Historically speaking the City of Danbury Charter has been a very stable document.

Originally drafted to effectuate the merger of the City and Town of Danbury, it has been revised in 1977, 1988 and 1990. The current proposed revisions have the potential to make impacts far larger and far reaching than all of the previous revisions combined.

I. Elections - 4 year terms

To grossly understate the issue, the proposed shift to four year terms for all municipally elected officials represents a monumental change in city governance. What is most shocking is that there is truly no necessary basis upon which to justify such a far reaching restructuring of city government.

Once argument that has been advanced is that such an extension is necessary for our elected officials to learn their job. This argument is absurd. Members of the United States House of Representatives are elected to two year terms. The Governors of Vermont and New Hampshire are elected to two year terms. The Mayor of Houston, Texas, (the fourth largest city in the United States) is elected to a two year term. It is greatly hoped that no one would give credence to an argument that being the mayor of Danbury is more difficult than being a member of Congress, the Governor of Vermont or New Hampshire or the mayor ofthe fourth largest city in the country.

The most significant practical ramification of four year terms is that it eliminates a local election every two years. In a time when fifty percent turnout in a municipal election is considered good, and immediately after a national election that showed record turnout, the elimination of an entire election cycle once every fours years sends a troubling message to the voters. Critically, an election cycle of three elections out of every four years will cause voter turnout to decline in every year.

No elected official should fear to return to the voters for ratification of their actions.

Ultimately, however, a four year term effectively means less contact with the residents and voters of Danbury. It should be beyond argument that less contact with the voters is not beneficial for the City or its residents. The policy of the City of Danbury should be to encourage the interaction of its elected officials with the residents of the City. The extension of the term of office to four years has the exact opposite effect.

During the debate regarding the ratification of the United States Constitution, one of the concerns expressed over the United States Constitution was whether members of the House of Representatives would actually be concerned with the interests of regular people. In 1787, James Madison defended the Constitution and its requirement that Representatives be elected every two years. Madison stated that all the reasons why it was reasonable to expect quality representation of the common man ...

"would be found very insufficient without the restraint of frequent elections. Hence, in the fourth place, the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it." See, The Federalist Papers No. 57.

Madison's words are no less true today.

Finally, with far too much frequency we have seen in Connecticut the abuse of power and the corruption of our public officials. A former mayor of Connecticut's largest city and the youngest Governor in Connecticut history have both left office in disgrace and spent time in federal prison. Most recently the Mayor of Connecticut's capital city has been charged with obtaining improper benefits by way of his position. While, Danbury has historically had excellent leadership, today's climate makes it even more important than ever to go to the voters more frequently, not less.

The proposed revision of the charter is not in the best interests of the residents of Danbury.

II. Increase in Bonding without requiring approval of the voters

The proposed revisions to the Charter would permit the City to bond, or borrow, up to

$ 2,500,000.00 per project, and a total of $ 500,000.00 per fiscal year without seeking the approval of the voters. If it is assumed that proposed four year term were to become law, the ramification of the change to Section 7-10 is that the residents and voters of Danbury could be obligated to repay up to twenty million dollars ($ 20,000,000.00) without approving the bonding. This is not in the best interests ofthe residents of Danbury, especially as they would not even have the opportunity to vote on the election of the mayor and council members who have approved the borrowing.

The overall level of bonding incurred by the city effects the city's credit rating and the interest rates the city will pay. Moreover, the total amount of debt service that must be carried every year must come from general revenues and will thus have a direct effect on the other services and programs that the city may undertake.

III. Referenda

The proposed revisions to Section 3-11 of the Charter would reduce to ten percent the required number of signatures necessary to force an ordinance to a referendum. Upon the submission of the requisite number of signatures, the law would be ineffective until the next "general or special meeting" of the voters. At that time, should a majority of those voting in the referendum approve the law would take effect.

First, it must be noted that the wide spread use of referenda does not generally lead to better public policy. The difficulty encountered by neighboring towns in enacting their local budgets should cause pause before making the conclusion that reducing the number of signatures required to force a referendum is in the best interests of the City or its residents. Further, if Section 3-11 remains in its current form, at minimum it should be expressly stated therein that the referendum must occur within a specific time period after the submission of the signatures. As currently worded, Section 3-11 merely requires the referendum to occur at the next general or special meeting of the voters. This language is ambiguous enough that it could be interpreted to mean a referendum need not be held until the next municipal election. While such a result would likely not be within the spirit of the Charter, there is no real effective method to challenge an incorrect interpretation of the Charter and curious rulings have been received in the past.

IV. Settlement of Law Suits:

The proposed charter revisions would remove the requirement that the common council approve the settlement of law suits provided the settlement falls within current coverage limits. While the submission of settlement proposals to the common council is likely annoying to the executive, the legislative review and approval of such actions is part and parcel of representative government. Even a settlement within policy limits can have an impact upon the city's insurance premium costs. Moreover, legal settlements can involve more than just a money payment. The people of Danbury have a right to have their elected legislators review settlements not merely for their cost but also for what is admitted or conceded by way of the settlement. Further, there has been no situation of any note where the common council has rejected a reasonable settlement offer. The minimal convenience to the executive that may be engendered by submitting settlement proposals to the common council is far outweighed by the necessity of legislative review of decisions that can have long ranging effects on the City and its residents.