The Charter Questions
Our analysis of the three ballot questions relating to proposed revisions to the Weston Town Charter.
Question 1: Party Participation
Simply put, this question asks whether you approve raising the limit on how many members of a Town board can belong to the same political party. In the current Charter, the limit is a bare majority, so for example, four on a seven-member board.
The proposed revision would mirror limits in State law, which is as far as the Charter could legally go. That seven-member board could have five members from the same party instead of four. Here is how it breaks down for the size of current Weston elected boards:
| Members | Current Max. | Proposed Max. |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 3 | 4 |
| 7 | 4 | 5 |
Discourse on the proposal has largely fallen along partisan lines. The Democratic Town Committee urges a yes vote on all three ballot questions. The Republican Town Committee urges three noes.
In Weston, Democrats have a decided voter registration advantage over Republicans, over 2 to 1.
Given that split, the DTC argues that the current bare majority rule locks them out of having membership proportionate to their registered voters, meaning those voters could be underrepresented while Republicans are overrepresented, at least on boards larger than three.
The RTC argues that the change would reduce opportunities for a minority party (currently theirs) and those registered Unaffiliated.
Unaffiliateds, who currently number about 80 more than Democrats in Weston, are actually unaffected by the limit, no matter what level is set or by whom. By definition, Unaffiliateds are neither a party nor do they belong to one. They could run the table.
The RTC is correct that, for boards with more than three members, the changed rule could indeed reduce, by one, opportunities for a minority party to automatically win seats even when their candidates finish at the bottom of the vote count.
Here is an interesting side note (at least to yours truly) about the statutory limit on party representation. We will keep looking, but so far we haven’t found a single state that has a similar broad-brush law. Several place limits on one or two boards, typically things like civil service commissions, but none we’ve found impose such sweeping constraints on local governments.
Question 2: The ATBM
The ballot asks if you approve eliminating a feature of the Annual Town Budget Meeting where a majority of those attending (assuming the presence of a quorum) can reduce or eliminate items before the budgets go to the townwide referendum.
The question was likely spawned by the 2024 ATBM. There hadn’t been a quorum in years, and it seemed no one remembered exactly how it should be run. The approach taken was quite different and more microscopic than previous years, and it got a little salty at times.
As proposed, the ATBM would be transformed into a structured public forum for discussion and debate, but no votes would be taken until the referendum. It would be clear that this would be a back-and-forth between residents and officials. Afterwards, the townwide referendum would be held exactly as it is now.
Proponents essentially argue that it is dysfunctional to have six months of budget development — including several public hearings — upended by only the fraction of the electorate that shows up at the ATBM.
Opponents argue that the measure would remove the ability of residents to directly change the budget before it goes to referendum. That is true, up to a point.
The only ability removed is the ability to cut. The ability to increase budgets is not removed, because it doesn’t exist. No matter how strong a case could be made, a motion to increase spending for any purpose is out of order.
Question 3: Miscellaneous
The third question covers every proposed revision not handled by the first two. There are many. Most are cleanups of language that is obsolete, ambiguous, or contradictory. But a few items merit note.
The Board of Police Commissioners would be reduced from seven members to five. We haven’t seen anyone’s hair on fire about that.
The Board of Ethics would be redefined, with staggered terms and five members, no more than two belonging to the same political party. Training would be mandatory, and certain measures, including the confidentiality of complaints, aim to prevent political misuse. The Board of Selectmen could adopt an ordinance granting the ethics board the power of subpoena, with limited use and overseen by the Town Attorney or outside counsel.
The amount of supplemental appropriations the Board of Selectmen can make without a trip to the Board of Finance updates from $5,000 to $10,000, not to exceed a total of $100,000 within a fiscal year.
Another proposed revision appears aimed at resolving lingering disagreement about whether and how the Town can transfer funds within and between departments as the year goes on. Some have contended that the practice in place for years violates the Charter, despite a finding to the contrary by Town counsel.
The revision would make clear that the selectmen can approve budget-neutral transfers within a department, with conditions. The selectmen could approve similar budget-neutral transfers between departments up to $15,000 without Board of Finance approval.
Within its much larger operating budget, the Board of Education remains free to move funds around as it sees fit, a power that Town government cannot restrict.