This Nearly 100-Year-Old Greenwich RTM Rule Could Change

GREENWICH, CT — A nearly 100-year-old rule regarding the number of signatures required to submit an item to the Greenwich Representative Town Meeting could change.

RTM Moderator Alexis Voulgaris appeared before the Board of Selectmen on Thursday to initiate a Charter change that would increase the number of signatures needed to get an item on the RTM call from 20 to 350. The 20-signature requirement has been in place since the RTM was founded in 1933.

Only the Board of Selectmen, or the Board of Estimate and Taxation — if the matter involves a financial interest — can initiate such a change. Voulgaris stressed that she wasn't giving her personal opinion on the matter, she was just the "de-facto person" who needed to go before the selectmen.

Voulgaris said that in 2019, the RTM Governance Committee proposed increasing the signature threshold to 350, and later amended it to 100. The item was ultimately defeated by a vote of 71 to 75.

"It may be time to revisit that. I'm not suggesting what that number should or shouldn't be, the majority will decide. However, as a proposal, I'm asking the Board of Selectmen to start with 350 signatures, which is roughly 1 percent of the voting population," Voulgaris said. "Why do we want to revisit it? We have seen an uptick in the number of items that are coming via petition."

Petition items that appeared on the RTM call in 2025 included a range of proposals and citizen-led measures, many of which did not advance to final action.

In April 2025, a proposal to adopt an ordinance on “Explosives and Blasting” was deemed not in legal order following review by town officials and standing committees and was withdrawn before reaching the full RTM.

In June, two proposed amendments to the town’s noise ordinance — one addressing decibel levels for leaf blowers and another concerning noise at higher elevations and spherical spreading — were withdrawn or later postponed indefinitely after review by standing committees, the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Law Department.

A June/September Sense of the Meeting Resolution (SOMR) petition regarding a "fiscal prudence in Town dispute resolution" was also postponed indefinitely.

In September, a SOMR petition to "restore pedestrian safety on Greenwich Avenue" was withdrawn prior to floor consideration.

A proposed amendment to extend "dog season" at town parks and beaches advanced to the RTM floor in October but was rejected.

The only such item to pass was a December SOMR petition requiring interested candidates for RTM Moderator and Moderator Pro Tem to file their names with the Town Clerk for inclusion on the January 2026 call.

"It takes a lot of time," Voulgaris said of going through the items.

"We're not opposed to time, but I think where we may be, is if we had a higher number, it would allow the RTM to have a more informed opinion or decision if this is something that's supported by more than 20 people," Voulgaris added.

"When only 20 people can put something on the call, it's hard to discern if whatever they're moving forward has broad support in the community, or is just the byproduct of 20 people sitting around a barbecue saying, 'That would be a really great idea.' These are laws that have the potential to impact 60,000 people."

Voulgaris asked the selectmen to waive the traditional "second read" on an agenda item and take a vote, saying she wanted the RTM to vote on the potential change as soon as possible.

Voulgaris noted she heard from some people who thought 350 signatures weren't enough.

First Selectman Fred Camillo pointed out that several years ago, the RTM voted to halt an intersection improvement project at Arch and Grigg Streets near Greenwich Avenue.

With the RTM's vote, Greenwich also turned away $2.7 million in state grant money that would've paid for construction costs.

"Twenty something people petitioned the RTM after a year of approvals, and they won out," Camillo said. "They actually got their way, and we had to give the money back. And guess what, we're spending our own money doing the same thing."

The selectmen voiced support for the potential change, waived the second read, and voted unanimously to approve the Charter change request.

"It would be smart to have a broader-based representation - whatever that number is," Camillo said. "It was a different time in 1933."