GREENFIELD — The section of the the city charter that outlines the process by which a citizens initiative petition can be put forth has been sent to the full City Council for review, with no changes recommended by the Appointments and Ordinances Committee.
With citizens initiative petitions, 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.
Under the current charter language, a resident seeking to submit a citizens petition would be 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.
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, Precinct 7 Councilor Otis Wheeler and At-Large Councilor Christine Forgey, as well as city residents David Singer, Allen Wood, John Lunt and Erin Donnelley Drake — were appointed to the Charter Review Committee.
After an extensive study, the committee finished its work in April and presented its findings to the Appointments and Ordinances Committee in June 2021.
At last week’s Appointments and Ordinances Committee meeting, Dan Guin, chair of the committee, said that recommending no change to the charter language in Section 7-7 would be in line with what the residents voted for by majority in the November election, which pertained to Section 7-8. On the ballot, voters were asked to consider the process for a citizens referendum petition process, which allows citizens to propose an existing law or ordinance be brought to the voters for reconsideration.
In November, Question 1 on the ballot sought to change the number of signatures required by the charter for a citizens referendum petition from the current threshold of 10% of voters voting in the most recent biennial city election to 7% of all registered voters in the most recent biennial city election. That would have created a higher bar to getting referendums on the ballot.
Ultimately the “no” votes — those who preferred not to change the charter language for referendums — prevailed over the “yes” votes.
“(Sections) 7-7 and 7-8, although they are different, were brought up along the same lines,” Guin said. “By majority vote, we didn’t change the charter at all … it stayed the same.”
He said the 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.”
Resident Al Norman, however, disagreed in Guin’s interpretation of what the voters wanted. Norman was an outspoken member of the “no” vote campaign.
“7-7 is a completely different process,” Norman said. “It’s got two steps, and many more signatures required (to go to ballot).”
Per the current charter, for a citizens initiative to get to the ballot — based on numbers from the November election — it would need to receive no less than 5% of total registered voters, or 650 signatures, followed by an additional number of signatures equivalent to 2.5% of total registered voters, or 325 signatures, for a total of 975 signatures. In both stages of the process, the threshold for signatures that often relies on “total number of voters voting” does not reach the minimum number of signatures required.
By comparison, a resident would need 325 signatures to bring a referendum question to the ballot.
“We’re talking about a number that’s three times harder,” Norman said. “That goes against what the voters said — what they said was, ‘Don’t make these referendums harder.’”
Norman said if both processes required the same number — 10% of voters voting in the most recent biennial election, but not less than 2.5% of total voters as of the same date – it would “eliminate the confusion.”
“There’s no reason why we can’t have the same rules and process for both,” he said.
The change won’t be discussed as an item on the agenda likely until next month, but is expected to come up during the public comment portion of the City Council meeting on Wednesday at 6:30 p.m., which can be accessed via Webex at https://bit.ly/3sKf3kZ.
Reporter Mary Byrne can be reached at mbyrne@recorder.com or 413-930-4429. Twitter: @MaryEByrne.