Charter Commission Grapples With Term Limits, Finance Board Eligibility
By Peter Barhydt
The Charter Revision Commission (CRC) pressed forward this week with a series of consequential — and at times contentious — decisions, narrowing in on term limits, eligibility requirements for the Board of Finance, and structural questions that could shape town governance for years to come.
Meeting under a tight timeline to finalize its report, the CRC approved some changes, rejected others, and left several complex issues unresolved.
At the center of debate was a proposal to remove the requirement that Board of Finance members be property owners in New Canaan. The change would have aligned this board with other elected and appointed bodies, which require only that members be electors.
Supporters of eliminating the property ownership requirement argued that the rule is outdated and fundamentally exclusionary.
“I believe that it’s discriminatory,” said Angela Jameson, who supported removing the requirement. “We have two classes of residents here — property owners and renters.”
Those wanting to retain the exclusion countered that voters had already weighed in on the issue a decade ago, and that property ownership reflects a direct financial stake in tax decisions.
“I think the voters have spoken,” said Chairman Kathleen Corbet, noting the issue had been rejected previously at the ballot box.
The proposal ultimately failed by a wide margin, with only three members in favor and seven opposed. Among those voting to retain the exclusion of non-property owners were Kathleen Corbet and former First Selectman Judy Neville.
Term Limits Advance — With Conditions
The CRC also continued refining a newly adopted policy imposing term limits on appointed boards and commissions.
Members previously agreed to cap service at 12 consecutive years. This week, they approved additional language clarifying how that limit would work in practice.
Under the proposal, members who reach the 12-year limit mid-term may finish their current term. Afterward, they must step away for a full term before being eligible for reappointment.
The measure passed, though not unanimously, reflecting lingering disagreement about how long former members should remain off boards before returning.
Debate Over “Beneficial Ownership”
After rejecting the broader change to Board of Finance eligibility, commissioners briefly explored a narrower alternative — redefining “property ownership” to include beneficial ownership through trusts or LLCs.
But the idea quickly ran into complications, with members warning that legal definitions could be unclear and potentially create unintended loopholes.
“I think we need more work in order to define that,” one commissioner said, urging caution before revising the language.
No formal action was taken on that concept.
Parking Policy Sparks Broader Questions
While much of the meeting focused on technical charter language, discussion of the Parking Commission revealed broader tensions about decision-making authority in town government.
Commissioners ultimately voted to keep existing charter language governing parking largely unchanged, despite recent controversy over downtown parking policies.
Still, the conversation exposed deeper concerns about land use, authority and process — particularly when it comes to major projects like potential redevelopment of town-owned parking lots.
“We cannot legislate in the charter that appointed bodies do what they’re supposed to do,” Jameson said, cautioning against overcomplicating governance structures.
Audit Oversight and Governance Structure Still Unsettled
Another unresolved issue is whether the Audit Committee — potentially renamed the “Audit Board” — should be appointed solely by the Town Council rather than jointly with the Board of Selectmen.
Some commissioners argued that greater independence is essential, particularly given the committee’s role in reviewing financial operations.
Others pushed back, noting that the current “checks and balances” system already involves both elected bodies.
The CRC tabled the issue for further discussion.
Next Steps
With multiple sections still under review — including police, fire, ethics, and planning and zoning — the CRC faces a compressed schedule to finalize recommendations.
Chair Corbet emphasized this urgency at the outset of the meeting.
“This is the first of four meetings we have to finish this report,” she said.
The CRC is expected to continue deliberations in upcoming sessions, with several key votes still ahead.
