Citizen Commissions

Do they Undermine Accountability of our Elected Officials?

by Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

In our Constitutional Republic, the people elect representatives to carry out the duties of government. Those representatives’ campaign on platforms and values. They place their judgment before the voters and receive the people’s trust through election. If they fail to deliver, the same citizens can remove them at the next ballot. This accountability is the foundation of representative government.

Appointed citizen commissions function differently. Many who serve are sincere community members who definitely have the best interest of the community at heart. Yet they never stand for election, present platforms for scrutiny, or face direct removal by voters when the voters disagree with their decisions. Elected officials swore an oath to uphold the US and State Constitution, and the law and cannot fairly shift their core responsibilities onto unelected citizens who lack that mandate.

The Founders’ Design for Representative Government

The founders created a Republic, not a democracy. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison explained the difference. A democracy lets citizens assemble and administer government directly and offers no cure for the instability of factions. A Republic delegates authority to a smaller number of citizens elected by the rest. This representation refines public views and produces more stable decisions.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution requires the United States to guarantee every state a republican form of government. Local governments derive their powers from the states. In the early years of the republic, municipal business was conducted by elected mayors, city councils, and town selectmen. These officials answered directly to the voters who chose them. Citizens participated primarily by electing and holding their representatives accountable.

The Progressive Era Departure

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the progressive movement changed municipal structures. Reformers, including those under President Woodrow Wilson, sought “greater efficiency” in growing cities and advanced commission forms of government and city manager plans. These models emphasized professional experts and appointed administrators. The focus moved toward streamlined processes rather than the deliberate work elected officials were chosen to perform.

Citizen commissions reflect this shift. Elected councils create them to address planning, zoning, parks, and sometimes proposals involving charter amendments. This arrangement lets elected leaders delegate difficult or controversial decisions. It sidesteps the responsibility those officials accepted when they ran for office and took their oaths.

Accountability and the Proper Roles

Elected representatives must perform the job the people elected them to do. They should not delegate core governing duties to citizens who have never faced the electorate and who operate without the same scrutiny. In a Republic, the will of the people is executed through officials who stand for election and remain answerable at the ballot box. Placing unelected commissions in that role moves local government toward elements of direct democracy. The founders rejected democracy precisely because it lacked the filtering and accountability of representation.

This position rests on respect for the distinct roles between elected officials and the citizens they serve. Today many municipalities favor expediency over the original construction of limited representative government. When governments rely on citizen commissions rather than elected officials, they bypass elected responsibility and weaken the Constitutional Republic the founders designed. Since the progressive era, this pattern has pushed local government away from electoral accountability and toward administrative structures the founders never intended.

The people deserve representatives who do the full work they were elected to do and who stay directly accountable for the results. That is the government our Constitutional design established.

The call for amendments to our charter is not a new idea. Montrose adopted its original charter in 1914. Amendments were proposed for our charter in 1967, 1993, which passed, in 2014, which passed, and in 2025, which failed. With the exception of the 1967 effort, none of these involved a citizen commission, including the creation of the original charter itself. And while a “Citizen petition-initiated” Amendment option is authorized by the Charter, there has never been a Citizen petition for a Charter Amendment submitted.  So why are some now pushing for a citizen commission? In my humble opinion, it dilutes our Constitutional Republic in favor of a less accountable democracy-centered form of government that the founders warned against.

Some headlines have painted my position as a 180 after initially accepting Councilor Reed’s position. This completely ignores my initial position as it actually shows a full 360 by returning to my original position. My consideration of other points of view proves exactly what I have always said. I am always willing to listen and will consider points of view that are not the same as my own for consideration.

But at the end of the day, we must all do what our values, convictions and the law dictate according to the rules outlined in the Charter itself.