Charter Review Commission previews package of proposed timing, vacancy and meeting-rule changes

The Stowe Charter Review Commission on a recent meeting reviewed draft language that would move the commission's submission deadline from Aug. 1 to July 1 and discussed several related timing, vacancy and meeting-rule issues that the commission may send to city council for voter consideration.

The commission's review covered why the deadline change is being proposed, how the mayoral appointment and vacancy process would operate if changed, whether council terms should be lengthened or staggered, and whether the city should reduce the number of required physical posting locations for ordinances. Law department staff advised the commission on legal effects and offered to prepare cleaner draft language for future votes.

Why it matters: the commission focused on administrative timing that affects how quickly recommended charter amendments can reach city voters and on clarifying who acts for the mayor if the mayor is incapacitated or the office becomes vacant. Those procedural changes shape how citizens can influence charter reform and how the city operates during unforeseen absences of elected officials.

The session opened with a presentation of a draft ordinance that would change the Charter Review Commission's deadline for submitting its recommended charter amendments from Aug. 1 to July 1. Drew (law director) told commissioners the draft was ready for their review and said the city's board of elections had advised there was no reason to delay submitting the change: "We can start submitting immediately. They said the sooner the better," Drew said. He explained the practical effect: moving the charter's deadline to July 1 would bind future commissions to that earlier schedule rather than relying on every commission to set its own internal deadline.

Commissioners debated whether the commission should also propose calendar language specifying when the mayor must appoint commission members so a future commission would have more time to complete its work. Commissioner Rick Charles proposed codifying an earlier appointment schedule (for example, appoint by mid-January so meetings can start in mid-February) so commissions would have time to finish work well before the July 1 deadline. Other commissioners said they wanted to "chew on" the idea and bring a drafted timeline back to the next meeting for consideration.

Drew recommended a two-step process for drafting ordinance text: the commission would vote to empower the law department to prepare a draft, and the commission would then vote on the final draft before it is submitted to council. "You vote to empower the law department to come up with a draft for you, and then you vote on the actual draft of the actual language," Drew said. Commissioners agreed to have the law department prepare cleaned-up language and to place that item on the next meeting's agenda as old business.

The commission also spent substantial time on mayoral powers, vacancy and acting-mayor procedures. Drew and his deputy, Steve Hooten, reviewed the charter's existing order of succession and the mechanics of vetoes, noting that if the mayor neither signs nor vetoes an ordinance within seven days it takes effect automatically unless council overrides a mayoral veto at the next meeting. On acting-mayor rules Drew explained the statutory construction underlying the charter: "It goes mayor, president of the council, and then if both of them are incapacitated, then it goes to the vote of a majority of council," he said, and the commission asked the law department to prepare clearer, human-readable language for the next meeting.

Commissioners also reviewed the vacancy rule changes that have been proposed in prior years. The commission discussed ordinances from past review cycles that expanded council's appointment authority (including a 2019 ordinance and a 2020 proposal the commission reviewed). Drew summarized: under current charter language council may appoint any Stowe resident who meets mayoral qualifications to serve until the next general or special election; prior proposals would have allowed council appointments to serve out longer unexpired terms without a special election. The commission asked staff to research the state election-timing statutes that govern whether a special election is required in various vacancy scenarios and to report back at the next meeting.

On council composition and terms, commissioners revisited past discussions about switching council terms from two to four years and staggering terms so not all seats are up simultaneously. Commissioners compared Stowe to nearby cities and asked the law department to collect comparables (which cities use four-year or staggered terms and how they implement that) and to pull the city council meeting minutes and ordinance history explaining why prior proposals were not placed on the ballot.

The group discussed meeting-place and public-notice provisions. Clerk of Council Matra noted the charter currently requires posting ordinances at six public locations and asked whether that remains useful given digital access and limited foot traffic at some posting sites. Commissioners discussed reducing the required physical posting locations to three and adding a requirement that notices be posted on the city's website and social-media channels. Matra and commissioners agreed staff should draft language that keeps a minimum of physical postings while explicitly recognizing the city's website and official social channels.

Other items: commissioners asked for clarification about the clerk's office location; Matra said her office is temporarily located across the street in the safety building while renovations are underway and asked to be returned to City Hall when feasible. The commission received public comment from a resident who urged staggered council terms and encouraged more public outreach for the review process.

Actions and next steps: commissioners approved the previous meeting minutes (motion made and seconded; ayes recorded). They asked the law department to draft clearer ordinance language on the July 1 submission deadline, appointment-timeline language for mayoral appointments, and simplified wording for acting-mayor succession and emergency/veto procedures; staff agreed to present drafts under old business at the commission's next meeting. The commission scheduled follow-up work and asked staff to gather comparables and past council minutes for the issues of council-term length and vacancy elections.

The meeting ended after additional administrative scheduling and a motion to adjourn was approved.