Why Danbury Should Keep the Town Clerk Elected

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission has done serious, thoughtful work. As a Democratic City Councilman and lifelong Danburian, I support the overwhelming majority of their recommendation. The modernized language, the gender-inclusive revisions, the removal of mandatory religious language from the oath of office, and the structural improvements throughout.

I want to particularly highlight the recommendation for four year terms for elected officials. That is a genuine milestone for this city. Longer terms mean more stability, less time spent campaigning, and more time spent actually governing. Danbury is ready for that change and I believe residents will embrace it.

But there is one proposed change I cannot support. And I believe when Danbury residents understand the full picture, they will agree.

The commission is proposing to remove the Town Clerk as an elected office and make it a mayoral appointment. I believe that is a mistake, and I want to explain why.

A Tradition Rooted in Who We Are

Many people know that genealogy is a passion of mine. Through that research I discovered that my ancestor Joseph Hawley served as the first Town Clerk of Stratford in the seventeenth century. He was part of a generation of stewards who built this colony record by record, town by town. Danbury was no different. Our own Josiah Starr served as Danbury’s first colonial Town Clerk. These were not bureaucrats. They were stewards. And the records they kept are the reason we know Connecticut’s story, and Danbury’s story, at all.

That tradition did not fade with time. It grew stronger. Since 1883, eighteen Town Clerks have served this city. Thirty three percent of them have been women. Every single one of those eighteen was chosen at the ballot box, with the sole exception of vacancy appointments. That is not a coincidence. That is a choice this community has made repeatedly for over one hundred and forty years.

So I have to ask: of all the offices this commission could have moved to appointment, why this one?

The Structural Conflict

Under Connecticut state law, the Town Clerk manages absentee balloting from application to storage, candidate certifications, nominating petitions, campaign finance filings, and the permanent certified results of every election this city conducts. These are not minor administrative tasks. They are the legal backbone of how Danbury runs its elections.

It is worth being precise about how this works in practice. The Registrar of Voters handles voter rolls, polling places, poll workers, and voting equipment. That office is bipartisan by statute and would remain independent under this proposal. The Town Clerk handles the legal and administrative infrastructure those elections run on. These two offices deliberately divide responsibilities to create a system of checks and balances. Remove the independence of one and that system begins to collapse.

If this change passes, a future Mayor holds direct authority over that office in the same elections that Mayor appears on the ballot.

When the Town Clerk is elected, they answer to the voters. If they abuse that trust, the voters can remove them. That is exactly how self-government is supposed to work. When the Town Clerk is appointed, they answer to the Mayor. And that Mayor appears on the very ballot the Town Clerk is required by law to administer fairly. That is not a check on power. That is a concentration of it.

Good government does not ask us to simply trust that will never be a problem. Good government removes the conflict before it arises. Public trust in elections depends not just on the reality of independence, it depends on its perception.

And once this change passes, reversing it becomes nearly impossible in practice. Any future council seeking to restore the elected office would be asking a sitting mayor to voluntarily surrender their own authority. That is not a realistic check. This decision is, for all practical purposes, permanent.

The Data

This is not a debate about what small towns across Connecticut do. It is about what the cities Danbury actually measures itself against do.

Of the ten largest cities in Connecticut, eight elect their Town Clerk. Bridgeport elects. Stamford elects. New Haven elects. Waterbury elects. Norwalk elects. Every city larger than Danbury, with the sole exception of Hartford, elects their clerk.

In 2024, the Connecticut Town and City magazine examined this question across our state and found that 119 Connecticut municipalities elect their Town Clerk while only 50 appoint theirs. The Rose Institute of State and Local Government notes that electing local officials discourages bureaucratic cronyism while ensuring officials remain responsive to the voters they serve.

Danbury recently benchmarked its mayoral salary against peer municipalities because we believe this city should align with communities of comparable size and stature. That was the right instinct. I am simply asking the commission to apply that same logic here. By that standard, Danbury should be keeping this office elected, not abandoning a practice that every comparable city in this state has chosen to preserve.

The Contradiction at the Heart of This Proposal

This is the argument I find most compelling, because it does not require any outside data. It simply asks the commission to apply its own logic consistently.

The commission is recommending four year terms for elected officials because longer terms mean more stability, less time focused on re-election, and more time focused on actually doing the job. I agree with that reasoning completely.

So I have to ask: why isn’t the Town Clerk getting that same opportunity?

Our own experience in Danbury answers the question better than any outside argument could.

Our current Town Clerk came to this office with no prior experience in the role. She inherited a talented team and built on their expertise and institutional knowledge. She successfully administered multiple elections, including a presidential election with a brand new early voting process this state had never seen before. Her department ran within budget in the 2023-2024 audit. And that same office of five people is projected to generate nearly $2.7 million in revenue for this city in the coming fiscal year. The Town Clerk’s office has generated over $6.4 million in actual revenue over the last three years alone.

She did all of that as an elected official, accountable to the voters of Danbury. Not because she was appointed. Not because Human Resources set her qualifications. Because she earned the public’s trust and delivered.

The election process did not prevent excellence. It produced it.

Instead of rewarding that success by giving the elected model the stability a four year term would provide, this proposal eliminates the elected model entirely. The commission is recommending longer terms for elected officials because time in office produces better governance and then denying that opportunity to one of our most consequential offices.

The commission also rightly used peer city comparisons to set executive compensation. But on this question it proposes to diverge from what every comparable Connecticut city does.

There is no compelling counter argument that survives contact with this commission’s own recommendations.

The Bottom Line

The data says keep it elected. Our peer cities say keep it elected. The commission’s own four year term philosophy says give the elected model room to grow. One hundred and forty years of Danbury history says keep it elected. And the voters of this city, who have chosen their Town Clerk at the ballot box since before this nation celebrated its centennial, deserve to keep making that choice.

These records do not belong to the Mayor. They do not belong to City Hall. They do not belong to any administration.

They belong to the people.

As our nation celebrates 250 years of self-government, its semiquincentennial, this is precisely the wrong moment to move away from one of its oldest democratic traditions. The founders built a system of checks, balances, and independent institutions for a reason. That principle is worth celebrating this year. It is also worth preserving in Danbury’s charter.

Long after today’s debates are forgotten, long after every official now serving this city is gone, the records preserved by the Town Clerk will remain. Future Danburians will trace their families through them, research their homes through them, and learn their city’s story through them. They will know our story for the same reason we know the story of Josiah Starr, Joseph Hawley, and early Connecticut because someone, accountable to the people, faithfully preserved it.

I urge the commission to strike this provision and preserve the elected Town Clerk. And I urge Danbury residents to make their voices heard before this revision is finalized.

The voters are watching.

Ryan Hawley is a Democratic City Councilman representing the residents of Danbury. He is a lifelong Danburian and 13th-generation Connecticut resident.