“We the People” Decide
Four Charter Amendments to Strengthen Montrose

by Michael J Badagliacco, “MJB”

How is this Controversial?



I was asked to reiterate my position concerning the potential Charter Amendments. My intent is to ensure the people have an opportunity to decide in November, on the final four measures still under consideration for the November 3, 2026 ballot from the remainder of what began as seven.

The four proposed charter amendments strengthen democratic accountability, voter participation, institutional checks, and long-term governance stability in Montrose. They address low-turnout spring elections that favor organized interests, indefinite tenure that can entrench incumbents, and excessive concentration of personnel power in a single unelected administrator. In a Constitutional Republic the people elect representatives who remain accountable to them. These changes reinforce that principle while preserving efficient professional management.

1. Moving Municipal Elections from April to November (Even Years)

April elections historically produce significantly lower turnout than November general elections. In many municipalities spring turnout falls between 25-35%, while even-year November elections routinely reach 60-87%. Higher participation means the elected Council more accurately reflects the full electorate rather than a narrow slice of highly motivated voters or organized groups.

This increases the legitimacy of the Council. Decisions on budgets, taxes, infrastructure, and land use carry greater weight when more residents have voted. It reduces the influence of small factions that dominate low-turnout contests, aligns local elections with the civic calendar when voters are already engaged, and can lower costs by as much as $20,000 (or more) through state coordination and cost-sharing. Candidates must appeal to a broader cross-section of Montrose. Broader participation maximizes the principle:

“government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed”.

2. Lifetime Term Limits of Eight Years Across All Seats

Unlimited tenure can reduce innovation and shift the Council from citizen-legislators toward career local politicians. An eight-year lifetime cap, consecutive or cumulative, forces regular turnover while still allowing time to learn the job and complete multi-year work.

It guarantees new perspectives and community voices, reduces long-term personal networks, and encourages focus on durable policy rather than personal longevity. It makes the Council more accessible to qualified residents and aligns with Colorado’s tradition of term limits and the principle that public office is a temporary trust, not a career. Eight years is long enough to be meaningful

3. City Council Approval Required for Hiring and Firing the Police Chief

Currently there is a concentration of power over public safety in one unelected official. Requiring Council confirmation for hiring and removal adds a democratic check without eliminating professional management.

This ensures the person responsible for public safety ultimately answers to the elected representatives of the people. It adds scrutiny on qualifications, temperament, and community fit, and protects against abrupt removals that can damage morale or appear retaliatory. The amendment requires approval of the manager’s recommendation rather than independent Council hiring. Day-to-day operations remains intact. Shared responsibility strengthens checks without micromanagement.

4. City Council Approval Required for Hiring and Firing the City Clerk

The City Clerk is custodian of official records, elections administration, and transparency functions. Sole hiring and firing authority with the manager can limit the clerk’s independence when duties involve oversight of the administration or Council.

Shared approval strengthens institutional independence for the office that maintains the official record and electoral processes. It provides a democratic safeguard, reduces the risk of removal for inconvenient transparency work, and reinforces public confidence that records and elections are not under unilateral control. The amendment is structured as Council confirmation of the manager’s recommendation. Day-to-day supervision stays with the manager. This arrangement fits the clerk’s quasi-independent role and the republican idea that key accountability functions should not rest in one unelected pair of hands.

Taken together, these amendments improve participation, ensure regular turnover, and add checks on two critical positions. They reduce single-point-of-failure risk and strengthen accountability while preserving professional management. They are structural, not partisan, and consistent with the principle that ultimate authority in a Constitutional Republic rests with the people through their elected representatives.

All of these are being presented as separate ballot measures for you, the voters of Montrose, to decide.
Would I personally like to see them pass? Of course! However, I am but one vote on the Council and one vote of nearly 17,000 registered voters in November.

Ultimately the decision belongs to:

“We the People”, all of us in Montrose.

If you find the proposals acceptable,

Vote Yes. If you do not, Vote No.

Not sure how all of these became “Controversial”…. 
The Council is not doing anything more than proposing we put these items on the ballot for YOU to decide.

- More Voters

- Fresh Voices

- Shared Power