Committee debates Danville charter repeal after town clerk admits 24‑day notice error; no vote taken

Speaker 1 opened the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee meeting at 02:30 and said members would discuss "an act relating to repealing the charter of town of Dan" and a letter from the Danville town clerk to the secretary of state’s office acknowledging a warning error for an informational meeting.

Why it matters: The committee must weigh whether a procedural error in public notice—here, warning an informational meeting 24 days in advance instead of 30—requires the town to re-warn and potentially re-vote, or whether the charter change may proceed despite the mistake. That decision affects voters’ procedural protections and whether the committee establishes a precedent for similar errors in other towns.

The letter and the timing error were central. Speaker 4 said the warning for Danville’s informational meeting was only 24 days rather than the charter’s 30 days and that the notice applied to the informational meeting, not the subsequent vote. Speaker 5 summarized turnout figures the town provided: about 12 people at the first informational meeting and roughly 30–40 at a later meeting, compared with a usual turnout of 15–20. "They admitted they made the error," Speaker 5 said.

Some members stressed strict enforcement. Speaker 4 warned that granting an exception could create a "slippery slope" and urged the committee to "do it the right way." Speaker 2 argued that rules exist for a reason and noted the reported vote margin was 150 to 112, describing that as "not a landslide" and therefore meaningful when considering whether the public had adequate notice. Several members said procedural consistency protects voters.

Other members argued for discretion given the context. Speaker 2 described administrative pathways for the town to correct the process—citing that the charter permits the town to suspend provisions for three years and that Danville already uses the Australian ballot—so the practical effect of the change on voting procedures would be limited. Speaker 3 emphasized the difference between an informational meeting and the actual voting day, saying many voters do not attend informational sessions and the notice at issue was not for the vote itself.

Outcome and next steps: The committee did not take a formal vote. Speaker 1 said the table was "split" and declined to call a vote at this meeting, leaving the matter open for further consideration. No motion was adopted and no formal direction was issued; the committee moved on to other business and went offline until 03:00.

What was not resolved: The committee did not decide whether it would accept the town’s argument and allow the charter change to stand or require Danville to re-warn and hold another vote (or pursue charter suspension). The record includes the town’s admission of the notice error, turnout figures supplied by Danville, and members’ differing views about precedent and voter protections.

Quotes: "It was 24 days," Speaker 4 said, noting the warning applied only to the informational meeting. "They admitted they made the error," Speaker 5 said about the town clerk’s letter. "I don't wanna put the door," Speaker 4 added, urging consistent enforcement.

Logistics and other details: The bill was submitted on 01/25 (per the town materials cited by Speaker 5). Committee members noted a window for the town to warn another informational meeting if they wished, but Speaker 4 observed time constraints that may make a re-warning impractical for the current cycle.

The committee adjourned discussion of the Danville charter repeal without a vote; further consideration will occur at a later time.