Charter commission opposes petition to require unanimous budget votes, urges two-thirds alternative

Chair Jim Michaels said the Montgomery County Charter Review Commission will oppose a citizen petition to change Section 305 of the county charter that would add a unanimous-vote requirement for some budget approvals, and the commission recommended the County Council consider adopting a two-thirds (eight-vote) threshold as an alternative.

The commission’s June meeting opened with a motion from Chair Jim Michaels: “I will move that the Commission issue a statement that opposes the petitioner’s proposed charter amendment.” The motion was seconded and, during roll call, commissioners who spoke by name recorded opposition. Member MikeP summed up the commission’s reasoning by urging opposition to adding another unanimous threshold and recommending instead that the council adopt the two-thirds standard the Commission proposed in 2024.

Why it matters: commissioners said a unanimous requirement can produce closed-door pressure and bargaining that reduces public debate and can increase the risk of governance gridlock. Member MikeP argued a two-thirds rule “encourages the minority to be able to speak up in a public way, and not [be] forced into a unanimous vote, perhaps behind closed doors.” Commissioner David Nachtsheim added that a unanimity requirement could be used to force spending from reserves or impose new fees as bargaining chips, a risk the group said counsels against the petition’s approach.

What the Commission decided: after discussion the Commission voted to issue an official statement opposing the petition and, separately, to recommend that the County Council consider a charter amendment replacing the current seven-vote language with a two-thirds supermajority (interpreted as eight votes) for operating budgets that increase spending beyond the county’s spending-affordability guidelines. The roll-call responses recorded in the transcript show the commissioners present voting in favor of both the opposition statement and the two-thirds recommendation; Chair Michaels noted two absent members had emailed that they would have voted the same way and said he would footnote that in the public statement.

Next steps and deadlines: Chair Michaels said County Council staff invited the Commission to present a formal recommendation on Tuesday, June 16 at 9:30 a.m.; he said he is available to present. He also noted the petition signature-submission deadline referenced in the meeting is July 27 and that a recent state law effective June 1 moves parts of the ballot-question calendar earlier, which could affect council timing and certification. Michaels and staff said they planned to finalize the Commission’s statement by the following day so it can be included with Council materials.

Other business: commissioners discussed a possible informal placeholder meeting in September to pass along lessons learned to the next commission and to monitor any ballot developments. The meeting adjourned after members exchanged thanks for their service.

(Reporting based on the Commission’s public meeting transcript; Chair Jim Michaels presented motions and the roll-call responses are recorded in the meeting transcript.)