Councilor Mejia brings advocates’ civic‑assembly model to charter modernization hearing

Boston City Councilors heard advocates on April 24 about using citizen (civic) assemblies and other community‑driven processes to modernize the Boston City Charter ahead of the city’s 400th anniversary.

The hearing, led by Councilor Mejia and conducted virtually, opened with a review of procedural options for charter reform and then moved to testimony from nonprofit organizers who described a recent civic‑assembly experiment in Lexington, Kentucky. Richard Young, founder of Civic LUXE in Lexington, told the committee that a civic assembly is “jury duty for public policy,” a representative lottery that teaches randomly selected residents about a topic, gives them time to deliberate and asks them to reach recommendations by a supermajority.

Young said Lexington ran a 36‑member assembly selected from roughly 11,500 mailed invitations and demographic screening; members met for about 35 hours across seven sessions. The assembly produced three recommendations that Young described as advancing by supermajority: raise council compensation to roughly the local average annual wage (about $59,000 in Lexington), adopt clearer accountability and attendance expectations for council members paired with compensation changes, and institutionalize a civic assembly every eight years with a standing committee to collect annual input on charter items. “We expected two recommendations; they produced three,” Young said.

John Smith, a Boston resident who testified, framed the question of charter reform as one about where power is concentrated. “The question is whether Boston’s governance structure is balanced enough to produce accountability before decisions harden, not just commentary after they do,” Smith said, arguing that structural changes — not only procedural updates — are needed to rebalance authority across branches.

Councilors pressed panelists on how assemblies are run and funded. Young said Lexington raised about $225,000 over roughly two and a half years from local donors, membership contributions and national philanthropy; the assembly paid each participant about $1,200 and covered childcare, transportation and meals. Sessions were streamed and archived on government television to preserve a public record, Young said.

Panelists and councilors discussed three procedural paths to put charter changes before voters — council‑initiated amendments (two‑thirds vote plus mayoral approval or council action), a charter commission, or a citizen petition/binding ballot question — and noted that structural reforms often require additional steps such as a charter commission or binding ballot measure. Panelists advised securing early buy‑in from decision makers and clarifying how any recommendations would be used before convening a Boston assembly to avoid building public trust without a clear path to implementation.

The chair closed the hearing after no members of the public had signed up for two‑minute testimony. Panelists said they plan further presentations to other committees, and several councilors signaled interest in follow‑up hearings and working sessions to clarify legal and administrative questions, such as the administration’s role and signature requirements for ballot measures.