Newport City hearing exposes procedural dispute over proposed charter; special meeting set for Jan. 7

The Newport City Council on Jan. 5 heard sustained public concern that the body had not followed statutory procedure in advancing a wide-ranging rewrite of the city charter and moved to schedule a special meeting to formalize the draft language. The presiding official called a special council meeting for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 7, saying the council would vote on the proposed language and then certify a copy in the clerk’s office.

The dispute centered on whether the council had already “voted on a proposal” or instead had only authorized the mayor to draft language. Anne, a public commenter, told the council: “You never voted on a proposal. You voted on empowering the mayor to create a new draft,” and argued that under Title 17, section 2645, a legislative body must file an official copy as a public record at least 10 days before the first public hearing. She urged the council not to treat the mayor’s draft as the formal proposal without a clear council vote.

That claim was echoed by other residents who said the posted materials and the online document differed in formatting and that required certification steps needed confirmation. Jennifer Hopkins asked whether the officially filed copy had been certified; staff responded that Jim Johnson, the clerk-treasurer, held a certified paper copy posted in three public locations while the online PDF had formatting issues. Council members said they would consult the city attorneys to confirm whether the evening’s meeting could serve as a formal first public hearing or whether additional warnings were needed.

The debate over procedure included other concerns: one commenter warned that the hearing notice lacked standard accessibility language; another raised a procedural question about whether the city’s intent might be driven by financial motives related to incremental financing (TIF), an assertion raised as a possibility by Anne but not established by documentary evidence in the meeting.

To reduce the legal risk and to give the public a final copy to review, the presiding official said he would post a clean, consolidated version of the proposed charter the following morning and then convene a special council meeting on Jan. 7 for the council to vote on the proposed language. He said the council would then certify that copy in the clerk’s office and schedule a subsequent formal public hearing consistent with state deadlines if attorneys advised more steps were required.

The council did not take final action on adopting any charter language on Jan. 5. Instead, it set the Jan. 7 special meeting to vote on the proposed language and signaled that at least one more advertised public hearing would follow if legal counsel recommended it. Members of the public who asked about how changes would appear on the ballot — as separate items or as a single omnibus question — were told that format would be addressed as the draft and filing process are finalized.

The council’s next steps, as announced, are: post a revised, clean draft in advance of Jan. 7; consult the city attorneys about the sufficiency of prior filings and the timeline; hold the Jan. 7 special meeting to vote on the proposed language; and, if required, hold a formally warned public hearing in the statutorily prescribed window before any vote at the election specified under state law.