Ocean Ridge commission opens discussion on revisiting charter term limits, asks staff to return options

At a March meeting of the Town Commission of Ocean Ridge, commissioners reopened discussion about whether to revisit a 2019 charter amendment that established term limits for commissioners.

Town Manager Michelle told the commission the item was the second discussion on the subject and outlined four options: keep the charter as written; form a new charter commission; draft language the commission could place on a ballot for voters to decide; or repeal the 2019 language and return the charter to its original wording. Michelle said the earliest an approved amendment could appear on a municipal ballot would be March 2027 if the town moved quickly and coordinated with the Supervisor of Elections.

"Term limits transfer decision-making authority away from the voters," Michelle said, explaining the staff memo’s reasoning for considering the change. She recommended staff prepare a concise set of options and a timeline so the commission can discuss them in public and, if desired, begin the formal ordinance and referendum process.

Several residents urged caution and transparency. Zoe Anne Hennigan, who said she chaired the 2018 charter review committee, said the earlier committee completed its work in a matter of months and that any new change should include a committee for transparency. "For transparency's sake, I would recommend that a committee should be required," Hennigan said.

Other commenters urged the commission to leave the decision to voters and to produce clear materials explaining how to run for office to broaden the candidate pool. Christine Dehassett warned against the appearance of a conflict of interest if sitting commissioners shaped rules that affect their own eligibility: "There's something very uncomfortable potentially about having a sitting body as a commissioner coming up with their own recommendations for their own impending term limits," she said.

Commissioners discussed possible outreach options, the legal steps required to place language on the ballot and the tradeoffs of forming a citizen committee versus handling language at the commission level. By consensus the commission asked staff to return with four streamlined options and a timeline for public engagement and possible ordinance language; staff will also consult the Supervisor of Elections about deadlines and placement on future ballots.

The commission did not take formal legislative action at the meeting; the item will return to a future agenda for further consideration.