Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects charter change to shorten residency requirement after split vote, public weighs in
Summary
Council defeated a proposed charter amendment to reduce residency requirements for mayor and council from three years to one after a 4-3 vote; supporters urged letting voters decide while opponents warned of rushed turnover and urged focus on other priorities.
Richfield Village Council voted down Resolution 44-2026 on June 2, which would have sent a proposed charter amendment to voters reducing the residency requirement for council members from three continuous years to one.
Councilmember Kruszynski, a sponsor, argued the change would align local office qualifications with other elected positions and said the electorate should have the opportunity to decide. "This is taxation without self-representation," he said, framing the delay as denying new residents timely access to elected office.
Opponents raised concerns about readiness and local continuity. Councilmember Campbell said residents repeatedly told her Council should prioritize sidewalks, roads and abandoned houses rather than changing charter requirements. Council President Hudak and others cautioned that allowing one-year residents to run could enable rapid turnover.
Public commenters were split. Leisha Burrows said voters should decide on the mayoral residency requirement; others asked about the cost of placing the question on the ballot. Law Director Chojnacki explained that advancing a charter amendment requires a two-thirds council majority plus the mayor’s approval to place the question on the ballot, and said he did not know the exact Board of Elections cost.
The roll-call vote to adopt Resolution 44-2026 failed 4–3. Yea votes were recorded for Beshara, Kruszynski and Stoppenhagen; nay votes were Campbell, Hudak, Philippbar and Smith.
Context: The proposed change mirrored similar efforts in nearby jurisdictions and would shorten the continuous residency requirement for both councilmembers and the mayor in separate but related resolutions under consideration. Several councilmembers urged that such charter changes receive a comprehensive review rather than piecemeal amendment.
What happens next: Because the motion failed, the proposed amendment will not go to the ballot via Council action. Residents retain the option to submit a petition to place a charter amendment on the ballot, as discussed in the meeting.
Provenance: Debate and vote on Resolution 44-2026 occurred primarily in SEG 012 (discussion and roll-call vote recorded).
