GREENFIELD — Several residents appeared before the City Council Wednesday night to speak to the citizens initiative process outlined in the city charter, objecting to the Appointments and Ordinances Committee’s vote last month to recommend no changes to the current language.
The residents who spoke during public comment argued the language should instead be rewritten to be consistent with the language in the section immediately following it, Section 7-8, which pertains to the citizens referendum process — the process by which a resident can challenge a vote by the City Council.
With citizens initiative petitions — outlined in Section 7-7 of the city charter — new issues or ideas can be proposed to the City Council or the School Committee, or brought to a ballot if rejected by the respective body.
Article 8 of the city charter calls for a review of the charter by a special or standing committee of the City Council in every year ending in zero. In June 2020, seven members — City Council President Sheila Gilmour, then-Precinct 7 Councilor Otis Wheeler and At-Large Councilor Christine Forgey, as well as city residents David Singer, Allen Woods, John Lunt and Erin Donnelley Drake — were appointed to the Charter Review Committee.
After an extensive study, the committee presented its findings to the Appointments and Ordinances Committee in June 2021. Since then, each section of the now-disbanded Charter Review Committee’s report has been considered by the City Council subcommittee in advance of sending any changes or recommendations to the full council for review.
Under the current charter language, a resident seeking to submit a citizens initiative petition is required to collect signatures equivalent to 10% of voters voting in the last biennial election — but not less than 5% of all registered voters at the same date — for the City Council or the School Committee to either accept or reject. If rejected, that resident would then need to collect an additional number of signatures equivalent to 5% of voters voting, but not less than 2.5% of all registered voters.
The Charter Review Committee debated whether to eliminate the supplemental petition process, but ultimately decided if City Council or School Committee were to reject an initiative, there should be a “groundswell of support” for the petition to go to ballot. The committee also suggested changing the language to state “all registered voters,” rather than “voters voting,” on the rationale that “all registered voters have the power to vote.”
Ultimately, the Appointments and Ordinances Committee, after a brief discussion on the proposed changes in February, voted to recommend no changes to the current language.
“(Sections) 7-7 and 7-8, although they are different, were brought up along the same lines,” Appointments and Ordinances Chair Dan Guin said during February’s discussion. “By majority vote, we didn’t change the charter at all … it stayed the same.”
He said the citizens referendum process was a “divided topic” leading up to last year’s election, and as such, the best course of action was to also leave Section 7-7 alone and “move forward.”
Under the thresholds outlined in the current charter, for a citizens initiative to get to the ballot — based on numbers from the November election — it must receive at least 650 signatures, followed by 325 signatures should the initiative be rejected by the City Council or the School Committee, making for a total of 975 signatures.
By comparison, a resident would need just 325 signatures to bring a citizens referendum question to the ballot.
Stephanie Duclos, along with other residents who spoke Wednesday night, referenced the ballot question in November regarding the citizens referendum process outlined in Section 7-8, which sought to raise the threshold of signatures required for a resident to challenge a City Council decision.
Those who voted “no” — the side that ultimately prevailed — were in support of no change to the current language, leaving it at a threshold of 10% of voters voting in the most recent biennial city election (but no fewer than 2.5% of registered voters).
She said sections 7-7 and 7-8, though relating to different processes, are “intertwined.”
“To go against what the people voted on in November seems futile and unjust,” Duclos said.
Resident Steve Fernandez described the current language of the charter as “anti-democratic,” arguing it should require “as few as possible” signatures for a citizens initiative petition to appear before the City Council or make it onto the ballot.
Fernandez shared a breakdown of voter demographics, noting the small percentage of registered voters who are people of color.
“If there’s an initiative of concern to us, people of color, it might be hard for us to explain to some white folks, as progressive as they may consider themselves to be,” he said, describing a potential uphill battle to garner support for a citizens initiative impacting people of color.
Erika McGee, also a Greenfield resident, said when voters rejected the ballot question concerning the citizens referendum process in November, they weren’t voting to see “no change,” but rather no increase in the signature threshold. The expectation to require more than 900 signatures for a citizens initiative “makes no sense,” she said.
“They voted to stop bad change,” McGee said. “We don’t often get the chance to change the language that make these sections confusing,” she said, urging councilors to take up the discussion at their April meeting. No vote on the charter’s citizens initiative language was taken Wednesday night.
Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne.