The questions below identify structural characteristics of the current system that the community would need to address in any reform process. Unlike the other three governance options, this section does not contain unresolved design choices because the current model is not being designed; it exists. These entries record what the committee examined but deliberately left for the community and any reform process to answer.
Quorum Threshold. The current charter sets quorum at 7 members. With approximately 150 registered GA members, that threshold represents less than 5% of the eligible pool. The committee examined whether this threshold reflects the community's current governance expectations but did not assess what an alternative threshold should be. This question applies to any reform process that addresses the charter's voting structure.
Non-Voting Attendee Counting. The charter's majority-of-members-present rule means that a member's physical presence without casting a vote is counted as a no vote. The committee examined whether this rule operates as intended but did not determine what the intended rule should be or whether a change is warranted.
The $5,000 Contract Threshold. The current contract threshold requiring a full ordinance was set in 1979 and has not been adjusted since. The committee examined whether the threshold still reflects the range of decisions the community intends to require full ordinance treatment for, but did not specify a replacement value or mechanism. That determination is model-dependent and belongs to any reform process.
Town Manager Authority. The current charter does not define the Town Manager's powers, scope of authority, hiring process, or removal process. The committee examined whether a formal charter definition is warranted but did not specify what it should contain. This question applies regardless of which governance model is ultimately chosen.
Between-Meeting Authority. The current charter provides no mechanism for the GA to act between monthly meetings except through emergency procedures. The committee examined whether and how that gap should be addressed but did not reach a position. How different models answer this question is one of the primary structural distinctions among the four options under review.
Non-Attendee Participation. The survey identified scheduling conflicts and preference for remote engagement as reasons for non-attendance among a portion of respondents. The committee examined whether procedural mechanisms such as asynchronous written comment or post-meeting summaries should be created, but did not adopt a position on whether they should be implemented or how.
Administrative vs. GA-Level Decisions. The current charter requires a full two-reading ordinance process for contracts above $5,000 regardless of their nature. The committee examined whether some categories of decisions currently requiring full GA action should be handled administratively or through a lighter process, but left that determination to any reform process.