Diluting our Council-Manager Form of Government

By Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

There is resistance to placing the proposed charter amendments on the November 2026 ballot in Montrose. At the heart of the debate is a push for a citizen’s commission that some are promoting with unusual intensity. In my humble opinion, this effort reveals a deeper issue: a lack of respect for our foundational structure and our roles within government, both as elected officials and citizens.

Our Council-Manager Form of Government: Montrose operates under a council-manager system, a classic example of representative government. In this model, the people’s voice is heard through their elected representatives. Council members make policy decisions and oversee the city manager who handles day-to-day operations, along with a city attorney and a municipal judge. These three each report directly to the Council.

This is not a direct democracy. We do not govern by popular vote. Instead, we rely on elected officials to study proposals, weigh options, and act in the best interest of the community. This system has served American towns effectively for generations because it balances public input with accountable leadership.

The Push for a Citizens Commission: Those advocating for a citizen’s commission argue that it would give residents more direct say in charter changes. Yet citizens already have a built-in mechanism through citizen petition-initiated charter amendments. With enough valid signatures, these proposals go directly to the ballot for voter ratification. Commissions, however, are typically filled with activists rather than everyday citizens. Any recommendations they produce can still be accepted or rejected by the elected council.

Why add this extra layer if the goal is truly to let the people decide? In my humble opinion, those wanting this commission may simply be unhappy with the outcome of the last election. They appear to view the commission as an opportunity to derive undue influence over the people’s choice because they disagree with the positions of those who prevailed.

Notably, no such commissions were formed for the charter amendments on the ballot in 2014 or 2025. Claims that changes like restoring council involvement in hiring and firing the police chief and city clerk require a commission seem inconsistent, as no commission guided the 2014 decision moving them away from the council’s then joint decision with the manager.

The real motivation seems to be a desire to shift away from our representative republic toward something closer to direct democracy. This bypasses the deliberative process elected officials are chosen to provide.

We Are a Representative Republic, Not a Direct Democracy: No matter how often the phrase “democracy” is used, the facts remain clear. Our system is a representative republic. The only regular democratic actions citizens take are voting for their representatives to do the people’s business. When major changes are contemplated, like charter amendments, elected officials propose them, and the people vote to approve or reject those proposals.

This is how representative government functions at every level in the United States. Direct democracy tools, such as citizen commissions that seek to override this process, undermine the structure that protects minority rights and ensures thoughtful governance.

Fundamentals, Not Party Politics: This discussion is not about Republican or Democrat labels as some are trying to position it, it is about the basic fundamentals of how government works in our country, state and locally. The United States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government, a principle that extends to our local communities.

Montrose voters elect council members and trust them to handle complex issues like charter amendments. Creating unelected commissions staffed by unelected, unaccountable activist’s risks turning decisions into activist-driven exercises rather than representative ones.

Elected officials have a duty to listen to citizen input, study the issues, and place well-crafted proposals on the ballot when appropriate, which is what has happened pertaining to the proposed amendments. Short-circuiting that process weakens the representative system our founders designed. 

Preserving What Works: As we consider charter changes, we must stay grounded in our proven form of government. Resistance to routing these proposals through a citizen’s commission is not obstruction. It is a defense of the representative government we have that ensures accountability and true “consent of the governed” through elected leaders.  Blurring those lines and roles can create unintended consequences.

Montrose deserves charter discussions that respect our council-manager system. We should focus on electing strong representatives who will bring forward thoughtful amendments for voters to decide in November, without unnecessary detours that erode our foundational structure. That is what I have proposed from the start of this journey.

Just one man’s humble opinion.