I disagree with the Sentinel editorial board’s January 29, 2026, editorial, “What Works,” which relies heavily on comments made by Selectman Steve Karl before the Charter Revision Commission. The editorial argues for restraint and continuity, yet it does not meaningfully address a series of governance and oversight concerns that have prompted residents to call for charter review, including recent developments involving fiscal oversight and internal controls.
In remarks cited by the editorial, Karl told the Charter Revision Commission, “Let those who seek revision provide evidence of failure. In the absence of that, stewardship requires restraint.” That framing assumes the current charter remains well suited to a town whose size, budget, and operational complexity have changed substantially since the charter’s adoption in 1935. Historical continuity alone does not establish present effectiveness.
The editorial accurately notes the age of the charter but treats longevity as evidence of success rather than as a reason for reassessment. New Canaan today bears little resemblance to the town governed under a $22,600 annual budget and a population of roughly 5,400 residents. A municipal framework designed for a small town in the early twentieth century warrants examination to determine whether it continues to provide sufficient accountability, transparency, and fiscal oversight for a much larger municipality.
The editorial further quotes Karl as stating before the Charter Revision Commission that “of the 169 towns in Connecticut the overwhelming majority would exchange their charter for New Canaan’s without hesitation.” That assertion is presented without supporting evidence. Many Connecticut municipalities have adopted governance structures that include elected boards of finance, elected planning and zoning commissions, voter approval of school budgets, and direct oversight of major expenditures. Those structures reflect deliberate choices by local electorates seeking broader participation and accountability.
The editorial highlights the creation of the Audit Committee and the Board of Ethics as evidence that the current system works. Both bodies, however, are appointed by, confirmed by, and report to the Board of Selectmen. While such boards may operate in good faith, their structural dependence on the same authority they review raises legitimate questions about independence. The recent resignation of the Audit Committee chair has only heightened those concerns.
That resignation has raised questions among residents about the independence of the town’s audit function, the handling of internal control findings, and whether unresolved governance issues could affect New Canaan’s financial standing, including its A+ bond rating. I also have questions about municipal health insurance costs, including a reported $31 million difference in spending compared with the Town of Darien over a multi-year period, despite Darien having more residents and municipal employees. Those questions were compounded by the resignation of Rob Fryer, which some have cited in connection with concerns about health care costs and financial oversight.
Those of us advocating for charter revision have raised concerns about fiscal oversight, transparency, and accountability. These include questions about long-term debt, the relationship between assessed property values and tax burdens, and the role of appointed boards in reviewing significant financial decisions. They have also pointed to procurement practices and major municipal transactions as areas where clearer oversight and public reporting could strengthen public trust. These concerns are presented as matters for review, not as settled conclusions.
Questions regarding internal controls and procurement oversight, including the authority and independence of the Audit Committee, underscore the need for a rigorous and independent review process. When such concerns arise alongside resignations from key oversight roles, they merit examination rather than dismissal.
The Charter Revision Commission exists to evaluate whether the town’s governing document continues to serve us effectively. Efforts by elected officials to influence that process, even indirectly, risk compromising its independence. A review process that presumes the charter is beyond question undermines its purpose.
New Canaan’s charter has endured for nearly ninety years. Longevity, however, is not a substitute for evaluation. Other Connecticut towns have revised their charters in response to growth, fiscal pressures, and evolving expectations of transparency and accountability. New Canaan should be willing to undertake the same examination.
Residents calling for charter revision have raised concerns they believe warrant careful review. Stewardship requires restraint. It also requires the willingness to confront unresolved questions when they bear directly on fiscal integrity, public confidence, and the town’s future.
Roy Abramowitz
