Over the course of the past few Town Council meetings, the council has devoted a portion of Public Comment to discuss a number of petition warrant articles that had overwhelming support in the Town Election in March of 2024.
The articles were created by former Town Councilor and Newspaper Publisher, Deb Paul, and each of them were made “advisory only” during the Deliberative Session.
There were five articles approved during the election and all five were approved by significant margins.
In previous meetings, the council suggested some of the articles would require “opening the Town Charter,” a process that would take at least two years.
On Monday night, June 3, Article 20 was discussed. The article would require all official town meetings to be recorded and scheduled at a time most convenient to the general public.
Paul spoke in favor of implementing the article, saying that the reason she proposed this particular one was because of the conflict that is sometimes created when meetings overlap and when meetings are sometimes scheduled at a time when it’s impossible for the general public to attend.
Resident, Martha Smith, spoke on the subject and asked why the Town Council can’t move these changes forward, citing that in prior meetings the council was able to move amendments to the Town Charter forward without opening the charter with a Charter Commission.
Smith asked, “What makes it a significant change to open up the charter to make this a very long process?”
She added, “Some of these issues seem kind of simple to me.”
Councilor, John Farrell, responded that the Town Council can’t make changes to the charter, it needs to be approved by the voters.
Town Manager, Mike Malaguti, further explained that there is a difference between a charter revision and a charter amendment.
Malaguti said a charter revision is “a change in the form of government”, and those type of changes would need to be approved by the state.
He cited the amendment proposed by the Town Council on the March ballot where they citizens were asked to change the Town Treasurer from an elected position to an appointed one.
Malaguti said, “That doesn’t change enough about our form of government, therefore you don’t need a Charter Commission to be elected.” He added, “The council can recommend it, but the people ultimately have to vote on it.”
During the discussion, it was suggested that the process of bringing these warrant articles forward was rushed, and the council needed to take their time in understanding whether or not to move forward with them, saying there might be “unintended consequences.”
Paul defended her position with the article, saying that this was one of the first things she had done as a councilor, four years ago, and she had even discussed it with Malaguti. Adding that she tried to move some of these forward as a member of the board.
Paul also mentioned she was a member of the last Charter Commission, and that the focus of the commission can be limited to only a few items.
She also encouraged the council to just adopt some of the articles that were approved by the voters, saying if the council would adopt these and “lead by example” there wouldn’t be a need to make charter changes.
Resident, Anne Fenn, spoke in favor of moving this article forward, suggesting that the issue is basic, “It’s basically good government, because you want the public to be involved, you want public participation, you want volunteers to be on the boards. If all of the meetings are recorded, at least they watch it on TV.”
She also added that she was involved in federal government and they always tried to schedule meetings for the evenings or the weekends when people could attend. Fenn finished by saying, “It’s just basic to having good government.”
Later in the meeting, Paul asked for clarification on what it would entail to move forward with opening the Town Charter.
She was told that beyond what information she was given during the previous meeting and directing her the state statute, the town could not offer any legal advice to citizens on how to proceed.