Nantucket committee outlines draft charter to replace open town meeting with nine-member council

A Town Council Study Committee presentation on Nantucket described a draft charter to convert the town’s long-standing open town meeting form of government to a town council–town manager model and invited public comment at an information session.

Committee members presented the rationale for the change, the proposed timeline and key charter provisions, and responded to questions on representation, council compensation, districting, planning and citizen recourse. Residents raised concerns about pay levels proposed for councilors, the size and makeup of the council, enforcement and emergency authority, and how citizens would overturn council decisions.

The committee said the proposal grew from Article 81 of the 2023 Town Meeting, a citizens’ article submitted by Curtis Barnes that asked the town to study establishing a town council. Committee members said the review considered multiple municipal forms used in Massachusetts and ultimately focused on adopting a town council and town manager. The group outlined a conversion process that would require a town meeting vote to send a home-rule petition to the state legislature, legislative approval, and a returning local ballot vote; the committee estimated the full conversion could take two to three years from voter approval.

The draft charter the committee posted online proposes a nine-member council with staggered three-year terms and a council president. Committee presenters described the council as a continuously operating legislative body that would meet at least monthly, in contrast to Nantucket’s current open town meeting schedule of one or two annual meetings. The presenters argued a council could deliberate matters more continuously and handle complex, time-sensitive issues without waiting for an annual meeting.

On compensation, the committee presentation said the draft calls for a stipend of $40,000 a year for regular councilors and an additional $10,000 for the council president; a committee speaker later referred to a larger figure for the chair in discussion, reflecting differing remarks in the session. The presenters said the higher stipend was intended to allow working residents to hold office without losing income and to recruit candidates who could devote the necessary time to the role.

On representation, the committee said it examined at-large and district-based options and decided to propose at-large council elections rather than precincts or districting. Presenters explained Nantucket was exempted from a state requirement to form precincts around 2001, and that the island’s population distribution would produce irregular district shapes or very large districts if precincts were required. The committee said neighborhood associations currently act as local feeders into civic life and that an at-large council combined with public outreach could encourage participation.

Residents at the session urged alternatives. Brooke Gibbs and other commenters called for larger bodies (11–13 members), geographic representation for distinct neighborhoods (Madaket, Tom Nevers, Quidnet, Squam) and higher compensation. Comments also urged stronger enforcement mechanisms and a clear, elected executive role (some commenters asked for a mayor) to ensure council decisions were implemented.

The committee explained the proposed system separates legislative and executive authority: the town council would be the hiring authority for the town manager, and the town manager would be the chief executive responsible for administration and emergency operations, including supervision of police and fire chiefs. Speakers said Nantucket already has a strong town manager structure and a Department of Emergency Management, and that the manager would exercise day-to-day authority in emergencies.

The draft charter would keep most current elected and appointed bodies as they are and would move zoning bylaws and other legislative decisions to the council; the planning board would continue to prepare zoning proposals and handle permits, but zoning changes would require council approval (the committee said the charter would require a two-thirds council vote for zoning bylaws). Presenters said many operational bodies would remain unchanged and that the council could later recommend additional organizational changes if elected to do so.

The session covered citizen recourse: presenters described a citizen petition and referendum process in the draft charter. Under the scheme described at the meeting, an aggrieved group could submit signatures (presenters said 200 signatures is a certification threshold to send an item back to council) and, if certified, either the council could rescind its action or the matter could be placed on a ballot for voters; a successful citizen ballot to overturn a council decision would require a turnout threshold that presenters described as 20% of registered voters (discussants estimated that would be about 2,000 votes based on roughly 10,000 registered voters). The committee emphasized that these numbers are part of the draft and that thresholds were subject to the charter language and state requirements.

Presenters also addressed process questions: the first local vote would be on the full charter language (not only a generic change question), the draft includes transition language for a multi-step handoff from the Select Board to the council and that some items—such as overrides tied to Proposition 2½—would still require ballot votes under state law.

The meeting concluded with plans for additional information sessions, a town webpage for the study committee and continued public engagement. Presenters encouraged residents to attend council meetings if the charter moves forward and to use petition avenues in the draft charter if they disagree with council decisions.

Ending: The committee fielded questions about next steps, confirmed the draft charter is posted on the town website, and set two more information sessions: a Saturday morning session and a Monday session at the Athenaeum. A motion to adjourn passed at the end of the meeting.