Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Procedures Voting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Vernon charter panel debates virtual voting rules and readies referendum write-up
Summary
At its Feb. 19 meeting the Mount Vernon Charter Review Commission reviewed a draft write-up for a proposed budget-cap referendum, prioritized three charter changes from a survey, and asked legal counsel to clarify whether members must be physically present to cast binding votes.
The Mount Vernon Charter Review Commission on Feb. 19 discussed a near-complete write-up for a proposed referendum on a budget cap and spent the bulk of its meeting debating whether commissioners must be physically present to cast binding votes.
Commission member Corrine Bell said the blue team’s write-up on the budget-cap referendum is largely finished and will be circulated to the commission for comment after she completes the remaining sections and checks language with an attorney. “The write up is now complete,” Bell said, adding she will finish the last portion and send it to the group for review.
The discussion followed results from a SurveyMonkey query of possible charter changes. Commissioners said three proposals received the most support: strengthening the charter’s prohibition on conflicts of interest and the avoidance of impropriety; requiring the city council to hold mandatory oversight hearings when a complaint threshold is met (the example cited was 25 constituents raising the same issue); and publishing all city contracts within 48 hours of execution. Bell and other members said those items appear to be text changes but that corporation counsel should confirm whether any would legally require a referendum rather than being handled as charter text changes or policy.
On voting procedures, commissioners debated whether formal votes must be cast in person. Several members said they understand a quorum must be physically present in the room before commission business can proceed, but they asked whether members who are remote may nevertheless cast votes when the quorum is met. The commission asked corporation counsel to review the body’s code of conduct, any local ordinances on remote participation, and recent state changes to open-meetings law so the group can spell out clear instructions before the next meeting.
A participant said state authority that allowed broader remote participation during the COVID-19 period was extended and described the extension as running until mid-2026; commissioners asked staff to share the relevant statutory text and local ordinances. Commission members also said they would consult Paul Wolf of the Coalition for Open Government and any recommended outside counsel before finalizing ballot language or procedures.
Commissioners discussed practicalities for the upcoming vote session: whether to allow the full set of ballot items to be discussed in one long meeting or to break discussion across two sessions, how to set time limits for public comment, and how to ensure members commit to attendance when required. Several commissioners urged consistent application of preferences versus binding policy and that if the commission adopts a preference by majority vote, that preference should be treated as the body’s position going forward.
No formal policy changes or referendum language were adopted at the Feb. 19 meeting. The commission set next steps: Bell will finish and circulate the referendum write-up; staff will return written guidance from corporation counsel on whether the top survey items are text changes or require ballot referenda; and staff will circulate the state/local legal references on remote participation before the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned by motion and second near the end of the session.
