Enfield Prepares for a Second Attempt at Charter Reform
Collateral Damage: Bipartisan Reforms Lost in the Defeat
While the budget referendum dominated the debate, several other reforms were swept away when voters rejected the entire package. Voters couldn’t “slice and dice” the proposal — there was only one up-or-down question on the ballot.What Happened in November
The charter revision question failed decisively, with 59% of voters (4,560) rejecting the proposed changes and only 41% (3,162) voting in favor. Turnout was approximately 34%, with 9,177 ballots cast out of 27,228 active voters.
But with the failure of the referendum, proposals designed to improve majority/minority council relations also failed.
Minority Party Protections That Failed With It
One change would have altered how vacancies in elected offices are filled. Instead of the full Council voting — where a majority party could potentially control the outcome — only Council members from the same party as the departing member would vote on the replacement. The goal was to prevent the majority from hand-picking a minority party representative.
The revision also would have formally recognized the Minority Leader position in the charter, giving that role defined standing in council leadership.
The revision also would have formally recognized the Minority Leader position in the charter, giving that role defined standing in council leadership.
Town Manager Requirements
The failed charter also would have eliminated the Town Manager residency requirement. Under the current charter, a manager who does not already live in Enfield must move into town. The proposal would have made residency “strongly preferred,” not mandatory.
It also would have provided greater flexibility in educational and professional qualifications for Town Manager candidates, replacing the current charter’s very specific degree requirements.
Other changes included:
• Eliminating the elected position of Constable.• Allowing the Council to meet less than once per month by majority vote.
• Creating two alternate positions for the Board of Assessment Appeals.
• Requiring a public hearing before the Council could alter district boundaries.
• Establishing a formal removal process for Council members who violate charter provisions or the Ethics Ordinance.
What's Different This Time
Republicans championed the budget referendum provision when they controlled the Council, but Democrats won the majority in November's election. The Democrats are unlikely to bring that idea back.The resolution before the Council would create a commission of 5 to 15 members, with a tentative timeline targeting November 2026 for a referendum vote.
Under Connecticut law, charter commissions have broad authority to recommend changes to municipal government structure. They could propose anything from modest tweaks to fundamental restructuring—switching to a strong-mayor system, changing council terms to four years, or redefining leadership roles. However, any recommendations must win Town Council approval before going to voters.
The Timeline Ahead
If the Council approves the resolution Monday, the tentative process would unfold as follows (based on the timeline document):By late January: Commission members appointed
February-May 2026: Public hearings and commission work
June 1, 2026: Draft report submitted to Town Clerk
By mid-June: Council public hearing on draft
July-August: Council and commission finalize recommendations
September: Publish revisions and set referendum question
November 2026: Voters decide
Comments