Why November Makes Sense
for Montrose Charter Amendments

by Michael J Badagliacco, "MJB"



It is no secret that I opposed a citizen’s commission for the Charter amendments and want the measures on the November 2026 ballot. The same individuals who pushed for a commission had nothing to say during the 2014 or 2025 versions of this process. The only difference is who sits on the Council today. If critics have alternative changes, citizens have the option to submit their proposals directly to the ballot. In the end, the people of Montrose will decide what serves our community best, not a small unelected, unaccountable group unhappy with the current makeup of the Council.

Voters Hold Ultimate Authority

The voters will vote on the proposals the Council forwards to the ballot, they can ratify or reject them. That is how the system is designed. The ideas that I submitted for consideration emerged during the campaign. Those concepts I submitted to the City Attorney received strong support from residents I met while knocking on doors. That is why they will advance for full Council consideration, with an open invitation for other members to add ideas for public discussion in open meetings before any ballot placement.

Applying Common Sense to Charter Updates

Some ask, “what is the rush”? We often hear that government works too slowly. This is not rushing. It is realistic common sense. We are not rewriting the entire Charter. The proposals are straightforward. They address either practical improvements or a return to the core functions of the Charter itself.

Higher Turnout and Broader Participation

Moving city elections from April to November aligns with the even-year schedule that already includes gubernatorial or presidential races. Those high-profile elections produce the largest voter turnout. This shift would move city election participation from the typical 25-35% range to 60-80%. It is a practical step that requires no major restructuring.

True eight-year lifetime term limits for City Council would open the door to more residents serving in public office. We have seen the same individuals cycle through multiple terms, take a short break, and return for another long stretch. We need fresh participation. This year’s candidate pool was an encouraging sign that we are expanding the group of people willing to serve. While the demands of public service may deter some, civic-minded residents continue to step forward.

Restoring Proper Accountability for the Police Chief and Clerk

This proposal would reverse the 2014 change that shifted Police Chief hiring, firing, and reporting from the elected Council to the appointed City Manager. Some claimed the change was needed due to oversight issues. That was not a sufficient reason to strip the elected Council of responsibility and hand policy-level authority to an administrator whose role is execution, not policy creation.

Others have argued the shift made sense because the Council is part time. However, under the pre-2014 structure, for one-hundred  years the Council had direct reports, including the Chief of Police, City Manager, City Attorney, Municipal Judge, and City Clerk. If part-time status prevented oversight of the Chief, it would have prevented oversight of those other positions as well. In our Council-Manager form of government, the elected Council makes policy and must remain the final point of accountability. The City Manager, Chief of Police, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Judge should answer to the people through their elected representatives. Placing the Chief and Clerk under the Manager grants policy influence to an administrator who lacks that authority under the Charter.

Preventing Ranked-Choice Voting in Montrose

Ranked-Choice Voting contributed to California becoming a single-party state. And even though Colorado voters rejected it statewide in 2024, the legislature has now authorized it for municipalities. I have proposed we adopt a Charter amendment that would prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting in Montrose. We should preserve our current District and At-Large structure. There is no reason to alter the way districts are currently configured.

Additional Proposals for Consideration

Two other items merit review for possible ballot placement:

• Change the Municipal Judge residency requirement from Montrose County to a reasonable distance standard.

• Update all gender-specific language in the Charter to neutral terms.

All proposed amendments should appear as stand-alone measures rather than bundled into a single package.

Public input through open meetings will help shape the final list. Voters will decide at the ballot box. That is how representative government is supposed to work.