The meeting saw a debate regarding the town charter provision that mandates the town attorney’s approval for all contracts. Concerns were raised about the practicality of this requirement, particularly for routine transactions such as staff purchases of supplies with a credit card. It was highlighted that even minor purchases, technically classified as contracts, could lead to an impractical interpretation of the charter. To address this, there was a suggestion to establish a threshold dollar amount, such as $1,000 or $5,000, to delineate which contracts require attorney approval. The council considered defining the materiality of contracts through an ordinance rather than embedding it in the charter, given that charter amendments necessitate voter approval, making them less flexible.

A critical part of the discussion revolved around whether the attorney’s role should extend to routine transactions. The council recognized that requiring legal oversight for every minor purchase could result in excessive bureaucratic oversight. An illustrative point was made against the need for the attorney to approve trivial purchases, like buying items from a local hardware store. There was consensus on the necessity of clarifying the attorney’s role. This distinction could be managed by adding a signature block indicating approval “as to form only.”

Further, the council debated the potential implications of the charter on other instruments such as deeds and easements, agreeing that the attorney’s review should concentrate on significant legal documents. Discussions emphasized revising charter language to allow for the attorney’s approval to follow guidelines established in ordinances, thereby offering greater flexibility in adapting to circumstances while maintaining necessary oversight.

The conversation also touched upon the governance structure concerning voting requirements for charter amendments and council member compensation. Currently, a supermajority vote is required for decisions on charter officer removal and member compensation changes. Some council members questioned the necessity of such a high threshold, proposing that changes to council member pay could be approved by a simple majority vote instead. The existing requirement that any ordinance establishing or increasing compensation needs four affirmative votes and cannot take effect until the next election was also debated, with concerns about its impact on newly elected members’ eligibility for pay increases.

A significant portion of the meeting also involved the potential restructuring of council election cycles. Currently, elections occur annually, with council members serving staggered three-year terms. Some members argued this structure could lead to instability and voter fatigue, proposing a shift to elections in even-numbered years to coincide with larger state and national elections, potentially increasing voter turnout. However, others expressed concern that longer four-year terms could result in extended periods with council members that do not have strong community support. The complexities of transitioning to a different election format were acknowledged, and the council decided to table this discussion for further consideration in upcoming meetings.