By Peter Barhydt
Charter Revision Commission subcommittee hears from superintendent, begins drafting framework on elected vs. appointed boards
The Charter Revision Commission’s Group 1 subcommittee met Jan. 14 at Town Hall for a special meeting that combined an interview with New Canaan Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Bryan Luizzi and with a detailed discussion on how the commission should frame the question of elected versus appointed boards and commissions.
Superintendent: current BOE structure “works very well”
The main portion of the meeting was hearing from with Dr. Luizzi focused on how the town charter intersects with the Board of Education (BOE) and school operations. Luizzi told commissioners that charter language relating to the BOE is intentionally limited because the BOE operates under its own bylaws, but the charter still plays a central role in setting terms, elections, and parts of the budget process.
Luizzi said New Canaan’s four-year BOE terms are appropriate because it takes time for members to understand the work. He also said the current nine-member BOE is the right size, noting that the board’s committee structure generally uses three committees with three members each, a configuration that fits a nine-member board.
On the budget process, Luizzi described what he called a well-functioning division of responsibilities among boards. He said New Canaan benefits when each body stays within its role: the BOE focuses on what is educationally responsible, the Board of Finance evaluates affordability, the Town Council acts as the legislative body, and the Board of Selectmen has a key role on capital planning.
He also addressed how capital and operating budgets move through town review. In practice, he said, the BOE develops both budgets and presents them together, while the Board of Selectmen’s first major entry point is the capital budget. He pointed to cases where capital items may shift during review — for example, paving projects that can move into the Department of Public Works budget if it results in savings or better coordination.
Luizzi said the town’s ability to act as purchasing agent for the BOE can also reduce costs, and he cautioned against changes that could blur responsibilities among boards and create conflict during budget review.
Vacancy rule: charter language not aligned with state statute
One of Luizzi’s specific suggestions was to align the charter’s BOE vacancy provision with state law. Commissioners discussed the fact that the charter references a 90-day period for filling a BOE vacancy, while state statute provides a 30-day rule for municipalities.
Luizzi said the discrepancy could create confusion and potential challenges if a vacancy is not filled promptly. He cited prior guidance from counsel that the town should follow the 30-day statute to avoid conflict between local language and state law. Commissioners discussed that, under the statute, if the BOE does not fill a vacancy within 30 days, the First Selectman may fill the seat. They also reviewed how the 30-day clock begins once a written resignation is received by the Town Clerk.
Several commissioners supported cleaning up the inconsistency in order for the charter, BOE bylaws, and state statute match.
Term limits and elections
Dr. Luizzi was asked about term limits and whether the town’s current elected BOE model presents governance issues.
Luizzi said he is generally not in favor of term limits for BOE members, arguing that forced turnover can drain institutional knowledge and make it harder to recruit qualified candidates willing to do the work. He noted that New Canaan’s BOE chair has a two-year leadership term limit but said the board has waived that limit at times when continuity made sense. In general, commissioners noted that two BOE terms — roughly eight years — appears to be a common length of service.
Luizzi said he sees value in the election process for the BOE and said New Canaan’s structure has supported stable relationships and effective oversight. He contrasted New Canaan’s four-year terms with districts that use shorter terms, which he said can make it harder to build working relationships and develop expertise.
AI and donations: governance questions raised
Commissioners also asked whether artificial intelligence (AI) should be addressed in the charter. Luizzi said AI is a major operational and instructional topic in education, but he did not identify an obvious entry point for AI-specific charter language. He suggested the issue is more naturally handled through administrative responsibilities and BOE bylaws, including expectations that district leadership stay current on new technology and its impacts.
Another topic was governance and audit trails for donations and scholarships. Luizzi described the New Canaan Scholarship Association as an independent 501(c)(3) organization with separate governance and annual audits shared with the school district for review. He also said the district receives roughly $500,000 to $600,000 in donations annually, including about $200,000 from the All Sports Booster Club, and that donations above set thresholds are subject to BOE approval under policy. He said donation funds are tracked, reported, and audited as part of district financial controls.
“Appointed vs. elected” framework: debate over tone and specificity
After the interview, members returned to the ongoing “theme-based” document it is drafting to help the full Charter Revision Commission consider appointed versus elected boards and commissions.
The discussion was a long, paragraph-by-paragraph review focused on word choice and neutrality. Commissioners debated whether the framework should be general or tied closely to New Canaan’s current structure. Several participants emphasized that the intended audience is other CRC members — particularly groups 2 and 3 — and that the document should be balanced, avoiding language that implicitly argues for one model.
A central concern was how to describe accountability. Commissioners discussed whether appointed officials should be described as “indirectly accountable” to voters and whether that phrasing implies reduced accountability. They ultimately leaned toward language stating that elected officials are directly accountable to the electorate, while appointed officials are accountable through the elected officials who appoint them.
Commissioners also discussed whether to include statistics about how many boards are elected versus appointed, with concerns raised that quantitative comparisons could skew interpretation. The group generally agreed to keep descriptions qualitative and avoid statements that could invite fact-checking or appear directional.
They also debated examples and references to other towns, ultimately favoring a narrower approach that avoids broad claims about regional governance models.
Group 1 ended the meeting with agreement to continue working through the framework at its next session, including discussion of elected boards and commissions, and to continue developing suggested edits to Article 1 of the charter.
