Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Revisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coventry council reviews proposed charter revisions, requests clarifications from registrars and CRC
Summary
At a June 18 public hearing and special meeting, the Coventry Town Council reviewed proposed changes to the town charter, pressing for clarifications on voting-district consolidation, Registrar of Voters language, Town Manager succession and advisory ballot wording. The Council will send consolidated feedback to the Charter Review Commission by July 3.
The Coventry Town Council met June 18 to review proposed revisions to the Town Charter and identify items to return to the Charter Review Commission for clarification and potential rewording. Council Chairwoman Lisa Thomas presided over a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., where no members of the public spoke, and reconvened for a special meeting at 7:26 p.m. to work through specific sections of the draft charter.
Why it mattered: Councilors focused on items that would affect how elections are run and how the town manager’s authority and emergency succession are handled. Several members said clearer definitions and cross-references to state law or official town policies are necessary before the Council forwards its suggested edits to the CRC.
Councilor Matthew Kyer raised concern about a CRC recommendation to move Coventry to a single voting district, saying he worried consolidation “could potentially slow down voting” and asked that the Registrar of Voters analyze voter distribution and turnout so residents would “have the same voting experience that they are used to.” Town Manager James Drumm said staffing requirements will remain the same under a single-district plan and highlighted anticipated payroll savings and fewer required tabulators as efficiency gains; Councilor Peter Larson asked staff to request a historical turnout analysis to confirm there is no reduction in participation from North Coventry.
Councilors also asked staff to compile a definitions document to accompany the Charter draft. Mark Wheaton said there were several unfamiliar terms and that a definitions appendix would make the document more approachable; Alex Taylor agreed to collect terms the Council wants clarified and forward them to the CRC.
On election-related language, Councilors debated whether the Charter should use the state statute term for “Major Political Party” or adopt municipal wording. Robyn Gallagher cautioned the Council to be consistent with state statute language but also noted that state thresholds may produce unexpected results at the municipal level; the Council agreed to seek clarification from the Registrars and the CRC about how the term should apply locally.
The Council reworded a sentence in Section 5.2 clarifying that the Town Manager’s powers “shall not be diminished by action of the Town Meeting or by the Town Council” and agreed to send the Council’s proposed phrasing to the CRC for acceptance or rejection. On appointments and succession, Wheaton and Julie Blanchard proposed adding “with Town Council concurrence” when the Town Manager designates a temporary acting manager; Drumm described the town’s existing emergency succession plan (naming the finance director then the chief of police) and the Council asked that the plan be made available to members and that the CRC reference emergency succession language for incapacitation scenarios.
Councilors discussed whether the Town Manager should notify the Council when engaging the Town Attorney. Blanchard said periodic email notice would help explain attorney-budget expenditures during budget season; Thomas and Gallagher raised attorney-client privilege and FOIA concerns. Thomas proposed periodic legal updates during scheduled executive sessions as a compromise.
Other items included editorial corrections (capitalization and remaining gendered pronouns), whether to strike a recurring compensation phrase from job descriptions, and how the Charter should frame advisory budget questions on the ballot. The Council kept flexible language allowing the Council to vote to include advisory questions and asked staff to refine the language for CRC review so questions are useful to voters.
Next steps: Councilors agreed to consolidate comments and send the Council’s feedback to the Charter Review Commission within 15 days of the hearing; the Clerk recorded July 3 as the deadline for Council submissions, and staff will accept public email comments through June 30. The Council scheduled a follow-up special meeting for July 1 and requested CRC representation if available.
A procedural motion to adjourn, moved by Peter Larson and seconded by Mark Wheaton, carried by unanimous vote at 9:30 p.m.
