Barnstable County commissioners voted Aug. 13 to authorize the county administrator to work with counsel to prepare a resolution asking the secretary of state to place on the 2026 ballot a question to elect a charter study commission under chapter 801 of the Acts of 1985.

County Administrator Michael Dutton introduced the item and asked Barnstable County counsel Michelle Randazzo of KP Law to outline the process, timing and legal requirements for an elected charter study commission that would review and recommend changes to the county charter.

Randazzo told commissioners the formal filing deadline for a resolution to place the question on the ballot is, by her calculation, Feb. 24, 2026; nomination papers for commission candidates would be due about the tenth Tuesday before the election (calculated in the presentation as Aug. 25, 2026). She said the statute requires an election of 15 elected members (one from each town) plus four non-elected ex officio members; the commission would have 18 months after election to issue a final report and the commission’s account would receive an automatic credit of $35,000 within 20 days after the election. She advised commissioners that the statute sets the ballot language and basic membership rules and that any recommended charter changes would be published and could appear on a subsequent ballot in accordance with state filing dates.

Why it matters: an elected charter study commission could propose structural changes to county government, including changes to elected offices. Commissioners who spoke during the discussion repeatedly raised the practical and political issue that candidates will be running for current offices while the commission is evaluating whether those offices should continue or be altered. Commissioners and counsel discussed transitional language and the possibility of a special act to implement structural changes so incumbents could complete terms or voters would have a clear transition plan.

Commissioners also discussed voter confidence and the commission’s credibility. Sonya Sheasley, the county communications director, was cited as having posted background materials including Chapter 801 and the 1988 charter commission report on the county website. Lynn Klaefner, president of the League of Women Voters of the Cape Cod Area, spoke during the public-comment portion to say the League supports “an independent charter review committee,” adding that by independent she meant “literally independent with no affiliation” to the county commissioners or assembly of delegates.

Next steps and formal action: a commissioner proposed a motion that would authorize the administrator to work with counsel to draft the resolution to request the ballot question; the commission voted in favor. The motion instructs county staff and counsel to prepare a resolution for formal consideration at a subsequent meeting; commissioners did not adopt the final ballot language at the Aug. 13 meeting.

Discussion versus decision: the meeting record shows both substantial discussion of timing, membership, legal form and transitional options and a formal direction to staff (authorization to draft a resolution). No charter amendments were adopted at the meeting; any changes to the charter would require separate steps — a ballot question, election of the charter commission, the commission’s report, and voter approval of any proposed amendments.

Background and detail: the participants noted that municipalities and other counties in Massachusetts have used elected charter commissions as a public-engagement mechanism. Randazzo emphasized that Chapter 801 prescribes the ballot question’s form, specifies nomination petition rules (a small signature threshold was described in the presentation) and permits the commission to access county staff resources while it conducts public hearings and prepares its report. Commissioners and counsel also discussed weighted voting among commission members and the statute’s requirement that the assembly convene periodically to study the charter separately from an elected charter commission.

What remains open: staff were directed to prepare the resolution for a future vote; commissioners asked for additional outreach and public information about the process. Specific implementation details — final ballot language, exact filing logistics with the secretary of state and transitional mechanisms for any offices the commission might recommend eliminating — will be decided after the draft resolution is prepared and reviewed.

Ending: the board’s action at the meeting was limited to authorizing staff to prepare the resolution and to proceed with the administrative steps required to seek placement of the charter-commission question on the 2026 ballot. If the question proceeds and voters elect a commission, the statute and the commission’s subsequent work will determine the exact timetable for proposed charter amendments to reach voters.