Council Continues to Evaluate Revisions to Town Charter

Report of the Town Council Meeting, March 9, 2026, Part 2

This meeting was held in a hybrid format in the Town Room at Town Hall. It was recorded. Read Part 1 of the meeting here.

Present
Mandi Jo Hanneke (President, at large), Jill Brevik and Cathy Schoen (District 1), Amber Cano-Martin and Lynn Griesemer (District 2), Hala Lord and George Ryan (District 3), Pam Rooney and Jennifer Taub (District 4), Ana Devlin Gauthier and Sam MacLeod (District 5),  Andy Churchill and Ellisha Walker (at large).

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager) and Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of Council) 

As the last item on the agenda of its March 9 meeting, Town Council took up discussion of the recommendations the Charter Review Committee submitted on January 5. Council President Mandi Jo Hanneke introduced a first read of a motion and chart showing the recommendations as modified by councilors’ discussion and the results of straw polls at a work session on February 9.  

The motion proposes to move recommendations in one of several different ways: referring some to the Governance, Organization, and Legislation Committee (GOL) or Finance Committee for further consideration, tabling one or more (in other words, a rejection), or in the event there is sufficient support, sending to the town attorney to prepare language for final legal action. Hanneke said she determined which path she suggested for each recommendation by taking into account discussion and straw polls at two previous meetings (see here and here).

Procedural Requirements
Massachusetts law, G.L.c. 43B sec. 9.6, requires the Town Council to vote on recommendations within 90 days of receipt of the recommendations, in this case by the next meeting March 23. Hanneke’s proposal does not ask for final decisions on several of the recommendations, instead calling for referrals to either GOL or Finance Committee within that time period, delaying any final decision until those committees report back sometime during the summer. When questioned whether this satisfies the 90 day requirement, Hanneke said her intention is that what Town Council does now will set the precedent that referring recommendations to GOL and Finance is in compliance.  

Hanneke reminded councilors that even after making final decisions to support or reject the recommendations, they do not become effective until either one of two steps are taken. As the town attorneys explained it, this is done either by a Special Act of the State Legislature or by approval of the voters at a regular scheduled town election. 

Approval By Voters: After Town Council approves recommendations by a 2/3 majority vote and legal review by the state Attorney General, the matter is put on the ballot of the next regular town election. This is the so-called “43B” process, contained in the Home Rule Procedure Act, MassG.L.Chapter 43B . The earliest these measures could be included in a ballot would be in November 2027.

Special Act: After Town Council approves recommendations by a simple majority, the town requests State Rep. Mindy Domb to introduce a bill requesting approval. This process is not within the town’s control, and approval could be delayed to as late as 2029. Moreover, the legislature could require that one or more of the measures be submitted to a town-wide vote.

Town Council can decide to submit all of the recommendations to one of these methods, or they can decide to split them, sending some to the legislature and some to voters. 

Recommendations Considered
Councilors discussed several recommendations, holding straw polls to determine support.

Term Limits for Officers. The Charter Review Committee recommended limiting terms for Town Council President and Vice President to four consecutive one-year terms, but councilors’ prior discussion shortened it to three one-year terms. Cathy Schoen proposed that this measure be put in the Rules of Procedure instead of the Charter. Hanneke did not object to this but felt that it should go to GOL. Amber Cano-Martin suggested making a Rule to limit terms but pursuing a Charter change through either a Special Act or 43B vote. In the straw poll, Councilors Brevik, Cano-Martin, Lord, Walker, and Churchill supported a Charter change; Councilors Hanneke, Cano-Martin (sic), Devlin Gauthier, MacLeod, Taub, Ryan, Griesemer, Rooney, and Schoen supported a rule change. The measure will be referred to GOL.

Independent Counsel. Hanneke’s motion proposed tabling this recommendation that would allow Town Council to hire its own attorney rather than having to engage the town attorney, KP Law. Cano-Martin proposed that this become a Charter provision. Hanneke reminded her that when this was considered at a prior meeting, the straw poll showed six opposed to the measure, four leaning towards supporting it, and three unsure. The results of the straw poll at this meeting were five to table the measure (Hanneke, Schoen, Griesemer, Churchill, Ryan), two in favor of a Charter change (Cano-Martin and Taub), and seven to refer to GOL for consideration (Cano-Martin (sic), Taub, MacLeod, Rooney, Devlin Gauthier, Brevik, and Walker.

Public Forums. Hanneke raised two recommendations that address public forums. Currently, the Town Council is required to hold at least two forums per year on the Master Plan and budget. The Charter Review Committee recommended clarifying the definition by making the wording less cumbersome and allowing full public participation without a rigid time limit by removing the strict requirement that the same amount of time must be allocated for both presentation and public input. This 50-50 split of time often resulted in awkward silences because public comments did not fill the allotted time. Griesemer said that any change to this requirement must be in the Charter and cannot be addressed merely as a rule change. Hanneke, MacLeod, Taub, Devlin Gauthier, Churchill, Cano-Martin, Walker, Rooney, Ryan, Brevik, Schoen, and Griesemer supported referral to GOL.

Quantum of Votes Needed to Pass a Measure. MacLeod asked to discuss this confusing issue. Two of the Charter Review Committee recommendations address the quantum of votes needed to pass a motion before the Town Council. Hanneke created a chart describing the voting options in the Charter and 6 alternative options that attempt to simplify them. There was consensus that the matter is sufficiently complex that it should be referred to  to GOL

Nonvoting Resident Committee Members. The Charter permits the Town Council to establish committees and the Charter Review Committee recommended adding that these committees may include members of the public who shall have a voice but no vote in the committees’ deliberations. Churchill, a former member of the Charter Review Committee, now proposed that the recommendation be tabled. Shoen pointed out that  the use of the word “may” allow the option but did not impose a requirement for nonvoting members. She related how the Finance Committee has found value in having resident members. Griesemer noted that having resident members offered more opportunities for citizen engagement. In the straw poll, 8 Councilors supported including the recommendation in the Charter (Griesemer, Cano-Martin, Schoen, Walker, Rooney, Brevik, Lord, and MacLeod) and four supported tabling the measure (Devlin Gauthier, Taub, Churchill, and Ryan).

Finance Committee Resident Member. The Charter now states that the Finance Committee “may” have nonvoting resident members. The Charter Review Committee recommended making this mandatory by changing “may” to “shall.” Schoen spoke in favor of the recommendation. Griesemer favored the flexibility allowed by the current language. In the straw poll three Councilors (Schoen, Brevik, and MacLeod) supported the measure and nine (Hanneke, Griesemer, Devlin Gauthier, Churchill, Ryan, Cano-Martin, Taub, and Rooney) chose to table it..