New Canaan is considering revisions to its town charter, and it is a big deal. It really is. The charter is the constitutional architecture of municipal life — a governing document that affects how power is distributed, how decisions are made, and how accountability is enforced. The consequences of change are real and enduring. They will affect our daily life in large ways and small. The New Canaan Sentinel will offer a series of editorials in the coming months, scrutinizing both the charter itself and the work of the Charter Revision Commission (CRC), which has been tasked with this important undertaking. We welcome letters to the editor from readers, because self-government thrives only when the governed are alert and engaged.
To inaugurate this public conversation, we turn to the remarks of Selectman Steve Karl, who spoke at a CRC hearing on January 21. Mr. Karl — also a former chair of the Town Council, a businessman, and philanthropist — offered words of praise about prudent governance and institutional continuity. Novelty is too often mistaken for progress. Mr. Karl’s remarks (below in italics and lightly edited) are a bracing defense of a long-known wisdom: that what endures may do so because it works.
If you can imagine: A place with historically low taxes, premier public schools, education programming that’s second to none, and superior graduation rates that lead to the top colleges and universities in the country. Parks and open spaces that rival any in the state. Well-maintained sidewalks, streets and bridges. Well-funded and prioritized emergency services with both paid personnel and volunteers. A downtown that bustles with activity and is so beautiful that it looks like a Hollywood movie set. A vigorously protected look and feel of architecture that balances the needs of conservation with reasonable and thoughtful development. A place where you have annual community events and traditions that bring the community together including concerts, parades, caroling and fireworks. A place with an unprecedented level of philanthropic giving from its successful and extremely well-educated population, and a volunteer spirit that’s omnipresent in the local culture.
You would say to yourself, “Oh my God, where is this place? I would love to live there. I would do anything to live there!” And guess what? We live there every day. And we take it for granted.
There are 169 towns in Connecticut. The overwhelming majority would exchange their charter for New Canaan’s without hesitation. And yet, some now propose structural changes here, often citing what is done in other towns. But New Canaan’s success is not the result of mimicry. It reflects institutional design adapted to local expectations and sustained by disciplined governance.
Mr. Karl recalled the town’s founding in 1801 and the charter’s adoption in 1935. Those who crafted the framework understood what too many reformers forget: that power, once reallocated, resists recall. Today, the Board of Selectmen executes, the Town Council legislates, and the Board of Finance and Planning & Zoning oversee and safeguard. These roles are complementary and bounded. Together, they form a structure of accountability. To “modernize” this structure without a clear problem is to engage in speculative architecture.
Some propose electing boards currently appointed. That change would recalibrate incentives. Appointment favors expertise, continuity, and discretion. Elections favor visibility, mobilization, and often, grievance. Complex duties—zoning, budgeting, planning—do not benefit from political fashion or public theatrics. Electoral contests in such realms tend to elevate those most agitated, not most qualified.
A structural error embedded now cannot be easily reversed.
New Canaan’s charter has proven its adaptability. In recent years, it has accommodated the creation of an audit committee, a board of ethics, a blight review committee, and a local affordable housing body. These additions occurred within the existing framework—without displacing core institutions or inviting chaos.
Some technical updates may be required to bring the charter into compliance with current state and federal laws. These should be made. But they are refinements, not a rationale for overhaul.
Charters exist to channel power, not amplify it. Their purpose is to protect the public from whim, impulse, and opportunism. Where a governing document has delivered institutional balance, community cohesion, and effective service, the threshold for change must remain high.
Let those who seek revision offer evidence of failure. In the absence of that, stewardship demands restraint.
