Commission rejects petition removal amendment and vote‑broker ban, leaves seat‑reduction transition in place

The Charter Revision Commission on May 4 considered multiple governance amendments and rejected two significant proposals from Commissioner Bennett: a charter amendment to let voters petition to remove appointed officials and a proposed charter ban on vote brokers in municipal elections. Commissioners said while they share concerns about accountability and past problematic practices, the proposed recall‑style petition for appointed officials risked politicizing advisory bodies and would duplicate or conflict with existing authority. The petition motion failed on a roll‑call vote (Bennett in favor; the majority opposed).

Commissioner Bennett argued the petition mechanism would give the electorate “one more lever of power” in cases of egregious action; other commissioners noted appointing council members already hold removal authority and cautioned that special‑interest or political campaigns could weaponize a petition process. The town attorney advised that banning vote‑brokers in the charter would raise constitutional issues (freedom of association and speech) and is better addressed through ordinance and enforcement of existing state criminal prohibitions on ballot‑harvesting.

Council‑size transition retained: The commission also revisited how seat reductions would be implemented after earlier votes. The town attorney explained three transition options (attrition with a shortened two‑year seat, pure attrition, or retaining seven seats). Commissioners raised representation and practical concerns; procedural review of prior minutes showed the commission had previously approved transition language (option a: seat 5 shortened to two years with subsequent abolition of seat 6 on attrition so council moves from seven to five without a long even‑numbered period). Attempts to replace that prior motion were ruled procedurally defective; the commission left the previously adopted transition approach in place for now.

Votes and next steps: The clerk recorded the roll call on the petition proposal (Abad — No; Bennett — Yes; Ruano — No; Matos — No; Vice Chair (Inguanzo) — No; Chair Leisotto — No) and announced the motion failed. On the vote‑broker item, the town attorney advised the charter is not the optimal vehicle for such a prohibition and the motion failed. The commission asked staff to bring clearer drafts for any future proposals and to supply documentary evidence for historical claims if proponents seek repeat consideration.

The commission will continue redlining the charter at its next meeting with the town attorney providing refined options on governance language.