North Smithfield council approves most charter amendments for ballot; four‑year council term proposal passes amid debate

The North Smithfield Town Council on June 25 advanced a package of proposed charter amendments to appear on the 2026 ballot, approving most items after discussion and several recorded roll‑call votes.

Ballot question 1, the most contested item, proposes restructuring the council as five at‑large seats with staggered four‑year terms (term limits: two consecutive terms; eligibility to run again after a four‑year break) beginning in 2028. Council debate ranged from procedural concerns about recall and special elections to practical concerns about whether staggered terms would force some incumbents to run in higher‑turnout presidential years while others run in midterms. After extended discussion about timelines and an option to continue the question for further committee review, the council voted to place the staggered four‑year term question on the ballot. Roll‑call votes were recorded as follows: John Bogard—No; Rebecca de Christopharo—Yes; Clare O'Hara—No; David Punchac—Yes; Kimberly Alves—Yes. The motion carried, 3–2.

Ballot question 2 would update personnel‑board duties and narrow prohibitions on political activity—allowing personnel board members to hold or seek elective office outside the town while requiring resignation if they seek local elective office—and to align duties with current practice. Jeff Porter, chair of the charter review committee, said the committee proposed the change after consulting the town solicitor and administrator to minimize legal risk from outdated language. The council approved that question by roll call; the transcript records unanimous yes votes among the members present.

Ballot question 3, which would have created a Department of Facilities and Capital Assets and authorized a director position (the charter language change would enable hiring but does not itself appropriate funds), prompted discussion about whether the town should create a new department or rely on existing Department of Public Works and the asset management commission. Supporters said the change would enable proactive asset management; opponents said it would expand government and that existing structures might be adjusted instead. The roll call recorded John Bogard—No; Rebecca de Christopharo—Yes; Clare O'Hara—No; David Punchac—Yes; Kimberly Alves—No; the question failed (2–3).

The council then considered ballot questions 4–10 (technical updates that align charter language with Rhode Island General Laws on topics including board of canvassers appointment, ordinance publication/electronic notice, municipal audit requirements, planning board duties, school committee powers and an ethics provision). The council voted to consider them as a block and approved questions 4–10 by roll call.

Taken together, the council approved most charter amendments for the ballot, rejected the facilities department amendment, and scheduled additional procedural steps (including a July 20 deadline for any reconsideration or further charter review committee input in order to meet the secretary of state filing deadline by August 5).