Charter committee sets meeting norms: in-person preference, timestamps, and limited public comment during initial review

Littleton’s Charter Review Committee opened its session at 6:32 p.m. and spent substantial time establishing operating rules for the charter review process, including meeting length, virtual attendance expectations, agenda timing, and the committee’s approach to public comment.

Why it matters: The committee’s procedural choices affect transparency, public access, and how the body will gather and share information during its multi-month review of the city charter.

Committee leaders and staff said they intend to keep meetings under two and a half hours when possible and to release agendas one week in advance. Colleen, the city clerk and staff liaison, told members she prefers questions be submitted by Monday (noon preferred) ahead of a meeting so staff can gather answers from departments and legal counsel and distribute responses to the whole body prior to discussion.

Chair Jose emphasized in-person attendance as the norm: “Virtual attendance. It is imperative that we do this in in in person as much as possible.” He and vice chair Phil said extenuating circumstances would be handled on a case-by-case basis and that the chair has authority to permit virtual participation when justified. The committee agreed staff would post meeting recordings to the city website and timestamp sections within one to two business days so members and the public can jump to specific charter sections instead of replaying full long meetings.

On public comment, members discussed competing aims. Several members said public comment should be available when the committee reaches the recommendation stage so residents can address proposed changes; others argued public comment during the initial factual review would be inefficient. Colleen said council had left public-comment policy for advisory bodies to each chair, and she recommended deferring broad public input until the committee develops concrete recommendations. One member argued for courtesy to any public attendees and suggested allowing three-minute comments at the beginning or end of meetings.

Members also discussed contact-information sharing. Staff asked permission to collect phone numbers for limited 1–2 person check-ins (with each member’s written consent) and confirmed email would remain the preferred method for official communications.

Ending: The committee settled procedural norms by consensus and asked staff to circulate a brief written summary of the scheduling rules, virtual attendance policy, public-comment approach, and the plan to timestamp recordings.