The Town Council Study Committee on Saturday outlined a draft charter that would replace Nantucket’s long‑standing open town meeting with a nine‑member, at‑large town council and a town manager, and described a multi‑step path to implement the change that would require state approval.

Joe Grouse, chair of the Town Council Study Committee, told about 40 residents that the committee had “unanimously vote[d] back in about June of last year to go forward with … a conversion to town council, town manager,” and that the draft charter the group has completed would make the town’s legislative body a nine‑member council elected at large, with rolling three‑year terms.

The document presented at the session would also set compensation levels in the draft: a $40,000 annual stipend for councilors and a $50,000 stipend for the council president. The committee described a transition period during which the select board and the new council would coexist for part of a fiscal year, and said full implementation would be contingent on a home‑rule petition to the state and additional local votes; if everything proceeded “perfectly,” the committee estimated a likely earliest implementation in the first half of 2027.

Why it matters

The proposal would change Nantucket’s legislative process from a direct‑democracy model—open town meeting, which the committee said typically draws about 5%–15% of the population—to a representative model that the committee says meets more regularly. Proponents said a council could act year‑round, pull expertise together more quickly and provide identifiable elected officials residents could petition and lobby directly, rather than trying to build support at a single town meeting.

What the draft charter includes

- Council size and terms: nine councilors elected at large on rolling three‑year terms; one councilor would serve as council president.
- Compensation: a proposed $40,000 stipend per councilor and $50,000 for the council president.
- Petition and citizen‑access provisions: multiple routes for residents to bring issues before the council, including a citizen “open meeting of the voters” that the draft says can be called on the request of 200 certified voters, a “group petition” that the draft ties to 100 certified voters, and a separate resident petition process meant for discussion rather than mandatory action. The draft also contains higher thresholds for some referendum or veto mechanics (the draft text referenced figures up to 2,000 signatures and a 20% turnout threshold in particular circumstances).
- Planning and land‑use process: the draft keeps the planning board in place and describes it as a recommending body; zoning changes would continue to flow through the planning board to the council, the committee said.
- Open‑meeting requirements and public hearings: the committee emphasized that a council would remain subject to the Massachusetts open meeting law and that certain petitioned items would trigger statutory public‑hearing advertising requirements (newspaper notices, abutter notices, and varying posting windows depending on the subject).

Public questions and concerns

Residents at the session pressed the committee on how the proposed petition thresholds would affect ordinary citizen articles now filed for town meeting. Laura Ramo, who identified herself as a resident, said: “I really want people to understand how this will change the way they petition the town council as opposed to doing a petition for open town meeting.”

Committee members and consultants said some commonly filed items—zoning requests, sewer district petitions and other routine land‑use matters—would likely move through the planning board process or fall under the lower “resident petition” route rather than requiring the higher‑signature group petition thresholds. The committee also said the higher thresholds were intended in part to limit frivolous or frequently repeated challenges and that the charter language retained many different avenues for citizen participation.

Several residents asked about voter participation and accountability. Brooke Moore asked whether communities that switched from town meeting to a council saw higher voter participation in municipal elections; the committee said it would seek data from the Collins Center consultant on that point. Multiple residents warned that concentrating legislative authority in nine elected officials could increase outside money and advocacy influence in local elections.

Process and timeline

The committee described a staged process: nonbinding votes at the town meeting on May 3 and later on the ballot to gauge voter support, a report to the select board, a formal warrant article at a special town meeting in the fall (if that step is taken), and then a home‑rule petition to the state legislature. The committee said the state’s review and the subsequent local ballot would add months or years; the earliest full implementation, if all steps succeed, would likely be about two to three years after the initial votes.

What would not change immediately

The committee repeatedly said it had tried to leave as much of the town’s administrative and regulatory structure in place as possible: appointed bodies would remain appointed and elected boards that now exist (including the planning board, in the draft) would remain unless later changed by separate action. The town manager would continue as the head of the executive branch and the committee described the manager’s role as mainly administrative and executional, with expanded appointment authority in some areas subject to council approval.

Next steps

The committee invited written comments and directed residents to the Town Council Study Committee page on the town website and to an email contact (tcscnantucket@ma.gov). Committee members said they will refine the draft with input from town counsel (KP Law), the town manager’s office and the Collins Center, and that they expect further public information sessions and regular committee meetings posted on the town calendar.

Ending

Committee members said they welcome public feedback and will bring suggested edits and data requests—particularly about petition thresholds and the experience of other Massachusetts municipalities that switched forms of government—back to their consultants and to town counsel before forwarding a final recommendation to the select board and, if warranted, to a town meeting article.