Midterm elections are just around the corner, and Montrose residents have the opportunity to vote on four potential amendments to the city charter.
Mayor Michael Badagliacco proposed the amendments after the City Council voted 3-2 to reject the formation of a citizens commission to review the city charter and recommend changes.
A group of residents formed the Charter Issues Committee to oppose the amendments, arguing that the measures were rushed onto the ballot without sufficient public review. The group also objects to the substance of the proposed changes.
KVNF sat down with two members of that group, Greg Cairns and Cliff Faurer, to learn more about why they’re encouraging citizens to vote no.
The first amendment would move city elections from April to November. Moving municipal elections to align with state and federal elections can dramatically increase voter turnout.
Cairns says that increased turnout isn’t worth it. “We want good voter turnout, but not at the expense of increased polarization,” he told us. “Not at the expense of burying in many ways the issues, the education of local issues at the bottom of the ballot behind all of the national and state money that is poured into November elections.”
Montrose previously held municipal elections in November. In 1994, voters approved a change moving elections to April and making them nonpartisan. The change went into effect in 1994.
The Charter Issues Committee says history shows that Montrose residents want nonpartisan elections. Faurer says April elections help keep the focus on local government. “We don't need partisan politics, which we're in the middle of right now,” he told us.
The second proposed amendment would establish an eight-year lifetime limit on service across all City Council seats, regardless of whether the terms are consecutive. Current council members would not be removed from office if they exceeded the limit, but they would be ineligible to run for another term.
Under the current rules, council members can serve a specified number of consecutive terms, depending on the seat, then become eligible to run again after a four-year break. Mayor Badagliacco refers to the current rule as a “gap,” not a “ceiling.”
Cairns supports the gap, arguing that it strikes a balance between restricting incumbents and allowing experienced council members to return. He says it effectively moderates name recognition for incumbents and helps with turnover.
Faurer also sees an advantage in allowing interested leaders to return to City Council. He tells us, “It's a hard job. It takes a lot of commitment, and it's very low pay. And so we need to respect everybody who is interested to run for those positions. And we already have term limits. They're working. So I don't see the value of setting an eight-year lifetime term limit. There's no need for that.”
The third and fourth amendments both address oversight of key city positions. The third amendment would require City Council approval to hire or fire the police chief, while the fourth would require council approval to hire or fire the city clerk.” Today the city manager alone hires and fires both. Badagliacco says the measure would put “more eyes on two of the most sensitive positions in the city.”
Faurer points to the city’s history. He tells us, “This was addressed in the 2014 changes made to the 1967 charter and the council proposed through an ordinance. It went to the voters, and the voters agreed that the hiring and firing of the police chief and city clerk should solely be under the discretion of the city manager,” he says.
He explains that this move streamlined the Montrose Organization Chart. “Everybody likes to know who their boss is,” he says. “Moving this responsibility, or adding a responsibility to council for the hiring and firing, I think creates an opportunity where there's a lack of clarity.”
Cairns also expressed concerns about how the measure could impact elections, given that the city clerk oversees them. Cairns thinks “That's concerning because I'm not sure I want the person who's in charge of our elections to be directly managed by the people that are elected and may be elected in that same cycle.”
Montrose voters will decide the fate of all four charter amendments in a matter of weeks. While supporters say the changes would increase oversight and voter participation, opponents like Faurer and Cairns argue the proposals could increase political influence over local government and were advanced without sufficient public input.
KVNF will speak with residents who support the measures later this week.
Voters will have the final word when they head to the polls this November.