It Has Always Been the People’s Choice!

by Michael J. Badagliacco, “MJB”

There is a “committee” in town urging a “no” vote on all 4 proposed City Charter amendments. One banner even claimed; “the people should decide what changes should be made, not three kings”.  Really? “Three Kings”? How is presenting a list of proposed changes to the people an act of a king, or three kings?

I agree that the people should decide! And the People will decide, at the ballot box if they believe the measures should be enacted.

How Charter Amendments Reach the Ballot according to the Charter

Charter amendments have always been decided by the voters of Montrose. Nothing has changed. Article X, Section 2 of the Montrose City Charter states that amendments “may be framed and submitted to the electors through petitioning the Council or by the Council on its own initiative in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the State of Colorado.”

According to the Charter, there are only two paths to the ballot.

1. Citizens can gather signatures equal to at least 5% of the total number of registered electors and place a proposal on the ballot themselves. OR;
2. The City Council can propose amendments and send the proposals to the voters.

Either way, nothing becomes law unless a majority of the people approve it at the election. A citizen’s commission is not required or even mentioned in the Charter. The Council used the method the Charter itself provides for the Council to use. 

The Same Process of Past Council’s

The  packages in 1993, 2014 and in 2025 of charter amendments brought forward by previous mayors and councils followed this same route: the Council proposed them, and the voters decided. Opposition that focuses on the process rather than the substance overlooks that history. The self-appointed group now urging “no on all 4” has invoked the names of some of those former mayors who used the same process used this time!  So ask yourself, why the change of heart now?

What the Four Amendments Actually Do

The proposals are straightforward adjustments, not a rewrite of our city government.

Moving regular municipal elections from April to November of even-numbered years puts city races on the same ballot as higher-turnout elections. The April municipal elections bring an average of 25-35% of registered voters, while November brings 60-87%. Moving the elections to November simply provides a truer voice of the people.  And it saves the taxpayers $20,000-$25,000 per election!

An 8-year lifetime limit of elected service on the Council brings fresh perspectives while still allowing experienced members to serve meaningful terms.

Council approval of the City Manager’s decisions to appoint or remove the Police Chief and the City Clerk simply adds basic oversight of the two positions most directly responsible for public safety and the integrity of city records and elections. The Council is already the policy-making body and is charged with oversight of city management. These changes do not invent new power; they make existing responsibility clearer. There is no day-to-day management granted to the Council, it is exclusively limited to the approval of the entry and exit of these two posts. 

Why the Strong Opposition?

Ask why some former mayors and a newly formed self-appointed committee are fighting so hard against basic, common sense adjustments that leave final authority with the voters. The fearmongering that treats an ordinary process as a power grab is nonesense. The Council is doing the job voters sent it to do: bringing clear questions to the people so the people can decide.

These four questions give you, the voter, the chance to decide, it is your decision.