Charter panel votes to end property test for finance board seats

Other Committee · Meeting of July 7, 2026

New Canaan charter panel votes to drop property rule for finance board, keeps term limits alive on a tie. The Charter Revision Commission voted 6-5 to recommend striking the decades-old requirement that Board of Finance members own real estate, with commissioner Karen Willet's motion carrying over objections from Bill and Judy about LLC and trust ownership. Commissioner Steve Case called the rule unfair, saying "it's just a question of transparency and fairness." Immediately after, commissioner Joe Paulo argued the vote was procedurally invalid under Robert's Rules of Order, requiring a supermajority the 6-5 tally did not reach — a dispute left unresolved.

A separate motion to drop a proposed 12-year term-limit rule failed 5-5, with commissioner Todd Lampert absent, leaving the term-limit recommendation intact. The commission also voted 7-2 to recommend making town officers "accountable to the first selectman" and scheduled a special Zoom vote for Thursday, July 9, at 5 p.m. to finalize its report before sending it to the Town Council.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 3,021 words

Source: the Other Committee meeting of July 7, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Minutes and Preliminary Matters

The commission opened with a roll call showing all eleven members present, then briefly took up minutes from its June 30 regular meeting. One commissioner said they had submitted a written correction noting that comments from several Town Council members who spoke at that meeting were substantive and should be fully reflected in the minutes rather than summarized or omitted; another member said they had additional edits but had not yet finished them. The chair asked that all corrections be routed to the commission's secretary, identified in the discussion as Angela, for review at the panel's next meeting. No vote was taken on the minutes.

C2-16: Administrative Policy Accountability Language

Background and stakes: The provision, part of what the commission calls charter section 2-16, governs the "applicability of administrative policies" set by the first selectman's office and has gone through several drafts over the commission's roughly nine months of work. Town Council Chairman Mike Morrow had suggested the item was substantive enough that it should be pulled out as its own ballot question rather than folded into a broader "technical and conforming" catch-all. Town Council member Kim Norton raised similar concerns in a written communication to the commission.

The question before the body: whether to adopt updated ballot language for chapter 2-16 and vote on it as a standalone recommendation.

Substantive content: The draft, found on page 36 of the report, applies to "all elected and appointed town officers" with managerial responsibility over town employees. Commissioner Joe Paulo told the panel the draft as written omitted "one of the most important operative pieces" of the provision — that covered officers are "accountable to the first selectman" — and that this language needed to be folded into the paragraph rather than left as a separate afterthought. He also raised, on behalf of Morrow, a concern about how the provision interacts with union and collective-bargaining contracts; the commission's chair said Human Resources Director Cheryl Jones had already discussed that concern directly with Morrow. Commissioner Karen Willet backed adding language that the policy should not interfere with an elected official's duties. Commissioner Judy pressed on a different concern: whether the provision, by referring broadly to "employees," improperly conflates department heads with rank-and-file union employees, potentially straining labor relations.

The deliberation: The commission's outside counsel — identified during the meeting only as Nick — told members the provision was a lawful exercise of the first selectman's role as the town's chief administrative and executive officer under state law, so long as any resulting policy did not infringe on a statutory power expressly granted to an elected official. "To our knowledge there are no elected or appointed officers who are party to a union or labor contract," he said, adding that he had checked with his law partner, identified as Chris Hodgson, the firm's primary labor attorney for the town. Paulo asked the group to swap the word "diminish" for "infringe" in the final sentence; the attorney said he was comfortable with "diminish" as drafted, calling the distinction "semantics."

Procedural steps and outcome: Commissioner Chris Lee moved to adopt the C2-16 recommendation with the added "accountable to the first selectman" and "shall not diminish" language; Steve Case seconded. On a roll-call vote — required, members said, because the meeting was conducted in hybrid format — the motion carried 7-2 with two abstentions. Commissioners Case, Corbett, Jameson, Kimes, Lampert, Lee and Willet voted yes; Holm and Paulo voted no; Neville and Peret abstained.

Implications and what is next: The recommendation, along with its supporting rationale, will be forwarded to the Town Council as one of the commission's seven proposed ballot items, with the exact ballot wording left to the council.

Board of Finance Real Estate Taxpayer Requirement

Background and stakes: New Canaan's charter has required Board of Finance members to be "electors and real estate taxpayers" for what commissioners said was roughly 91 years, based on a charter provision they traced to about 1935. The same question was put to voters roughly a decade ago using nearly identical language and was rejected by voters at that time, according to commissioners' recollection. The issue resurfaced this year after debate in the community, including opinion pieces in the New Canaan Sentinel, and after commissioners received a legal opinion they said came from the firm Berchem Moses (rendered in the meeting audio as "Burch and Moses").

The question before the body: whether to recommend removing the real estate-taxpayer requirement for Board of Finance members and to formally strike the words "and taxpayers" from charter section 5-1.

Substantive content: Commissioners noted that Board of Finance members are currently the only town board or commission members required to own real estate, and that the charter language does not address indirect ownership through an LLC or trust, or the position of renters. One commissioner argued that a court would likely find the requirement unconstitutional, citing the Berchem Moses opinion; another cited data compiled by the commission showing 64 Connecticut towns without home-rule charters are statutorily required to apply a property requirement only to alternate members, not regular members, of certain boards — a distinction commissioners called "odd."

The deliberation: Commissioner Karen Willet moved "to amend the town charter such that members of the Board of Finance will no longer be required to be real estate taxpayers" and to strike "and taxpayers" from section 5-1, sending the change to the ballot; Russ Kimes seconded. Commissioner Steve Case said the current rule amounts to "singling out" the Board of Finance unfairly. "It's just a question of transparency and fairness," Case said. Commissioner Bill argued the panel kept "sidestepping" a more fundamental question raised repeatedly by commissioner Todd Lampert — how to treat people who hold property indirectly through LLCs, trusts or other legal structures — and said voters deserved "the complete story rather than just part" of it before deciding again. Commissioner Judy said she did not want the underlying charter text changed but was comfortable letting voters decide, prompting a lengthy exchange over whether the two questions — changing the charter draft versus sending the question to a ballot — could be separated procedurally. Joe Paulo objected to a draft sentence framing the change as being "in order to be consistent with" other boards, calling it a "narrative or selling point" that should be removed since no other ballot item carries similar supporting language.

"I don't like straw polls. I think we should vote this," commissioner Chris Lee said at one point during a related procedural exchange, underscoring the panel's preference for recorded roll-call votes over informal sense-of-the-room polling throughout the meeting.

Procedural steps and outcome: On the roll call, Case, Corbett, Jameson, Kimes, Lampert and Willet voted yes; Holm, Lee, Neville, Paulo and Peret voted no. The motion carried, 6-5, meaning the charter draft was amended to strike "and taxpayers" from section 5-1 and the change will go forward as a recommended ballot item.

Immediately afterward, Paulo raised a procedural objection: he argued the motion had effectively revisited — without formal notice of a revote — an issue the commission had voted on earlier in its nine-month process, and that under Robert's Rules of Order an unnoticed revote requires a two-thirds supermajority, which the 6-5 result did not reach. "While the vote is six-five, it fails," Paulo said. The commission's attorney pushed back, saying the item had been publicly identified as a topic for further discussion at the panel's June 18 meeting and that the draft report itself flagged it as pending. Commissioners went back and forth over whether the earlier vote and Tuesday's vote addressed "one and the same" question or two distinct ones — the underlying charter language versus whether to place it on the ballot — without reaching a clear resolution on the record. The attorney later added, in response to a related question about a simple-majority-versus-supermajority rule, that a matter raised with prior notice requires only a simple majority, while an unnoticed revote requires two-thirds; he did not issue a final ruling on which standard applied here.

Implications and what is next: Barring further action, the recommendation to remove the real estate-taxpayer requirement — Connecticut's charter commissions call such recommendations proposed "amendments" — moves forward as a ballot question for the Town Council to consider, though the Robert's Rules dispute Paulo raised was not formally closed out during the meeting.

Term Limits: A Contested Revote

Background and stakes: The commission had previously voted, in a session members placed on or around April 5 or 6, to include a recommendation capping most appointed and elected board and commission service at 12 consecutive years, including time served as an alternate. That earlier vote carried 6-4, with one member absent. Since then, commissioners said they had heard extensive Town Council debate on the subject — including opposition from seven of the council's 12 members — plus testimony from residents and a suggestion from Town Council member Eric Tunum that helped shape a clarifying addition to the draft language.

The question before the body: whether to revisit and strike the term-limits recommendation from the final report.

Substantive content: The draft language specifies that the 12 consecutive years include time served as an alternate as well as a regular member of an appointed board, commission or committee — an addition the commission's chair called the "Eric Nolles edition," clarifying that the clock starts whenever a person is first appointed, regardless of title. Commissioner Jennifer had earlier told the panel, in a prior discussion referenced Tuesday, that the term-limit clock begins on the date someone starts as an alternate, not when they become a regular member.

The deliberation: One commissioner said she had changed her position after hearing the council's debate and asked to defer any revote to the panel's next meeting, July 13, when she hoped a full commission would be present; she noted that when the original 6-4 vote was taken, one member had been absent. Commissioner Bill objected forcefully to reopening the question at all, saying the commission had already studied the issue, taken testimony and voted, and questioning why individual Town Council members' private feedback should trigger a new vote. "We voted on this. We've been through this," he said. Commissioner Russ Kimes countered that conferring with the town's appointing authority and revisiting recommendations based on its feedback is squarely part of the commission's statutory role. The commission's attorney agreed: "That's one hundred percent correct... it's right in the language of the statute itself. The commission shall confer with the appointing authority concerning any such recommendations." Commissioner Chris Lee said he opposed taking an informal straw poll on the question and moved instead for a formal vote to strike the term-limit recommendation from the report.

Procedural steps and outcome: On the roll call, Corbett, Jameson, Kimes, Lee and Willet voted yes to strike the term-limit language; Case, Holm, Neville, Paulo and Peret voted no. Commissioner Todd Lampert had left the meeting for another commitment before the vote and was recorded absent. The motion failed on a 5-5 tie, meaning the term-limit recommendation remains in the draft report.

Implications and what is next: Unless revisited again before the report is finalized, New Canaan voters will see a 12-year consecutive term-limit proposal among the commission's ballot recommendations. Several commissioners suggested the outcome might well flip with a full eleven-member panel present, but the group did not schedule an additional vote specifically on the issue.

Report Structure, Formatting and Scheduling

The commission made several housekeeping decisions on the report itself: removing a previously floated recommendation to add the housing authority and registrar of voters to the charter, after a member's research found no supporting rationale; splitting a combined section covering both "other considerations" and formal ballot recommendations into two separate sections at Joe Paulo's suggestion; and confirming the report currently reflects seven total ballot recommendations. On the report's closing section, describing the Town Council's own process, commissioners agreed — after extended discussion about how to characterize a disorganized flow of council feedback that one member likened to a "ball of worms" — to simply note that the council held two public hearings, conducted an informal straw poll of its members and provided feedback, without listing each individual recommendation.

Commissioners initially planned to hold their next meeting Monday, July 13, but instead agreed to cancel that session and convene a special meeting Thursday, July 9, at 5 p.m., conducted entirely over Zoom, to finalize report language and take a formal vote adopting the final report. The chair said she would circulate proposed edits by Wednesday. The commission noted that once it formally transmits its report, the Town Council has 15 days to act with a vote of all members, a deadline set out in a May 23 communication the chair said she had sent to the full commission and Town Council. Submitting by July 9 or 10, rather than July 13, would give the council slightly more of that 15-day window before an anticipated late-July deadline.

Commission's Future: Termination Date, Insurance Coverage and Post-Report Role

Several commissioners pressed the panel's attorney on when the Charter Revision Commission's authority formally ends. One member said she had independently contacted the Secretary of the State's office, two municipal attorneys and people who had served on prior charter revision commissions, and was told the commission terminates once it transmits its report to the Town Council. The attorney cautioned against reading too much into a single statutory sentence, saying courts look at whether a provision is genuinely mandatory or allows for discretion, and that he did not consider the termination question fully settled. He agreed to research two follow-up questions: whether there is a specific effective termination date, and what role, if any, the commission would have if a citizen petition forces a November referendum on a specific charter item after the council votes.

The attorney also addressed a question about insurance coverage for commissioners, raised after the panel reviewed a policy provided by Tucker Murphy, the town's administrative officer. He said the policy appeared to cover elected and appointed officers and board or commission members "with respect to their duties as those officers," and that he did not see anything the commission had discussed that fell outside that scope, though he was not an insurance specialist. Commissioner Bill said he remained uncertain the coverage would extend to work the commission does after its statutory termination date, particularly continued review of town ordinances the panel had flagged for possible changes but did not include in the charter itself.

Other Items Referred Without Action

The chair said she had reviewed, but was not bringing forward as commission recommendations, two additional items raised by outside parties: a set of ethics and conflict-of-interest disclosure suggestions from Town Council member Kim Norton, which the chair said belonged in the town's ethics code — described as roughly ten pages long — rather than the charter, and a question raised by a commissioner, referred to in discussion as Ross, about whether the charter should specify how political parties determine ballot-line order. The chair said she had researched the ballot-line question and concluded current charter language is legally sound, and that the concern is more appropriately addressed through party bylaws on endorsement policy in consultation with the state Elections Enforcement Commission's counterpart, rather than a charter change.

The meeting closed with a member offering an unrelated update thanking utility crews, the police, fire and EMS departments and named town officials, including Tom O'Day Fazio, for restoring power to all but 46 of roughly 2,000 outages following a recent storm.

Commissioners present (roll call): Case, Corbett, Holm, Jameson, Kimes, Lampert, Lee, Neville, Paulo, Peret, Willet — all eleven members were recorded present at the outset. Commissioner Lampert departed before the term-limits vote and was recorded absent for that roll call.

Commissioners frequently addressed by first name whose surnames were not confirmed in the transcript: Joe (matched to Paulo based on context), Judy (likely Neville, unconfirmed), Chris (matched to Lee), Todd (matched to Lampert), Karen (matched to Willet), Steve (matched to Case), Russ/Ross (matched to Kimes), Bill (possibly Peret, unconfirmed), Jennifer, Angela and Kathleen (surnames not established; roles as secretary, chair, or member unclear from audio alone).

Staff/counsel in attendance: an outside attorney identified only as Nick, whose surname was transcribed inconsistently ("Bamonte"/"Lamonte"), advising the commission on charter and procedural questions.

Outside parties referenced but not present: Town Council Chairman Mike Morrow; Town Council member Kim Norton; a Town Council member referred to as Hillary; Town Council member Eric Tunum (also transcribed "Eric Nolles"); Human Resources Director Cheryl Jones; Tucker Murphy, described as the town's administrative officer; attorney Chris Hodgson, described as the commission counsel's law partner and primary labor attorney for the town; a town clerk referred to as Claudia; and a vendor representative referred to as Steve, from a printing/publication vendor rendered as "Gway."

Town Council — the body that will ultimately draft final ballot-question wording from the commission's recommendations and must vote within 15 days of receiving the final report.

Berchem Moses (rendered in audio as "Burch and Moses") — outside law firm whose opinion, cited by commissioners, concluded a court would likely find the Board of Finance real estate-taxpayer requirement unconstitutional.

New Canaan Sentinel — local news outlet cited by commissioners as the venue for recent opinion pieces on the Board of Finance property requirement.

Draft Final Report, version 4 — the working document under review Tuesday, distributed in the public packet; commissioners referenced specific pages (14, 15, 16, 36, 37, 42, 50, 74) throughout the meeting.

May 23 email to commissioners and Town Council — cited as the source of the 15-day statutory response deadline once the commission transmits its final report.

Secretary of the State's office and unnamed municipal attorneys — consulted informally by a commissioner researching when the Charter Revision Commission's authority terminates.

Insurance/liability policy provided by Tucker Murphy — reviewed by commission counsel to assess whether coverage extends to commissioners' current and possible post-termination activities.