By Peter Barhydt
The Charter Revision Commission (CRC) continued its review of proposed changes to the town charter Tuesday, approving recommendations regarding appointment procedures and oversight requirements, while engaging in extended discussion over eligibility rules for the Board of Finance and other governance issues.
The CRC met in a special session prior to a public hearing at Town Hall as it works toward a May 4 deadline to submit its draft report to the Town Council.
Planning and Zoning Confirmation Requirement Approved
CRC members voted to expand Town Council confirmation requirements to include appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Under the approved change, appointments to Planning and Zoning would require Town Council confirmation, joining the Board of Finance, Ethics Board and Audit Committee.
The vote followed discussion about whether additional oversight is appropriate for boards with significant regulatory authority.
“I think that it adds another balance and also put some other accountability,” member said.
The motion passed with nine votes in favor and two opposed.
Broader Appointment Transparency Proposal Fails
Earlier in the meeting, the CRC considered a broader proposal that would have required all vacancies on boards and commissions to be posted publicly, with a formal application and review process.
The proposed language stated that vacancies “shall be posted on the town website to allow electors to apply,” with the Board of Selectmen reviewing and voting on applicants at a public meeting.
Commissioners expressed differing views on whether such a change was necessary.
“I don’t think it’s necessary,” Commissioner Angela Jameson said. “I don’t see what the real problem is that we’re seeking to solve here.”
Vice Chair Judy Neville also questioned the effectiveness of the proposal, stating, “I think it takes more than having a vote by the town council to make a difference.”
The proposal failed by a vote of 6–5.
Vacancy Deadline Requirement Adopted
The CRC approved a separate provision requiring the Board of Selectmen to fill vacancies on appointed boards within 180 days.
Members said the measure is intended to prevent situations in which boards or commissions are unable to operate due to unfilled seats.
“The point why this is in here is … if you’re not doing it, then you’re going to lose the ability to do it,” one member said.
The final language states that the Board of Selectmen “shall fill any appointed position within 180 days.”
Board of Finance Eligibility Requirement Examined
A significant portion of the meeting focused on whether to retain a longstanding charter requirement that members of the Board of Finance must own property in New Canaan.
The requirement has historically limited eligibility for the Board of Finance to people who own real property in town, reflecting a perceived connection between property ownership and financial oversight responsibilities.
Commissioners discussed whether the requirement remains appropriate given current conditions, including the presence of renters and residents whose financial stake in the town may not be tied to property ownership.
“I do think it is discriminatory to say that you can’t be on the board of finance unless you own a home or a commercial property,” Jameson said. She added that renters contribute to the tax base indirectly and “have skin in the game.”
Other members raised concerns that the requirement may exclude qualified individuals who are otherwise engaged in town affairs.
“We just preclude a lot of talented people from being there because there are so many intelligent people that don’t have properties in their name,” one commissioner said.
The discussion also addressed complexities in defining property ownership, particularly in cases involving trusts or shared ownership structures.
One member noted that some properties are held in trusts or under a spouse’s name for liability or financial planning purposes, raising questions about how eligibility would be determined under the current rule.
Another commissioner said the issue could be legally complex, noting that ownership structures vary and may not align neatly with the charter’s language.
“I think there’s a very complicated issue,” the member said. “I think there’s a lot we need to say.”
Supporters of maintaining the requirement noted its historical role in tying financial decision-making to individuals directly affected by property taxation. The Board of Finance is responsible for reviewing budgets, setting financial policies and making recommendations related to taxation and expenditures.
The commission did not take a final vote on the requirement and is expected to revisit the issue as part of its ongoing review of charter.
Public Hearing Raises Governance and Oversight Issues
During the public hearing, residents and elected officials addressed broader governance issues, including the roles of boards and commissions and the structure of decision-making processes.
Town Council member Kim Norton spoke about the Parking Commission, urging the CRC to retain detailed procedural requirements governing its role.
“The [parking] commission is not just advisory in spirit. It is a safeguard,” Norton said.
Norton said the current charter establishes a multi-step process involving the Parking Commission, Board of Selectmen and Police Commission for reviewing parking-related decisions.
Christina Ross, also a Town Council member, raised concerns about clarity in governance structure.
“There has to be a clear definition of who reports to who and the description on what the role is,” Ross said.
Ross said clearer definitions could help prevent confusion about authority and responsibilities.
Additional Proposals Presented
Maria Naughton proposed requiring the Board of Education to provide an annual certification confirming compliance with state statutes, policies and bylaws.
“It would provide a level of assurance that policies, bylaws and state statutes are understood and are being followed,” Naughton said.
Naughton also recommended maintaining the existing structure and responsibilities of the Parking Commission.
Recall Proposal Not Advanced
The CRC discussed the possibility of creating a recall or removal mechanism for elected officials, but chose not to pursue the proposal.
Legal counsel said there is no explicit state statute governing such mechanisms and that approaches vary among municipalities.
Members expressed concern about complexity and potential unintended consequences.
“I think we’ll never get through this,” one commissioner said.
Next Steps
The CRC will continue reviewing draft language and incorporating public feedback in upcoming meetings.
A revised draft report is expected to be released, with additional votes anticipated before the report is submitted to the Town Council.
