This section presents the reforms identified and evaluated during the committee's review of the current General Assembly system. Unlike the other governance options discussed in this document, GA 2.0 is not a single governance structure. It is a set of potential reforms that could be adopted individually or in combination.
Each reform is presented as a standalone item consisting of a plain-language description followed by a bounded example. The examples are illustrative only and do not represent committee recommendations or preferred implementation choices.
Structural reforms require charter amendment and voter approval before they can take effect. Procedural reforms can generally be implemented through ordinance or General Assembly action without a charter amendment. How reforms interact, where dependencies exist, and which combinations may create unintended effects are addressed in Section 4.
Structural Reforms
Procedural Reforms
Structural Reforms
Structural reforms would change the governing framework itself and require charter amendment before implementation.
SR-1: Raise and redefine quorum
Amend Article III, Section 4 to raise the quorum threshold above the current 7 members and clarify that only active voters, not all members present, count toward the majority required for passage. The current rule treats non-voting attendees as no votes because the majority is calculated from all members present rather than from those who cast a vote.
Example: A monthly GA meeting with 12 members present and 2 abstaining would under the current rule count the 2 abstentions as no votes. Under SR-1, abstentions would not count against passage, and the quorum threshold itself would be higher, requiring more members to be present before business can be transacted.
SR-2: Create an Administrative Executive Committee (AEC)
Add a new charter provision establishing a small Administrative Executive Committee with defined authority to act between monthly GA meetings on routine matters within a specified financial and procedural threshold.
The AEC is not a separate governing body. It operates inside the existing GA system as a delegated leadership layer that carries out limited, pre-defined functions between meetings, while the GA remains the primary governing authority.
Under the concept discussed, the AEC would be composed of existing elected or appointed officers (such as the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and potentially the Planning and Zoning Chair). It would formalize and extend the authority of the current leadership group that already coordinates between meetings, rather than creating a new elected institution.
The GA retains full authority over the AEC, including the ability to define its limits, review its actions, and override or revise decisions where appropriate.
Example: A time-sensitive water system repair contract below the AEC threshold could be approved between monthly GA meetings without calling an emergency GA session. The action would be reported to the GA at the next regular meeting.
SR-3: Establish a standing Finance and Budget Committee
Amend Article VI and Article V to create a standing committee with rotating GA member appointments that participates in budget preparation and provides advisory input to the Treasurer and the full GA during the annual budget cycle.
Example: Committee members with prior budget experience would carry institutional knowledge from one budget cycle to the next, reducing the re-explanation burden at annual budget meetings and distributing financial oversight beyond the Treasurer alone.
SR-4: Raise the contract threshold
Amend Article III, Section 9 to raise the current $5,000 contract approval threshold, set in 1979, to a higher amount. Routine contracts below the new threshold would fall within Town Manager or AEC authority by resolution rather than requiring a full two-reading ordinance.
Example: A routine snow removal contract at $18,000, currently requiring a two-reading ordinance process, would under a $25,000 threshold be approvable administratively without a GA meeting.
SR-5: Formalize the Town Manager role
Add a charter section formally defining the Town Manager position, its scope of authority, hiring and removal process, and spending discretion limits. The current charter mentions the Town Manager only in passing (Article III, Section 2).
Example: A defined spending limit in the charter would clarify whether the Town Manager may independently authorize a $3,000 emergency repair or must seek GA or AEC approval, removing the current ambiguity that places informal discretion on the Town Manager without charter backing.
SR-6: Establish remote participation rights with guardrails
Add a charter provision creating a right to participate in GA meetings remotely, with defined requirements for voting members including camera-on participation. The current charter contains no remote participation provision.
Example: A GA member working a Tuesday evening shift could participate remotely with camera on and cast votes under defined rules that apply equally to all remote participants, without the current ambiguity about whether remote voting is legitimate.
SR-7: Introduce differentiated voting thresholds
Amend Article III, Sections 6 and 7 to require supermajority votes for defined categories of major decisions, including land use ordinances, significant fiscal commitments, and charter-adjacent matters, while preserving simple majority for routine decisions. The current charter has only one special threshold: majority-plus- one for debt and borrowing.
Attorney review note: The town attorney reviewed this reform and advised that defining the boundary between routine matters and major matters with sufficient precision for charter language would be difficult in practice. The committee noted this as a design challenge rather than a reason to exclude the reform from consideration; the definitional question is itself the work that would need to be done before SR-7 could be responsibly drafted.
Example: An LUC amendment affecting avalanche hazard mapping would require a supermajority rather than a simple majority, raising the bar for passage on high-stakes land use decisions.
SR-8: Create a mandatory continuance mechanism
Add a charter provision allowing a defined threshold of registered voters, the committee discussed 10%, to petition for a 30-day continuance on major decisions. The continuance would require the matter to return at a subsequent meeting, allowing time for broader community engagement before a final vote.
Attorney review note: The town attorney reviewed this reform and raised a practical implementation concern: the petition mechanism could not realistically operate in real time during a GA vote. The logistics of gathering signatures from 10% of registered voters between the introduction of a matter and a vote on it are not workable within the monthly meeting structure. The committee noted this as an unresolved implementation problem; SR-8 addresses a genuine risk (shifting vote composition between readings) but requires a workable petitioning procedure before it can be drafted as charter language. (Full treatment in Section 4.)
Example: A contentious land use ordinance that drew unusually high attendance from one organized group could be paused by petition, requiring it to return at a meeting with more typical attendance patterns before final passage.
SR-9: Formalize an Annual Town Meeting
Amend Article III, Section 1 to designate one meeting per year as an Annual Town Meeting with higher notice requirements, mandatory agenda items including budget preview and capital planning, and materials published and distributed in advance.
Attorney review note: The town attorney reviewed this reform and recommended against formalizing it as a mandatory charter-level requirement. The concern: if an Annual Town Meeting is a required legal event, failure to hold it on the designated date due to weather, power outage, or other contingency creates a rescheduling problem that could leave the town unable to conduct required business without a formal continuance process. The attorney's suggestion was to make the anchor meeting more social and less formally required. The committee noted this points toward an alternative implementation: a GA resolution establishing an annual anchor meeting with higher preparation standards and mandatory agenda items, rather than a charter amendment. If that approach is taken, SR-9 may belong in the procedural reforms category rather than the structural category, or it may warrant a hybrid treatment. This reclassification question is addressed in Section 4.
Example: Each October, before budget season, the GA would hold an Annual Town Meeting where committee chairs report on each governance domain, the community reviews a priority map from the prior year, and the GA explicitly names items being consciously deferred rather than allowing them to disappear between monthly agendas.
SR-10: Introduce a secret ballot option
Amend Article III, Section 6 to add a charter-level trigger for secret ballot voting: a secret ballot is available on the request of any defined number of GA members present. The current charter authorizes paper ballot voting by ordinance but does not establish a trigger mechanism at the charter level.
Example: On a contentious matter where members have expressed concern about social pressure, any 5 members present could request a secret ballot, shifting the vote to paper without requiring a prior ordinance authorizing it for that specific item.
Procedural Reforms
Procedural reforms focus on how meetings are conducted and how participation occurs. These reforms can generally be implemented without charter amendment and can generally be adopted on their own without broader structural changes.
PR-1: Adopt parliamentary rules by ordinance
Adopt a recognized parliamentary authority by ordinance to provide a neutral framework for managing debate, limiting repeat comments, and calling the question. Options explored include Robert's Rules of Order, the AIP Standard Code, Rosenberg's Rules, and modified consensus with majority fallback.
Example: Under an adopted rule set, the presiding officer would have clear procedural authority to limit a member who has already spoken twice on an agenda item from speaking again until others have had the opportunity, without requiring a GA vote each time to enforce the limit.
PR-2: Implement per-agenda-item comment limits
Establish by ordinance a limit of two to three comments per GA member per agenda item, with a defined time limit per comment.
Example: On a contested water system repair authorization, each member present would have two opportunities to speak for a defined period, after which the presiding officer could call the question regardless of whether every member who wished to speak had done so.
PR-3: Require pre-meeting packet acknowledgment
Establish by ordinance a requirement that GA members affirmatively acknowledge receipt of the meeting packet before the meeting, combined with a moderator authority to decline explanatory questions that are addressed in the distributed materials.
Example: A member who did not read the packet would not be entitled to have staff re-explain background covered in distributed documents during meeting time. The presiding officer could redirect the member to the packet and proceed with discussion.
PR-4: Create a consent agenda
Establish by ordinance a consent agenda mechanism: routine, non-controversial items are bundled for single-vote approval at the start of the meeting. Any member may pull an item from the consent agenda for individual discussion before the vote.
Example: Minutes approval, standard annual contracts, and routine administrative resolutions could be grouped as a single consent vote, clearing them from the agenda in under two minutes unless a member requests individual discussion.
PR-5: Establish a public comment period separate from GA deliberation
Establish by ordinance a two-stage meeting structure: a public comment period open to any resident, followed by a GA deliberation period restricted to verified GA members. The boundary between the two stages is formally marked and enforced by the presiding officer.
Example: A non-GA-member property owner with an interest in a pending land use decision could speak during public comment but would not participate in the deliberation phase that follows.
PR-6: Require a waiting period before voting on newly introduced information
Establish by ordinance that any motion incorporating substantively new information not included in the pre-meeting packet is automatically tabled for one meeting, unless the GA votes by supermajority to waive the delay.
Example: If a member introduces a new legal opinion at the meeting itself that changes the terms of a pending ordinance, the vote on that ordinance would be automatically deferred to the following month unless a supermajority waives the delay.
PR-7: Publish a standardized agenda template with time allocations
Establish by ordinance a standardized agenda format with estimated time blocks per item, prepared and published by the Mayor in advance of each meeting.
Example: The agenda for a standard monthly meeting would show budgeted time for each item, giving both the presiding officer and GA members a shared framework for pacing and a basis for moving on when an item runs over.
PR-8: Establish a conflict of interest disclosure procedure
Establish by ordinance a verbal disclosure requirement and formal recusal process for the conflict of interest prohibition that already exists in Article III, Section 6. The current charter prohibits voting on conflicts but provides no disclosure or recusal procedure.
Example: A GA member with a financial interest in a land transaction before the GA would verbally disclose the interest at the start of that agenda item, formally recuse, and leave the voting area for that item's deliberation and vote.
PR-9: Create an asynchronous written comment option
Establish by ordinance a mechanism allowing any resident to submit written comments on agenda items before the meeting. Comments are distributed to GA members with the packet and read into the record before deliberation begins.
Example: A full-time working resident who cannot attend Tuesday evening meetings could submit a written position on a pending ordinance that is read aloud to the GA before deliberation, ensuring their perspective is part of the deliberative record.
Implementation note: the Town Manager has observed that an informal written comment mechanism already exists; comments can currently be submitted and are brought to meetings. The reform's value is formalizing this as a structured right by resolution rather than an informal accommodation.
PR-10: Require post-meeting plain-language summaries
Establish by ordinance a requirement that the Clerk or a designated volunteer publish a brief plain-language summary of decisions made within 48 hours of each meeting. The summary is an accessibility tool distinct from formal minutes, which are legal records.
Example: A resident who missed the meeting could read a short summary the following day explaining what was decided on each agenda item, without needing to parse formal minutes or wait for the next meeting to find out what happened.
Implementation note: production of post-meeting summaries would depend on the Clerk's agreement to take on this function or on identifying a designated volunteer. The committee did not confirm this capacity before including the reform in the inventory.
Community-Generated Reform Suggestions
In addition to the reforms developed through committee analysis, community members contributed ideas through survey responses, public comments, and committee correspondence. Some of those ideas overlap directly with reforms included above, while others remain less developed.
These items are included for transparency regarding the committee's source materials and should not be interpreted as committee recommendations or evaluated reforms. They are presented here as community-generated concepts that informed the committee's broader discussion.
Survey responses included repeated support for secret voting (reflected in SR-10), camera-on requirements for remote voting participants (reflected in SR-6), and time limits on discussion (reflected in PR-2).
Additional ideas raised through committee communications included expanding the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem job descriptions to more clearly define administrative responsibilities and the working relationship with the Town Manager, and exploring consensus-based decision-making approaches as an alternative to traditional majority voting.