New Canaan Council Delays Vote on Charter Ballot Questions
Town Council · Meeting of June 10, 2026
New Canaan Town Council punts on charter revision votes until straw poll next week. Chairman Mike Rogers set a June 17 non-binding straw vote on the Charter Revision Commission's five recommended ballot questions after members split over how to compile input following a draft report Chair Kathleen Corbett said was submitted under state statute on May 4. A former first selectman identified only as Kevin and the town's sitting first selectman both urged the council to reject a proposal requiring every board vacancy to be posted online, warning it would undermine the Republican and Democratic town committees' recruiting role.
Council member Kim Norton drew pushback from colleagues over an ethics-language proposal emailed at 5:45 p.m. that day, saying "I take serious offense with your misrepresentation of what I wrote." The first selectman cited a 2.48 percent year-over-year tax increase, called the lowest among surrounding towns, in opposing proposals to make the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Finance elected bodies. A final commission report is expected by the council's July 15 meeting.
In the full story:
- Who Was There
- Organizations And Documents Referenced
- The complete report — 2,829 words
Source: the Town Council meeting of June 10, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.
The Full Article
Public Hearing: The Vacancy-Posting Provision
The Charter Revision Commission's draft report, submitted under state statute on May 4, proposes requiring that all vacancies on town boards, commissions and committees be posted on the town website so electors can apply, with the Board of Selectmen reviewing applicants and voting in a noticed meeting on a nominee. The council was being asked to hear public comment on whether to send the provision back to the commission for reconsideration.
Kevin, a former New Canaan first selectman who told the council he has lived in town 45 years and served six years as first selectman and four years on the town council before that, testified that the provision — which he said the commission borrowed from Fairfield's charter — was not common practice and would be disruptive. He said the current system, in which the Republican and Democratic town committees vet and recommend nominees to the first selectman, works well, and that during his six years in office he appointed unaffiliated residents to chair the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Finance and the Conservation Commission when town committees did not produce a candidate he wanted. "I think this uh this provision seems harmless, but I think it's very, very intrusive to the process," Kevin said.
Council member Christina Ross asked Kevin to clarify whether he objected to posting vacancies at all or only to doing so through the charter. "This is not a charter revision," Kevin replied, saying the same goal could be accomplished by town council ordinance instead. Councilwoman Hillary suggested the provision could be rewritten as additive to, rather than a replacement of, the town committee process. Council member Jim (surname not given in the transcript) asked Kevin directly why he considered the change disruptive; Kevin said it would effectively take vacancies away from whichever party currently holds a given seat and complicate the minority-representation rules that already govern many boards. A council member, not clearly identified by name in the recording, pushed back that seats are not formally assigned by party, though board composition must satisfy majority-minority representation requirements.
The sitting first selectman, who spoke later in the hearing and was not named in the meeting record, told the council the current process already works: roughly every six months, a newsletter invites residents to volunteer, with Republicans and Democrats directed to their town committees and unaffiliated residents directed to contact the first selectman directly. The first selectman said that process had produced multiple unaffiliated appointees, including a recent addition to the ethics board, and maintains a file of interested residents for future openings. "I don't think we have a broken process," the first selectman said, adding that the vacancy-posting provision adds "extra onerous steps to a process that isn't really broken." Asked by a council member how many volunteers typically respond to the newsletter, the first selectman said the response has been strong, citing two ethics board vacancies filled almost immediately after a newsletter appeal.
Public Hearing: Term Limits and Elected Boards
The first selectman raised two additional concerns not covered in Kevin's testimony: a proposed 12-year term limit for board and commission members, and proposals — not part of the commission's formal recommendations but reportedly under council discussion — to make the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Finance elected rather than appointed.
On term limits, the first selectman argued that New Canaan's boards benefit from a range of tenures, with longer-serving members mentoring newer ones, particularly on the Planning and Zoning Commission, which the first selectman described as requiring extensive knowledge of land-use statute. "What problem are we trying to fix?" the first selectman said, urging the council to send the recommendation back to the commission for reconsideration.
On elected boards, the first selectman argued the change would disadvantage unaffiliated voters, whom the first selectman described as the largest voting bloc in town but lacking party infrastructure to run and win office. "Anybody that is not backed by a party and tries to run has never won in this town," the first selectman said, saying an elected structure would also make it harder to balance professional skill sets — architects, planners, attorneys, real estate agents and finance professionals — currently curated through appointment. The first selectman cited the town council's approval the previous night of a 2.48 percent year-over-year increase in the amount to be raised by taxation, said to be the lowest among surrounding communities, as evidence of the current Board of Finance structure's performance, and warned that an elected finance board could become responsive to "the loudest voices in the community" rather than long-term fiscal planning. The first selectman also relayed comments from an attorney who addressed the Charter Revision Commission and said that in towns with elected planning and zoning boards, those boards avoid controversial decisions during election years.
The first selectman told the council that a letter from a resident identified as Todd Lavier, circulated to the council the day of the meeting, laid out similar arguments in detail.
Public Hearing: Additional Resident Comment
Resident Elliot Cideres, who gave his address as 103 Woods End Road and said he has lived in town nearly 40 years, told the council he believed the principle behind Kevin's and the first selectman's testimony extended to all town boards, not just planning and zoning: that the most qualified applicants, not the most politically viable candidates, should be selected. Cideres argued that boards should have "some level of autonomy" to deliberate openly without members needing to weigh the political affiliations of the officials in front of them. He said the first selectman and town council should conduct rigorous vetting of board applicants regardless of party.
Charter Discussion: The Statutory Timeline
Moving to the agenda's charter discussion item, Chairman Mike Rogers asked Charter Revision Commission Chair Kathleen Corbett to lay out the process timeline. Corbett said the commission submitted its draft report under statutory guidelines on May 4 and met on May 11 to review it, incorporating both minor edits and more substantive council feedback into a revised draft of the final report.
Citing Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-191d and an email Corbett sent the council on May 23 at 10:18 p.m., Corbett said the council has 15 days after its final public hearing — this meeting — to submit recommendations, meaning by the commission's next meeting, June 17. The commission then has 30 days to produce a final report; Corbett said the commission intends to work "diligently" to deliver that report by the council's next regular meeting, July 15, despite statute allowing roughly a week more. Once the council receives the final report, Section 7-191d requires the appointing authority — the town council, by majority vote of its full membership — to approve or reject the proposed charter and amendments, in whole or by separate provision, within 15 days. Because the council has no scheduled August meeting, Corbett said a special meeting may be needed in early August to vote on which questions go before voters.
Council member Hillary Armand asked whether the council's response to the commission needs to reflect a formal vote or majority position. Corbett said the format is up to the council but that indicating whether a recommendation reflects a "majority vote" or "unanimous position" would help the commission weigh the feedback.
Charter Discussion: How Council Input Will Be Submitted
Much of the meeting's second half was consumed by disagreement over the format of the council's input. Councilwoman Christina Ross said individually submitted comments would prevent the council from acting collectively if members believed the commission's recommendations needed to be "recalibrated," arguing the council should not simply vote to accept or reject the commission's five proposed ballot questions without more structured input. Council member Kim Norton proposed a "hybrid approach": public council debate on larger issues, such as whether Planning and Zoning should be elected, combined with a compiled list of smaller, non-controversial edits.
Councilman Eric Tunum objected to convening any new deliberative process at this stage, noting that all 12 council members had been invited to submit comments to the commission directly since the draft's release and that he had done so already. "This body of 12 people is not going to come to a consensus of the comments on the draft that need to go back to the CRC," Tunum said. "The CRC has its job and they've done an admirable job." Council member Maria Nton said she believed the commission had already been absorbing council members' public comments over multiple meetings and did not think a formal council vote on specific issues was necessary, since the commission retains discretion over whether to act on any council input regardless.
Councilwoman Hillary Armand ultimately proposed the format Rogers adopted: a non-binding straw vote at the June 17 meeting on the commission's five existing recommended ballot questions, with any additional issues raised in party caucuses beforehand and then debated and straw-voted publicly as well. "It would be helpful for you to know whether eight of us, 10 of us or six of us support the recommendation to impose term limits or to have P&Z appointed or elected," Armand said. Council member Jennifer Zonis and others voiced support for that approach as a way to give the commission clearer numerical guidance than the council's prior meetings had provided.
Rogers closed the discussion by directing members to caucus before June 17 and bring forward any additional recommendations at that meeting, saying the council would take straw votes on the commission's five existing recommendations and on any new items raised. "So next week, you will know through straw vote polls... you'll have some indication where we are falling on these particular issues," Rogers said.
Charter Discussion: The Ethics-Language Dispute
The sharpest exchange of the meeting followed a proposal Kim Norton emailed to the full council at 5:45 p.m. that day, proposing to add a lengthy conflict-of-interest and ethics article to the charter, modeled on language used in Westport's charter. According to a summary read aloud by Councilwoman Hillary Armand over Norton's objection, the proposal would bar elected or appointed officials, and their immediate family members, from participating in official action — including discussion, deliberation and voting — on matters involving a substantial financial, contractual or personal interest; require public disclosure of potential conflicts beyond the town clerk filing currently required; and bar officials from serving alongside immediate family members on other volunteer boards.
Armand and Tunum said the proposal should have been presented and discussed publicly rather than surfacing in a same-day email. "I've asked you now three times to present this and you have obfuscated and not done it," Armand said. Norton disputed the characterization of her intent and said the document was offered as "sample language to consider," not a formal proposal for the charter. "I take serious offense with your misrepresentation of what I wrote," Norton said, noting she is "only one person" among 12 council members. Councilman Jeffrey (surname not given in the transcript) said he agreed with Norton's right to raise the issue and expressed support for a non-binding straw vote on every recommendation, including new ones, at the June 17 meeting.
Council member Janet, responding to Norton, noted that the charter already references a separate town ethics ordinance, Chapter 17 of the town code, that all employees and elected officials sign a pledge to follow, and argued that revisions to substantive ethics rules belong in that ordinance rather than the charter. Norton responded that the charter contains only a single sentence addressing ethics and argued other towns, including Westport and Glastonbury, place more detailed ethics language directly in their charters because it functions as the town's foundational governing document, changed only once a decade, while ordinances can be amended more easily.
Rogers cut off further debate on the substance of Norton's proposal, saying the issue would be aired publicly and straw-voted at the June 17 meeting, and directed Norton to forward her comments to the Charter Revision Commission alongside the rest of the council's input.
Charter Discussion: 2016 Precedent and Closing Comments
Joe Paulo, a member of the Charter Revision Commission, told the council the 2016 revision cycle produced a single, unified council response — a concise, roughly one-page list of five items the council asked the commission to reconsider — rather than fragmented individual submissions, and cautioned that fragmented input would force the commission to "referee" competing council viewpoints. "If you come back to us with fragmented input, that just allows us to churn and try and referee something that you need to come back to us as a unified town council," Paulo said. Commission member Bill Parrot, who arrived partway through the meeting, said the commission had considered council recommendations "in a holistic fashion" and cautioned that isolating single recommendations for reconsideration risked doing "a disservice" to the commission's broader work, noting New Canaan has comparatively few elected land-use positions relative to neighboring towns.
Rogers closed the discussion by reiterating that the council would take straw votes on the commission's five existing recommended ballot questions at its June 17 meeting, plus any additional items raised through caucusing beforehand, and that members unable to attend in person or online on June 17 could submit their positions in writing to be read into the public record.
Procedural Steps and Outcome
No substantive council votes were taken on any charter provision at this meeting. Chairman Mike Rogers moved to adjourn; Councilman Eric Tunum seconded; the motion carried on a voice vote with no recorded dissent, closing the meeting at approximately 9:05 p.m.
Implications and What Is Next
The council's straw votes at its June 17 meeting will be the clearest public signal yet of where the 12-member body stands on the Charter Revision Commission's five recommended ballot questions, including proposed term limits and the elected-versus-appointed status of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Finance, as well as any new items — including Kim Norton's ethics-article proposal — that surface through caucusing beforehand. The commission is targeting a final report to the council by its July 15 regular meeting; under state statute, the council then has 15 days to vote to approve or reject the charter package, potentially requiring a special meeting in early August to finalize which questions appear on the November ballot.
Mike Rogers, Town Council Chairman, presiding. Kim Norton, Town Council member. Hillary Armand, Town Council member (also referred to in the meeting as "Orman" and "Orond"; surname unconfirmed — see review). Christina Ross, Town Council member. Eric Tunham, Town Council member (also referred to as "Tunum"; surname unconfirmed — see review). Maria Nton, Town Council member (spelling uncertain — see review). Heather Russell, Town Council member; led the pledge of allegiance. Penny Young, Town Council member; a member of the 2016 Charter Revision Commission. Jennifer Zonis, Town Council member. Lena Lee, Town Council member. Janet (surname not captured in the transcript), Town Council member. One additional council member's roll-call response was not captured by name in the transcript recording; the council stated its total membership as 12. Kathleen Corbett, Chair, Charter Revision Commission. Joe Paulo, member, Charter Revision Commission. Bill Parrot, member, Charter Revision Commission (spelling uncertain — see review). Kevin (surname not given), public commenter; former New Canaan first selectman and former town council member. New Canaan's first selectman (not named in the meeting record), public commenter. Elliot Cideres, public commenter, resident of 103 Woods End Road. Todd Lavier, resident; referenced as author of a letter circulated to the council but not present speaking.
Charter Revision Commission draft report, submitted May 4, 2026 — the operative document under council review; discussed throughout the meeting. Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-191d — cited by Kathleen Corbett and council members as the statutory authority governing the council's response deadline, the commission's final-report deadline and the council's approve-or-reject vote. Town of Fairfield charter — cited by Kevin and council members as the source of the proposed vacancy-posting provision. Town of Westport charter — cited by Kim Norton as a model for the proposed ethics/conflict-of-interest article. New Canaan Town Code Chapter 17 — cited by Councilwoman Janet and Kim Norton as the town's existing ethics ordinance, separate from the charter. Republican Town Committee and Democratic Town Committee — cited repeatedly by Kevin, the first selectman and council members as the entities that vet and recommend board and commission nominees under the current appointment process. 2016 Charter Revision Commission final report — cited by Joe Paulo as precedent for how the council previously delivered unified, consolidated feedback to a revision commission. Kathleen Corbett email dated May 23, 2026, 10:18 p.m. — cited during the meeting as laying out the statutory timeline referenced throughout the discussion. Letter from Todd Lavier, circulated the day of the meeting — referenced by the first selectman as addressing the elected-boards proposal.