The council’s primary focus was on whether to modify the election cycle to reduce the frequency of elections from annually to every other year. Proponents argued that such a change could bolster voter engagement and lower election-related expenditures. The current system involves yearly elections with staggered terms for council members, a setup some believe disrupts long-term governance goals due to constant campaigning.

One participant noted that aligning local elections with national elections might not guarantee more informed voters, as those primarily interested in national politics might overlook local issues. The notion that frequent elections could disrupt council continuity was also discussed, with particular emphasis on new members needing time to understand ongoing projects, potentially stalling progress due to their learning curve.

Suggestions for a new election cycle included electing three council members in one year, two the next, followed by a year without elections. This would provide a balance between stability and accountability, addressing concerns that the current system’s annual elections hinder effective governance. The idea of maintaining the existing staggered system, or extending terms to three years to encourage stability, also received attention.

The conversation revealed varied perspectives on the appropriate term length, with some favoring three-year terms as a compromise between stability and electoral accountability. It was discussed whether having all council seats up for election simultaneously would cause confusion and disrupt governance.

In addition to election cycle discussions, the council considered changing the charter’s provisions on removing charter officers. Currently, a supermajority is required to remove such officers, but a proposal suggested shifting to a simple majority vote. This change was debated, with some favoring the adjustment for simplicity, while others expressed concern about protecting council and community interests.

The council also explored designating additional charter officers beyond the town manager. There was a proposal to recognize the town clerk and finance director as charter officers, allowing them to report directly to the council. Some members expressed concern about this potentially leading to fragmentation of responsibility and accountability issues. The importance of research into state statutes regarding town clerks was also noted to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

Another topic was the town attorney’s review of contracts. The existing charter mandates that the town attorney review all contracts, regardless of size, which many found impractical. The council discussed amending the charter to focus attorney review on contracts exceeding a set dollar threshold, allowing for more efficient resource allocation. The importance of attorney oversight for significant contracts was emphasized, balancing thorough legal review with operational efficiency.

A motion was proposed to approve recommended changes to the attorney review process, incorporating the approval of standard form contracts by the town council. This motion received support.

Finally, discussions included the importance of clear communication with the community regarding proposed changes. The council acknowledged the need for further research and dialogue to refine these proposals, taking into account community feedback and legal considerations.