language and urged safeguards to prevent frequent turnover.

Process and power were recurring themes. Several residents (Karen Palanzo, Lynn Waller, Randall Michael) said the revision process felt rushed and that many commission recommendations were not addressed; Palanzo urged adding a Board of Ethics. Requests for transparency included calls for the council to have access to Board of Education financial records (raised by George Olochley) and criticism that certain provisions could concentrate power in the mayor's office.

Other items raised during public comment included concerns about public safety (Melody Derike), minority representation (Gary Simone), referendum thresholds (a cited 10% requirement that speakers described as too high, not further specified in the record), staggered BOE terms, and language clarity (including worry over use of 'shall' in new BOE provisions).

After public comment closed, Council member Chianese moved, and Council member Rotello seconded, a motion to close the public hearing; the motion carried unanimously. Council member Wallace-Smith then moved (seconded by Council member Gartner) to adjourn; that motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.

The Charter Revision Commission's draft and public comments will remain part of the record as the council considers whether to refer specific amendments to a public referendum or take other action.