New Canaan charter panel settles term-limit ballot language

Other Committee · Meeting of June 2, 2026

New Canaan charter panel spent Tuesday's meeting fine-tuning ballot questions on board term limits and town property referendums. Commissioners approved May 26 minutes and heard from legal counsel Nick that a Town Council reversal upheld after referendum "is final and not subject to further referendum." A member identified as Joe argued dropping a reappointment clause from the 12-year term-limit question would "create a bias," while others favored a leaner question for voters. Chair Kathleen reported legal fees of just under $25,000 against a $51,000 total commission budget through June, and described spending a weekend reading 20 years of meeting minutes after the town clerk's office could not supply data on how many people, roughly 42 for the Board of Finance and 39 for Planning and Zoning, have served over two decades.

No votes were taken on charter language; the panel adjourned unanimously after Joe moved and Angela seconded, ahead of a Town Council public hearing June 10.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 3,601 words

Source: the Other Committee meeting of June 2, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call and Minutes

Background and stakes: The Charter Revision Commission meets on a statutory clock, required to deliver a final report to the Town Council well ahead of a November 3 deadline. Tuesday's meeting, delayed briefly by remote-access technical trouble, opened with a roll call and approval of minutes from a May 26 special meeting.

The question before the body: Confirm quorum and dispose of routine minutes before turning to substantive report edits.

Substantive content: Commissioner Jameson called the roll. Present were commissioners Casease, Corbett, Jameson, Lampbert, Chris Lee, Neville, Paulo and Willet. Commissioners Jennifer Holm and Russ Kimes were marked absent; the chair noted Kimes could not attend. Commissioner Peret joined after the meeting's technical restart and was added to the roll by amendment. The commission's chair, addressed throughout by other members as Kathleen, presided; her surname does not appear on the recording. Commission legal counsel, addressed as Nick, and observer Andrew Brooks joined remotely, along with two additional remote participants, one identified only as "attorney Bonte."

The deliberation: Commissioner Todd moved approval of the May 26 minutes. A commissioner identified on the recording as Crystal Free seconded. The motion passed on a voice vote with no discussion.

Procedural steps and outcome: Motion carried unanimously.

Implications and what is next: Routine housekeeping cleared, the commission moved directly into report and charter-language review, the bulk of the meeting.

Restructuring the Draft Final Report

Background and stakes: The commission has been assembling a final report to accompany its proposed charter amendments. Chair Kathleen told members she had incorporated a summary of the commission's work, previously presented orally to the Town Council on May 11, directly into the written report for the first time.

The question before the body: Whether members were comfortable with a new pages 14 and 15 that summarize, in bullet form, the charter amendments proposed, the items where current charter status was maintained, and non-charter topics the commission is referring to the council and other boards for separate consideration.

Substantive content: Chair Kathleen explained that what had been a lengthy, itemized list of non-charter recommendations, covering topics such as a library commission update and inland wetlands ordinance changes, was condensed into five summary bullet points on page 14. She stressed the underlying detailed work by subgroups, including specific proposals shared by email among members, remains unchanged; only the report's public-facing summary was condensed. The commission uses a color code to track edits: red indicates a change already discussed and agreed to at a prior meeting, yellow indicates an edit new since the previous version, and blue or green mark minor formatting or incidental additions made while editing.

The deliberation: Commissioner Chris Lee sought clarification that changes made "last week" in both the report and the charter text itself were consistently marked red, not black, to distinguish new edits from prior ones. Chair Kathleen confirmed the color convention and noted a stray green edit resulted from an edit made on a tablet over the weekend rather than any substantive difference in status.

"The ones we already discussed that we approved are not in here, right? If they've already been approved, they've already been embedded in the document." — Commissioner Chris Lee

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken; members indicated general comfort with the restructured pages before the chair moved to the next section.

Implications and what is next: The condensed summary will appear in the version of the final report sent to the Town Council; detailed subgroup work product will continue in parallel and can be shared separately if requested.

Drafting the Ballot Questions: Term Limits

Background and stakes: The commission's proposed 12-year term limit for appointed members of town boards and commissions is expected to appear as a ballot question. Chair Kathleen said she modeled the draft questions on language used in a comparable 2016 charter referendum, since the Town Council and town clerk will ultimately determine final ballot wording.

The question before the body: How much explanatory detail, if any, belongs in the ballot question itself, beyond the base sentence, "Shall the current charter be changed to establish term limits not to exceed 12 consecutive years of service for appointed town officers on any appointed boards, commissions, or committees."

Substantive content: The commission's underlying charter language allows a person who reaches the 12-year limit to be reappointed to the same body after sitting out one full term, an option some members referred to informally as a "sabbatical." The dispute was whether the ballot question should mention that reappointment option or state the term limit alone.

The deliberation: Commissioner Joe argued forcefully that omitting the reappointment detail would bias voters against the measure, comparing the effect to a fast-food cashier trained to upsell. He said a voter reluctant to lose "a good person" after 12 years might reconsider on learning that person could return after a three-year absence. Chair Kathleen and Chris Lee countered that adding explanatory text risked the opposite problem, framing the town-clerk's-office concern that overly detailed ballot language could confuse voters or improperly steer them, a concern one remote participant explicitly linked to state election law limiting ballot questions to neutral phrasing rather than "explanatory text."

"If I'm looking at this vote and saying, well, after 12 years we could lose a good person, so I'm not sure I'm going to vote for it, we'll say, ah, after three years they can come back. Ah, maybe now I changed my mind." — Commissioner Joe

"So these are supposed to be questions, right? ... None of our other questions have an affirmative statement that's meant to educate the public. I'm a little bit concerned we're straying into some sort of explanatory text, which under state law is something different than just posing a question on a ballot." — a remote participant identified on the recording only by voice, not by name

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote was taken. The commission agreed by consensus to restore a single sentence: "A person who has reached a 12-year term limit on a board, commission, or committee is eligible for reappointment to that same body after an absence of one full term," while striking additional explanatory language about mid-term vacancies. Chair Kathleen said she would add a sentence noting the Town Council and town clerk retain final authority over ballot wording.

Implications and what is next: The compromise language goes to the Town Council's June 10 public hearing as a recommendation, not a binding text; the council and town clerk can accept, reject or rewrite it.

Drafting the Ballot Questions: Town-Owned Property and Referendum

Background and stakes: A separate proposed charter change would add town-owned real property to the list of Town Council actions, alongside appropriations, bond issues and ordinances, subject to citizen referendum.

The question before the body: Whether the ballot question should state that Town Council action on town property "is" subject to public referendum, or use softer language reflecting that a referendum only occurs if petitioners gather enough signatures.

Substantive content: Members noted an active local petition drive over a leaf-blower ordinance as a real-world example of how the referendum-by-petition process works, illustrating that referendum is not automatic. Nick, the commission's legal counsel, and other members discussed word choices including "maybe" and, ultimately, "subject to the rules governing public referendums," to avoid asserting a referendum will happen automatically.

The deliberation: One remote member raised a concern shared by several others that any additional explanatory sentence risked functioning as advocacy rather than a neutral question, a concern that echoed the term-limits debate. Chair Kathleen asked whether members could shorten the final clause into a single interrogative sentence rather than adding a separate declarative one.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote taken. Chair Kathleen agreed to draft revised wording for the next version of the report.

Implications and what is next: Combined with the term-limits question, this puts two of the commission's five proposed ballot questions in play for further council input; the other three, covering technical and conforming charter updates and unrelated to term limits, drew comparatively little discussion.

Charter Text: Referendum Procedure for Town-Owned Property

Background and stakes: Beyond the ballot question wording, the commission is proposing new charter sections, C41-17(D) and (E), extending the town's existing referendum framework, which already covers appropriations, bond issues and ordinances, to cover town-owned real property.

The question before the body: How the referendum process functions when a Town Council decision on town property, whether affirmative or negative, is challenged by petition and referendum.

Substantive content: Nick explained the charter's structure separates affirmative council actions (subsection D) from negative ones (subsection C and, by extension, E), because a "no" vote by the council leaves nothing concrete for a referendum to simply ratify or reject; if voters overturn a negative council action, the matter returns to the council for reconsideration rather than being automatically enacted.

The deliberation: Using a hypothetical of a housing authority seeking town-owned land, referred to in discussion as "Morris Court," Nick and several members walked through both scenarios. If the council approves a request and a successful referendum petition overturns that approval, the approval is nullified, full stop. If the council denies a request and a successful referendum petition overrules the denial, the matter goes back to the council for a new vote, which the council could uphold or reverse; if the council again declines, that decision is final under the charter, with no further referendum available on that specific action.

"So the referendum is about the town council vote, not about what it is." — a commission member, responding to Nick's explanation

Councilman Norton, in earlier Town Council discussion, had separately raised whether a related provision on town officers who manage municipal bodies belongs under the commission's fifth ballot question or should be a standalone item; the commission deferred that question to the council.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote taken; members confirmed by consensus that the commission is not proposing to change the underlying referendum structure, only to extend it to a new category of council action.

Implications and what is next: Nick could not say off-hand whether other Connecticut towns structure referendum appeals the same way, noting each town's charter defines referendum authority independently. One member flagged affordable-housing land-use disputes, referencing the state's Section 8-30g affordable-housing statute, as the likeliest future test of how this provision plays out in practice.

Audit Board, Fire Commission and Ethics Sections

Background and stakes: The commission is doing a line-by-line pass through the existing charter text, incorporating smaller clarifying edits alongside the higher-profile term-limit and referendum changes.

The question before the body: Whether recent minor wording changes to the Audit Board, Fire Commission and Ethics sections accurately reflect prior commission discussion.

Substantive content: On the Audit Board (charter section C6-2, pages 50 and 51), the commission removed a term-limit reference duplicated from an earlier, general term-limits section of the charter, added a standard three-year-term clarifying sentence used elsewhere in the document, changed the board's oversight language from "overseeing" the town's corrective-action plan to broader "oversight of" the plan, and, at members' prior request, added language allowing the board to retain independent counsel "if deemed necessary." The Fire Commission section (page 55) had two sentences reordered, placing the commission's review role ahead of the fire chief's disciplinary authority, with no substantive change; a member asked, rhetorically, how fire department discipline could ever proceed outside the applicable collective bargaining agreement, and the group agreed the charter should say so explicitly regardless. The Ethics section (page 63) drew a brief clarifying question about a yellow highlight the chair said was a leftover formatting artifact, not a live edit; a small change on page 69 added the word "other" to a reference to outside counsel.

The deliberation: Discussion on all three sections was brief and non-contentious.

Procedural steps and outcome: No votes; changes stand as drafted pending the next version circulation.

Implications and what is next: These sections are considered largely settled ahead of the June 10 public hearing.

Town Employee Hiring Language

Background and stakes: A Town Council member had previously asked the commission whether charter language describing the Board of Selectmen's role in staffing should say "appointment" or "hiring," prompting the commission, after conversations with the town's human resources department, to revisit Article 15 (page 62).

The question before the body: What word or phrase most accurately describes the Board of Selectmen's actual role, approving hiring decisions made operationally by the human resources department, rather than personally appointing employees.

Substantive content: Members spent significant time wordsmithing a sentence governing approval of "full-time, part-time, and seasonal employees," debating whether to say "approval to hire," "approval of hires" or "all hiring," and separately whether "dismissal" should be replaced with "firing" or "termination." Several members objected to the standalone word "paid" before "employee," arguing it implied unpaid employees exist elsewhere in the charter; the origin of that word could not be confirmed on the call.

The deliberation: One member proposed restructuring the entire sentence into a more direct subject-verb-object form, "the Board of Selectmen shall approve...," rather than the charter's traditional passive construction, drawing agreement that the existing phrasing read as though "it was exactly how it was in 1935."

"This would be a lot easier just to put it all in one sentence. The board of selectmen shall approve appointments and dismissals for all employees." — a commission member

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; the group settled informally on "hiring" over "appointment" and retained "dismissal" over "firing" or "termination," with the sentence to be rewritten in active voice for the next draft.

Implications and what is next: The revised language will appear in the next report version circulated to members ahead of the June 10 hearing.

Historical Board and Commission Tenure Data

Background and stakes: The term-limits proposal prompted Chair Kathleen to research how many people have actually served on New Canaan boards over time, and for how long, informing the commission's public messaging about the practical effect of a 12-year limit.

The question before the body: No formal question was before the commission; this was an informational update on data-gathering difficulties.

Substantive content: Chair Kathleen said she requested historical service data for the Board of Finance and the Planning and Zoning Commission from the town clerk's office, through Town Clerk Tucker Murphy, but was told the office could not provide it and declined an offer to send two interns to help compile it. Commissioner Jennifer Holm had separately been working with the town clerk's office on a similar dataset, with a partial, still-inaccurate draft last updated April 10. Chair Kathleen said she instead spent a weekend reading 20 years of Board of Finance and Planning and Zoning meeting minutes herself, compiling roughly 42 names for the Board of Finance and 39 for Planning and Zoning, cautioning the figures still need verification; she cited difficulty establishing exact service dates for past members such as George Wendell of the Planning and Zoning Commission, whose tenure she said she partly confirmed through an obituary, and noted board of finance members Dan Ward and Bob Spangler among those who served with distinction.

The deliberation: Commissioner Joe estimated that across 20 years and three major boards, roughly 330 total appointments would have occurred, and cautioned that no quantitative performance metric exists for board service, only qualitative recollection of members who "served with distinction." A remote participant pushed back on any suggestion that the town clerk's office was withholding data for political reasons, saying the more likely explanation was that records exist only in physical minute books rather than a searchable database, requiring significant staff time to compile.

"It's very sad that you haven't got access, and neither Tucker Murphy, who was trying to help, was able to get access. It's very alarming, really, that there isn't that level of collegiality that one would like to see within town government." — a commission member

"I think to make the accusation that it's a dangerous lack of collegiality may not be based in fact." — a commission member responding

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; Chair Kathleen said the data still needs verification before being shared broadly and framed the exercise as building a case for term limits' effect on turnover, particularly among alternate members who often serve only two years before cycling off.

Implications and what is next: Chair Kathleen said she would continue compiling and correcting the tenure data, though it remains a work in progress separate from the commission's formal report.

Budget Update

Background and stakes: The commission operates on a Town-approved budget that resets each fiscal year; Tuesday's meeting fell in the final month of fiscal year 2026.

The question before the body: Informational update on the commission's spending against its budget.

Substantive content: Chair Kathleen reported the commission's total budget is $51,000 through the end of June 2026, with $33,500 spent as of April 30. Legal fees, just under $25,000 of that total, have exceeded the specific line item budgeted for legal costs, though the commission remains within its overall total. She cautioned that figure does not yet include May or June legal invoices, which are still being finalized by the law firm's billing partners. A printing estimate of roughly $8,000 is separate from the legal figure. The commission's budget drops to $38,000 for the period from July 1 through November, covering both printing and any additional legal work tied to Town Council and town clerk deliberation on ballot questions.

The deliberation: A member asked whether the commission could transfer funds between budget line items to cover the legal overage; Chair Kathleen said she did not know the process and would find out, along with whether any year-end savings could offset other lines.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; informational only.

Implications and what is next: Chair Kathleen said she would notify the Board of Selectmen if the commission's legal spending ultimately exceeds its total budget, which would require a budget amendment.

Subgroup Updates and Schedule

Background and stakes: Commission members are divided into subgroups working on specific non-charter recommendations, including inland wetlands ordinance updates and the board and commission appointment process.

The question before the body: Status updates ahead of the June 10 public hearing and June 16 regular meeting.

Substantive content: Chair Kathleen said she and Commissioner Todd met with Kathleen Holland, a town official involved with inland wetlands administration, to discuss possible ordinance updates. Separately, Chair Kathleen and Commissioner Russ Kimes, who was absent Tuesday, met to discuss the board and commission appointment process, with Kimes drafting a memo on how the commission's proposed charter wording could be further developed. Chair Kathleen said she would resend subgroup assignment emails to members who had not received or located them.

The deliberation: Members briefly discussed timeline: the Town Council holds its second public hearing June 10 at 7 p.m., with statutory deadline for council recommendations back to the commission around June 15. The commission's regular meeting is June 16 at 5 p.m., though Chair Kathleen said the group may need to meet June 17 or propose June 18 depending on when the council's recommendations arrive. The commission aims to send its final report to the council by roughly July 13 or 14, ahead of the council's last regular meeting before summer recess on July 15; once the council approves the final report, printing would follow July 16 through 18. The commission's work concludes by statute on November 3.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; informational scheduling discussion.

Implications and what is next: Members acknowledged low public turnout at outreach events so far and said they would continue relying on newspaper coverage and word of mouth ahead of the fall's expected ballot questions.

Adjournment

Commissioner Joe moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Angela, and the meeting closed on a unanimous voice vote.

Commissioner Jameson, present, conducted roll call Commissioner Casease, present Commissioner Corbett, present Commissioner Jennifer Holm, absent Commissioner Russ Kimes, absent Commissioner Lampbert, present Commissioner Chris Lee, present Commissioner Neville, present Commissioner Joe (Paulo on roll call; surname association not confirmed), present Commissioner Peret, joined mid-meeting after a technical delay, added to roll by amendment Commissioner Willet, present Commission Chair, addressed as Kathleen, presiding; surname not stated on recording Nick, commission legal counsel, participating remotely Kathleen Holland, town official consulted by the inland wetlands subgroup, not present at the meeting but referenced Tucker Murphy, Town Clerk, referenced regarding tenure-data request, not present Andrew Brooks, remote observer, identified himself as "participating," not speaking to substantive items Two additional remote participants, one identified only as "attorney Bonte," role and affiliation unclear from the recording

New Canaan Town Council — the body that received the commission's draft report on May 11 and holds a public hearing June 10; ultimately decides final ballot question wording alongside the town clerk New Canaan Town Clerk's office — custodian of historical board and commission service records, cited as unable to provide compiled tenure data to the commission Connecticut General Statutes Section 8-30g — the state affordable-housing statute cited to distinguish "affordable housing" from informal "low-income housing" terminology 2016 New Canaan charter referendum — prior ballot-question language the commission used as a template for its 2026 draft questions Draft Charter Revision Commission final report, version two — the primary document under review, including the proposed charter amendments and accompanying summary report May 11 Town Council presentation summary — the document the commission's report authors incorporated directly into pages 14 and 15 of the final report