Appointments in Stamford: How do I get on a board or commission?
An overview of how the City of Stamford appoints people to boards and commissions
To the average person, “city government” can be conflated with many different things. The mayor of the city, the Board of Representatives, police officers, traffic enforcement, zoning board, fire commission, and etc. are all perceived as a monolithic “city government.” In reality, Stamford’s government is made up of hundreds of different roles, departments, and boards. These entities are all united in civic service to the City of Stamford, but they all operate differently. This article looks at the appointment process for volunteer boards and commissions. In other words: how does an ordinary resident become involved in local government?
Why does Stamford have boards and commissions?
The City of Stamford’s government structure is directed by a governing document called the “charter” (you can read it online). Stamford’s charter is like a constitution for the City of Stamford. It defines the powers, duties, and responsibilities of all positions, legislative entities, and departments in the city.
The City of Stamford is governed by a strong-mayor government, where the vast majority of government policies and priorities are decided and executed by the mayor and city staff that report to the mayor. The strong-mayor government structure is the second most popular government structure among municipalities in the United States (the other is city manager). The overwhelming majority of local governments across the United States (86.4 percent) have a hierarchy where one individual is at the top to make executive decisions. Very few municipalities have a council government — where an entity like Stamford’s Board of Representatives has more power over policies and priorities. The few places with council governments have recently shifted toward strong-mayor instead such as Minneapolis and Portland.
However, some responsibilities are given to volunteer boards and commissions. These entities are made up of individuals who are appointed to their board or commission. These entities enable the City of Stamford to manage government assets while providing several benefits to the public. For example:
Volunteer appointees are part-time and unpaid. Boards and commissions often require specialized expertise, but don’t have enough work to warrant a full-time position. For example, the Board of Ethics reviews any violations of Stamford’s Code of Ethics but if there are no violations to review then the board has no reason to meet. Out of the 12 scheduled meetings for the Board of Ethics in 2025, half of them either had one agenda item (approving the minutes of the previous meeting) or were canceled.
Civilian checks. Boards and commissions may require specialized expertise, but sometimes appointees are selected specifically because they are not associated with entrenched interest groups. For example, the Police Commission reviews ethical complaints about Stamford’s police officers and it is very common for appointees to have no background in law enforcement. This ensures Stamford’s Police Department is held accountable by ordinary civilians rather than former or retired police officers.
Efficiency. Stamford’s government has a limited ability to review and approve every single policy or decision in the city. Boards and commissions often oversee valuable assets in Stamford, but are not so valuable to require the attention of the city’s chief elected official or Board of Representatives. For example, the Arts and Culture Commission selected the artist to paint the mural near Stamford’s train station — which can safely be accomplished by part-time volunteers rather than a paid city official. Although that mural is awful.
How do I apply to be on a board or commission in Stamford?
The current process for becoming an appointee for a board or commission requires filling out an application, getting vetted by a local political party, approval from the mayor, then finally a confirmation vote from Stamford’s Board of Representatives.
Step 1: Any resident of Stamford can fill out an application to get appointed to any board or commission. The application process vets for your eligibility to be an appointee (such as if you live in Stamford or have conflicts of interest) and your qualification for being an appointee (such as work history or understanding what the board/commission does). The application form is a new process implemented by Mayor Caroline Simmons’ administration. Historically, appointees were sought out by government officials or political party leadership.
Step 2: After completing the application process, your application will be sent to the appropriate local political party. If you are a Democrat, your application is sent to the Democratic City Committee. If you are a Republican, your application is sent to the Republican Town Committee. In the current process, local political parties decide if an appointee candidate aligns with their political agenda before making a recommendation that is sent to the mayor.
The appointment process outsources candidate vetting to political parties for a number of reasons.
From a practical perspective, this appointment process gives power to political parties so party leadership can promote or negotiate selected party members (e.g. “candidate A has volunteered at a lot of our events, so we will appoint them to X position,” or “candidate B has never volunteered at our events, so we will not appoint them to X position”).
From an ethical perspective, if the political parties do not vet the candidates then vetting would be done solely by city staff (who report to the mayor) or the Board of Representatives (which may be controlled by one political party) which would raise ethical concerns about “rubber stamps.” However, a combination of Connecticut’s minority representation state law and a dysfunctional local Republican Party has led to dozens of unfilled volunteer positions.
Applicants registered to a third party skip this step.
Step 3: After an applicant is recommended by a political party, then they interview with the mayor. The mayor has the power to appoint or not appoint any applicant at their own discretion. If the mayor approves of the applicant, they become an appointed candidate for their board or commission.
Step 4: Stamford’s Board of Representatives’ personnel committee invites the appointed candidate to an interview. The Board of Representatives is the “legislative power” of the city and must confirm or reject all mayoral appointees. Members of the personnel committee can ask the candidate any question related to their qualifications. However, Board members are advised by the City of Stamford’s Human Resources department to not take notes about candidates’ interviews due to litigation concerns (e.g. a note perceived as selecting for or against an identity group could result in a lawsuit). After the interview, the personnel committee will vote to give a recommendation to the full Board of Representatives. The personnel committee has no binding power to confirm or reject a candidate, the committee only recommends what the full Board of Representatives should do.
Step 5: Stamford’s Board of Representatives votes on the appointed candidate. This vote typically does not have much discussion, since the bulk of discussion is held in the personnel committee. The Board of Representatives has the power to reject any appointed candidate, but it does not have the power to appoint candidates. All appointments come from the mayor of Stamford.
Commentary: Arguments about appointees are a bellwether for the public’s frustrations
The City of Stamford had a high-profile political battle over the appointments process from 2021-2025. The most significant moments in this battle were the proposed charter changes in 2023 and the subsequent election outcome in 2025.
In 2023, the Board of Representatives approved a proposed charter revision to give the Board of Representatives more power over the appointments process. This revision would give the Board of Representatives the ability to appoint members of the public to boards and commissions if that board or commission had appointees on an expired term (the mayor must re-appoint appointees after a period of time, typically 4 years). The Board of Representatives argued a number of boards had expired appointees that were put up for reappointment and rejected. The mayor’s inability to appoint a candidate that could be approved by the Board of Representatives was a misuse of power. Mayor Caroline Simmons and other board members argued this charter revision was a “power grab” to “turn the balance of power based on the politics of the moment to a select few”. The charter revision was put to a public referendum that failed.
In 2025, Stamford’s Democratic City Committee chose to recruit many new candidates and not endorse current members of the Board of Representatives. The DCC’s leadership linked this recruitment effort to remove board members who supported the failed charter revision. This led to a sweep of new members to the Democratic City Committee itself and later ousted the majority of Board of Representative members along with a historic re-election victory for Simmons.
Feather Ruffler’s view
The battle over appointments is emblematic of a broader political trend in the western world where people’s value for rules and order are challenged by inefficiency.
The political faction that argued the appointments process could be easily abused by a mayor unwilling to work with the Board of Representatives is obviously correct. Under Simmons’ first term, some board members had served in positions as “expired” appointees longer than confirmed appointees. This is clearly an outrageous violation of the city’s charter.
The reason no one cares about this violation of the charter is because the political faction making the argument is doing so in service to an unpopular policy agenda. More specifically, the conversation about “expired terms” was predominantly focused on appointees to the zoning board and planning board. These two boards have the power to block new development in Stamford. The proponents of the charter change opposed many new developments and it is clear the conversation about the appointments process wasn’t really about rules but rather whether or not the city should support or oppose development.
With that context, it is clear Stamford voters support an efficient government that does what they want over a lawful government that doesn’t. This is the same sentiment that drives voters to not support the Supreme Court or to support deportations without immigration courts.
As a publication, we support more housing and growing Stamford’s tax revenue to pay off debt, provide lower cost housing for every layer of our economy, and create independence from state funding. These priorities are more important than the abuse of the appointments process.
This article was based on the City of Stamford’s Personnel Committee held on December 15, 2025.