New Canaan Charter Panel Defers Term Limits, Property Vote

Other Committee · Meeting of June 18, 2026

New Canaan charter panel punts term limits and property rule to June 30. The Charter Revision Commission left two of its highest-stakes recommendations unresolved Thursday: a 12-year term-limit cap, where the commission's own 6-4 vote combined with the Town Council's 5-7 straw poll produced an 11-11 split, and a decades-old requirement that Board of Finance members own real estate. Commission counsel Nick Bamonte warned the property rule "isn't insulated against a broader federal constitutional challenge," while member Todd Lampert said it unfairly excludes longtime renters, noting "half my clients are not property owners." The commission left the requirement in place for now; voters affirmed it 70 percent in a 2016 referendum.

Both questions return June 30, with a final report due to the Town Council by July 13 ahead of its July 15 vote on what reaches the November ballot.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,417 words

Source: the Other Committee meeting of June 18, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Administrative Business

The Charter Revision Commission opened its Thursday special meeting with a roll call read by member Kathleen Corbett: Corbett, Judy Neville, Angela Jameson, Steve Case, Jennifer Holm, Russ Kimes, Todd Lampert, Joe Paulo, and Karen Willet were present in the room or by phone; Bill Peret joined by phone shortly after roll call; Chris Lee was recorded absent. The commission approved minutes of its June 2 regular meeting on a voice vote after Joe Paulo moved and Russ Kimes seconded, with no discussion. No members of the public were present, so the commission skipped its public comment period.

Background and Stakes

The meeting existed to process feedback the Town Council gave on the commission's draft final report, dated May 4, 2026. Under the process the commission described, the council had 45 days to review that draft and respond with its own straw poll before the commission finalizes its recommendations for the November ballot. The council took that vote at its own meeting the night before, Wednesday, June 17, and a summary drafted by council member Hillary Orman, and approved by council members Mike Morrow and a third member identified only as Janet F., reached the commission hours before Thursday's meeting. Corbett told members she had not yet had a chance to review it in detail before the meeting began.

The Question Before the Commission

For each of the five formal recommendations in the commission's draft report, and several additional items the council raised on its own, members had to decide whether to accept the council's position, reopen their own prior vote for further debate, or leave the recommendation as submitted regardless of the council's reaction. Because the council can decline to place any commission recommendation on the ballot, Corbett reminded members repeatedly that "they can reject our recommendations if they want to. That's within their purview on the final report."

Term Limits: An 11-11 Tie

The clearest disagreement centered on a proposed 12-year cap on service in certain elected and appointed positions. The commission's own vote, taken earlier this year, favored the recommendation 6-4, with Case, Holm, Kimes, Neville, Paulo and Peret in favor and Corbett, Jameson, Lampert and Lee opposed. The council's straw poll, after a correction to fix what members said was an initial tabulation error involving one council member's vote, came out 5-7 against.

Joe Paulo was first to point out the arithmetic: "We as a group voted six to four favor and they voted five to seven against, but when you add them together, it comes to 11 on each side." He said the even split across both bodies, out of 22 total votes, was itself "a reason why it should go to the voters."

What followed was a lengthy, member-by-member canvass of whether to reopen debate. Kimes said he had "reconsidered" his position after listening to discussion he had missed at Wednesday's council meeting and now favored dropping term limits from the recommendation. Jameson said she wanted to reconsider. Neville and Case both said they preferred to leave the recommendation as submitted. Lampert said he was undecided but open to further discussion. Peret, joining by phone, said he would vote to keep term limits if a vote were held that night, then corrected himself moments later to say he would vote to eliminate them, adding that he did not think reopening the question would change the outcome either way. A straw poll on the narrower question of whether to reopen debate, taken by show of hands among the roughly 10 members present, split 5-5.

Corbett noted that Chris Lee, who was absent, had indicated support for keeping the no-term-limits position, but members agreed a member who could not participate in live debate should not be counted toward reopening a discussion, even though absent members' straw-poll votes on the underlying recommendation had counted. Rather than force a decision, Corbett moved to close the item and add it to a list of three unresolved topics to bring back June 30.

Real Property Transfer Approval Language

Members spent little time on the council's response to a recommendation requiring Town Council approval, subject to public referendum, of changes in use, capital leases, sales or transfers of town-owned real property. The council's straw poll on the underlying policy was unanimous, and the discussion Thursday concerned only cleanup of the ballot question's wording, not the substance. Members agreed not to reopen the recommendation itself.

Planning and Zoning Confirmation and Ethics Board Alternates

Two smaller recommendations drew no debate. A proposal requiring Town Council confirmation of the Board of Selectmen's appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission passed the council's straw poll without opposition, according to Corbett. A separate proposal to add three alternate members to the town's five-member ethics board also drew no significant pushback; one council member, identified in discussion as Hillary Orman, asked whether three alternates were necessary for a five-member board, and Corbett said the number was set at three to preserve odd-numbered voting for minority representation purposes consistent with other boards. No member proposed reopening either item.

The Catch-All Provisions and the Administrative-Process Question

The commission's draft report grouped a number of smaller, non-ballot-worthy conforming changes into what members called the "catch-all" or "kitchen sink" category, mirroring language used in the 2016 revision. One such change extends the Inland Wetlands and Conservation Commission's member terms from two to three years for consistency with other boards; members said this drew no council objection.

A more contested item within that catch-all was a provision members referred to inconsistently as Charter Section "C-16" and "C-26," governing an administrative process that Corbett said involves questions about collective bargaining. Corbett said the language is under review by Bamonte, the commission's counsel, who she described in the discussion as examining labor-related aspects of the provision, in coordination with council member Mike Morrow and the town's human resources department. Corbett said the outside review could result in the provision being revised, left as is, or deleted outright, and that the commission has not yet taken a position because the analysis is incomplete. Member Bill Peret suggested the question was significant enough to merit its own vote on whether the provision should be struck. Members agreed to defer the item, along with term limits and the property-ownership requirement, to the June 30 meeting, saying they wanted the benefit of the outside legal opinion first.

Clarifying Seasonal Employee Dismissal Authority

Members separately resolved a smaller drafting question, raised the night before at the council, about charter language in Article 15 governing appointment and dismissal of town employees. Corbett explained that the charter's original language required all personnel actions, including dismissals, to go through the full Board of Selectmen, a reading she said she enforced literally while she served on that board. The revised draft removes the dismissal requirement from the general first sentence and instead permits department heads or commissions, such as Parks and Recreation, to dismiss part-time and seasonal employees directly after notifying the town's human resources department, without requiring a full board vote. A council member identified as Norton had asked Wednesday night whether the change was fair to seasonal workers; Corbett said she discussed the concern directly with Norton and separately confirmed with a human resources official, referred to in the meeting only as Cheryl, that the proposed language adequately protects employees. No member sought further review.

The Board of Finance Property-Ownership Requirement

The longest single debate of the meeting concerned an existing charter requirement that Board of Finance members, unlike members of other town boards, be real estate taxpayers. Corbett said the requirement has existed in some form for roughly 91 years and was explicitly retained in the 2016 charter revision, when 70 percent of voters chose to keep it in a referendum.

Since that vote, according to members, outside legal counsel retained by the Town Council concluded the requirement raises potential federal constitutional concerns. Joe Paulo pushed back, citing what he described as Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-340, which he said not only permits but in some cases requires property-ownership qualifications for board of finance service in Connecticut's statutory towns, and argued the commission should defer to that existing legal framework rather than a "theoretical" constitutional risk.

Bamonte, asked directly to address the constitutional question, said the statute's existence does not resolve it: "So just because something is authorized by statute doesn't mean that it's insulated against a broader federal constitutional challenge." He said his research identified a 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case, Turner v. Fouche, in which the court struck down a Georgia statute requiring property ownership for appointment to a local school board, along with later cases addressing similar questions. Bamonte said no Connecticut court has directly ruled on the issue, meaning the requirement remains legally enforceable in New Canaan today, but that a legal challenge, if brought, would have a reasonable chance of success based on the federal precedent.

Members split on how to weigh that risk. Todd Lampert, who has said in the discussion he does not personally own real estate in town despite 25 years of residency, argued the requirement excludes people who hold property through trusts, LLCs or family arrangements: "Half my clients are not property owners. They're here forever in New Canaan. They are unbelievably talented people that love New Canaan." Angela Jameson said the requirement "clearly raises the risk" of a lawsuit given how much local politics has "become increasingly polarized" in the decade since the last charter vote. Steve Case countered that voters were "pretty transparent" in 2016 about wanting to keep the requirement and said the commission should respect that outcome. Judy Neville said she did not believe the state's statute answered the underlying constitutional question and was wary of exposing the town to litigation risk by leaving the requirement unchanged, but also did not want to reopen debate without stronger legal footing than the commission currently had.

No formal vote on the substance was taken. Members agreed that if the commission does decide to recommend removing the requirement, it would need to appear again as a standalone ballot question, since the requirement was previously put before voters as its own item and members said it likely could not simply be folded into the catch-all category. The topic was added to the same June 30 agenda as term limits and the administrative-process provision.

Reconciling the Charter and Town Ordinances

Near the end of the meeting, Jennifer Holm, who said she had been assigned to reconcile the draft charter language against the town's existing ordinances, reported finding a handful of conflicts requiring cleanup, most involving renaming conventions or a discrepancy over a 60-to-180-day timeline that is governed by ordinance rather than charter. She flagged one substantive question: whether Charter Section C-51, which bars board and commission members from holding other appointed or elected town or state positions, conflicts with an ordinance provision, Section 4-B-1, that places Board of Finance members on the town's affordable housing committee. After Holm read the relevant charter language aloud, members concluded the charter's own text already permits committee service, provided it does not create a conflict of interest under the town's code of ethics, and that no further change was needed.

Scheduling and Next Steps

With three items unresolved, term limits, the Board of Finance property-ownership requirement, and the administrative-process provision, members set their next regular meeting for June 30 at 5 p.m. and discussed adding a special meeting July 7 to accommodate members' summer travel schedules. Corbett said the commission is aiming to deliver a final report to the Town Council by July 13, a Monday, giving the council roughly 24 to 48 hours to review it before voting July 15 on whether to accept the commission's recommendations for the ballot. Corbett said the town's ballot must be finalized by the first week of August because of early-voting requirements, and that when the commission's report was approved in the 2016 cycle, it took the council six days to formally publish it after submission. The meeting adjourned on a voice vote after a motion by Corbett and a second from another member.

Kathleen Corbett — commission member, led Thursday's meeting and roll call Judy Neville — commission member, present Angela Jameson — commission member, present Steve Case — commission member, present (announced at roll call as "Steve K") Jennifer Holm — commission member, present; reported on charter-ordinance reconciliation Russ Kimes — commission member, present Todd Lampert — commission member, present Joe Paulo — commission member, present Bill Peret — commission member, joined by phone Karen Willet — commission member, joined by phone Chris Lee — commission member, absent Nick Bamonte — commission counsel, provided legal analysis on term limits, constitutional questions and the administrative-process provision Diana — briefly greeted during the meeting; role not specified in the available transcript

No members of the public attended or offered comment.

New Canaan Town Council — reviewed the commission's May 4, 2026, draft report under a 45-day statutory window; took its own straw poll June 17, 2026; scheduled to vote July 15, 2026, on whether to accept the commission's final recommendations for the ballot May 4, 2026, draft charter report — the commission's working document for the meeting, cited throughout as the basis for the council's straw poll responses Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-340 (as cited by Joe Paulo) — addressed by Paulo as governing property-ownership qualifications for board of finance members in Connecticut's statutory towns Turner v. Fouche, 1970 U.S. Supreme Court case (as cited by Nick Bamonte) — cited as precedent striking down a Georgia property-ownership requirement for appointment to a local school board, discussed in relation to the Board of Finance property requirement Charter Section C-51 — cited by Jennifer Holm regarding restrictions on board and commission members serving on other town or state bodies Town of New Canaan Code of Ethics — referenced as the standard for evaluating potential conflicts of interest in committee service 2016 charter revision and referendum — cited repeatedly as precedent, including the 70 percent vote to retain the Board of Finance property-ownership requirement Hillary Orman, Mike Morrow and a council member identified as Janet F. — Town Council members credited with drafting and approving the council's straw-poll response memo Kim Norton — Town Council member who raised questions about seasonal-employee dismissal language and the term-limits vote tabulation