Citizen petition warrant articles approved by voters in March resurfaced as a point of tension during a recent Town Council meeting, continuing a debate over how the members should respond to voter initiated measures.
The issue first emerged at a previous meeting, when a consent agenda item included proposed letters addressed to Londonderry’s state legislative delegation and the Governor. The letters were drafted in response to two citizen petition warrant articles that passed with strong majorities on Election Day. Although the articles were non-binding, both directed the Town Council to formally communicate the results to state officials within 30 days.
The first warrant article focused on state funding and its impact on local property taxes. It asked whether residents wanted the New Hampshire Legislature to “protect local taxpayers by ensuring adequate state revenues for essential services” and avoid policies that shift costs onto municipalities. The article cited reductions in state revenue sharing and the resulting strain on local budgets, noting that such cost shifting “burdens working families, strains local budgets, limits flexibility, and undermines long-term community prosperity.” It concluded by directing the Town Council to send the results to the Governor and all members of the General Court representing Londonderry.
The second article addressed support for an Emergency Risk Protection Order (ERPO), commonly known as a Red Flag Law. The petition stated that New Hampshire communities “value public safety and the responsible use of firearms” and asked whether voters wanted legislators to advocate for an ERPO law similar to those enacted in more than twenty states, including all other New England states. The article emphasized the laws’ role in reducing firearm related suicides, noting that New Hampshire loses someone to suicide with a firearm every three days and that veterans are particularly affected. Like the first article, it required the Town Council to send the results to state officials.
Both articles passed with approximately 72 percent support, a margin that petitioners described as a clear mandate.
Despite the directive in both articles, only one Councilor Ted Combes ultimately signed the letters. Questions had been raised at an earlier meeting about whether each Councilor was required to sign, and the matter was left unresolved.
Paul Skudlarek, who submitted both warrant articles, returned to the Council during the latest meeting to ask why the remaining Councilors declined to sign.
“I was not given any kind of reason for why that was happening,” Skudlarek said, noting that he had emailed the Council seeking clarification but received no explanation.
He emphasized that the articles were not close votes but overwhelming victories.
“Both warrant articles passed overwhelmingly with about 72% support,” he said. “I can only assume that was political in nature,” arguing that signing the letters was an administrative duty meant to reflect the will of the voters, not an endorsement of the policy positions.
“Really disappointing. I’m not going to let it go because it ought to be redone,” Skudlarek continued, expressing hope that the Council might issue the same letters again this time with more signatures.
As of the meeting, it remained unclear whether the Town Council planned to revisit the issue or draft new letters. No Councilor offered additional explanation during the discussion, and no motion was made to reconsider the matter.
For now, the question of how the Town Council will respond to the voter approved petition articles remains unresolved.