Refuting the Case Against the Amendments

by Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

Three recent letters from Tom Cheney, Don Gladwell, and Cliff Faurer, as well as ads out there where Don Coram urge a No vote on the four Montrose City Charter amendments on the November 3 ballot. They claim the proposals upend a balanced system, inject politics into administration, and amount to a partisan power grab. The Charter, the history of prior changes, and the practical effects of the amendments show otherwise.

Two Paths, No Extra Requirements

Article X, Section 2 is clear. Amendments may be framed and submitted to the electors through petitioning the Council or by the Council on its own initiative. A citizen commission is not listed in the Charter, but not forbidden either. The last two packages prove the point.  In 2014 the Council referred a large rewrite that transferred real power: the City Manager, not the Council, gained sole authority to appoint or remove the police chief and the city clerk. Reporting described the work as led by staff with council members. Then-Mayor Judy Ann Files called much of it “clerical”. No independent citizen commission wrote the questions. On November 4, 2025, another Council and staff package went to voters as one bundled question. It failed. Again, no citizen commission. Funny how it was ok then, but now those of us who support it are accused of being “three kings”!

The current amendments were presented by sitting council members, written by city legal staff, debated in public meetings, and placed on the ballot by recorded votes as four separate questions. Voters are in charge of what is approved or rejected, not the Council. That is more choice, not less.

The April Election Experiment Did Not Work

The 1993 process that moved general municipal elections from November to the first Tuesday in April of even-numbered years took effect in 1994. It was meant to create a quieter, more local focus. The result has been the opposite. April contests routinely produce low participation. On April 7, 2026, only about 35% of registered voters participated. Additional recent April elections were lower still, roughly 25% in 2024 and 26% in 2022. November coordinated elections draw far more voters (60-87%) because people are already voting. Local contests do not vanish on a longer ballot. They gain readers. City elections are already political. Holding them in April does not make them less so. It simply makes them smaller and less representative of the will of the people.

Amendment 2A returns the elections to November of even years beginning in 2028. Sitting members would serve until successors take office after the 2028 and 2030 elections so the calendar can change without empty seats. The will of the people is better heard when more of them participate.

What “Nonpartisan” Actually Means

Article III, Section 5 states that all special and general municipal elections for elective office shall be non-partisan. That means candidates appear without party affiliation on the ballot. It does not mean candidates must leave their values or agenda at the door, nor that organizations or citizens may not endorse or support one candidate over another. Candidates run on platforms. Voters choose them based on those platforms. Supporting candidates who have stated clear priorities is not interference. It is the ordinary work of elections.

There is no partisan power grab. Those who support the agenda each new councilor brought to office expect that they will carry out what they voted for. The remedy for disagreement is the next election, not a Charter that pretends values, principals and agendas do not exist.

Restoring a Check on Critical Positions

Amendments 2C and 2D restore a check the public never clearly bargained away in 2014. The manager would still hire, supervise, and run the police department and the clerk’s office day to day. Council would only confirm appointment or discharge. That is advice and consent, not a takeover. Public safety and elections are not ordinary personnel files. The police chief answers for law enforcement in this city. The clerk administers municipal elections. Elected officials who face the voters should have a recorded yes or no on who holds those jobs.

Cheney’s recollection of one hiring process decades ago shows that politics and pressure always exist. The question is who is accountable to the public. Gladwell is correct that councilors are not intended to manage daily operations. The amendments do not give them that power. They realign the structure with the pre-2014 Charter, while the manager retains full authority to administer within the policy framework Council sets.

Prior voter decisions are not permanent. Montrose has changed since those changes were implemented. The Charter was designed so voters can make changes and correct experiments that did not work, including lower turnout after the move to April and a power shift on critical posts that was embedded inside a larger package in 2014.

Term Limits and the Final Word

Amendment 2B sets a lifetime cap of eight years of Council service. Familiar faces can still run. They simply cannot recycle the same seats for decades. Eight years is a long run on a five-member body. If eight years was long enough for George Washington, it is more than enough for members of City Council.

Trust is built when more voters see the city ballot. Honesty is putting four questions in plain view instead of burying a power shift. Accountability is elected people taking responsibility for the chief and the clerk, then living with the vote.

Read the redlined Charter on the city’s elections page.

Then vote Yes on November 3. The amendments do not take effect unless you say so. That is the Charter working as written.