Bill Would 'Streamline' Charter Changes

On Thursday, February 8 Representative Fred Rice and I testified in support of HB 422 in front of the House Municipal and and County Government Committee.   Joining us was former representative Ben Moore. 

HB 422 will simplify the process that towns such as Hampton would need to follow in order to amend or change our form of government.  Here is the text of my testimony:

"I support and co-sponsored this bill because I believe that it: 

• Simplifies the process that our towns and cities and their residents must follow if they wish to change their form of government;
• Recognizes and take into the account the important role that state agencies such as the secretary of state, attorney general and commissioner of the department of revenue administration play in the review and approval process; and because it
• Provides additional time for deliberation by members of the commission and – most importantly – the public at large on whether or not this is the correct course of action for that community to take.

The bill does not alter the rights that municipal officers currently have to recommend to the voters that the current municipal charter should be changed or updated.  It also does not deprive voters of the right – on their own, through a petition – to directly request similar actions.  

What this bill does do is lower the number of signatures required on a written petition from 20 percent of the number of votes cast in the municipality at the last regular municipal election to 25 or more registered voters which is consistent with the current language for petitioned warrant articles.  In a town like Hampton this reduces the number of signatures required in order to get this issues on the ballot for the entire town from at least 500 voters to something that is much more manageable.   

That lower threshold does not change the fact that a majority of voters in the town or city must approve the motion to create a charter commission.   What it does do is streamline the process for town officials and voters by holding the election of members of the charter commission at the same time that the vote on whether or not to establish the charter commission is conducted.   Under current law, two separate elections must be conducted; one to establish the commission, the other to elect members.  This not only creates extra work for local election officials, but it confuses the public and delays the commission from getting started doing the people’s work.

Important as it is to enable a commission to get started as quickly as possible it is just as important that the members of the commission have enough time to prepare their preliminary report, review it with the secretary of state, the attorney general or the commissioner of the department of revenue administration and for the public to have enough time to debate and discuss the proposed changes before voting on them. 

This bill does that:

• It extends the amount of time that a commission has to complete its preliminary report from 170 days to between 225 and 255 days.   Required during that time frame are at least 2 public hearings; the current statue only provides for one.   This will ensure maximum transparency and public input.
• It provides for a period of between 90 and 180 days for review of the preliminary report by the secretary of state, attorney general and/or commissioner of revenue administration.  The current statue provides only a 61-day “window” between when the commission’s preliminary and final reports must be completed, within which all reviews must be completed.   As frustrating as this additional amount of “review time” may be, it is important to be realistic and not create deadlines that limit the amount of quality time that a charter commission AND the public will have to deliberate on the merits of making changes.
• It provides that as soon as the final report is submitted, the municipal officers shall order that the proposed new charter be submitted to the voters at the next municipal election; provided that the vote does not occur less than 90 days after the final report has been submitted.

In reality, the sum total of these changes in timing will likely have the impact of making the process of changing or updating a municipal charter in a town such as Hampton, a two-year process.  A process initiated prior to December 15, 2013 (for example) would have voters voting to establish a commission and elect commissioners on March 15, 2014.   The commission would then have until November 20, 2014 to submit it’s preliminary report.  That report could be approved by the secretary of state, attorney general or commissioner of department of revenue administration by no later than March 20, 2015 and posted in the Town Office and on-line as the commission’s final report by April 20, 2015.  A vote on the final report would then be scheduled for March 2016.

While that may seem like a step backwards in terms of turnaround time, the changes to the current statues laid out in this bill will make this a more orderly and predictable process.  It will also increase public participation and provide voters with the time and quality input they need in order to make an informed choice about their community’s future.

I hope that you will consider voting for this bill.  Thank you for your time this morning." 

The overall reaction to our testimony and the bill was favorable, but the committee did have some concerns that Representative Rice and I will work together to address.