Tom Franks has experience in private, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. He has a master of science in environmental management and policy from Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute. He served as a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member.
BRATTLEBORO-An open letter to the Brattleboro Selectboard:
At your Oct. 6 meeting, one of your members asked town counsel questions about the charter revision process. Counsel responded, "You are just required to put it on for a vote."
They further stated that this requirement is "in our charter. It's not by statute. This is a provision that's specific to the Brattleboro charter, the existing one."
I believe counsel erred in this opinion and urge the Selectboard to direct counsel to reconsider their decision in light of the following.
* * *
1. There is no explicit language in the charter supporting this opinion. The only language in our charter that gives even the most tenuous support to this assertion is in Article IV, Section 5 H. This section states that the Selectboard shall appoint a Charter Revision Commission (CRC) that "may propose amendments and may redraft the charter in whole or in part. Any amendments shall be voted upon in accordance with Article VIII or as otherwise required by law."
"May propose amendments" and "may redraft the charter" are things any individual, whether a voter in Brattleboro or otherwise, could conceivably do. However, just like the CRC, they would not have the ability to compel a vote simply by proposing or redrafting.
Committees and commissions under Vermont law do not have independent authority to act unless specifically granted by statute or charter. In fact, their recommendations, even in Brattleboro, are frequently ignored. Consider the frustration expressed by members of the Finance Committee over the years.
* * *
2. Article VIII of the Charter, prior to the vote to discontinue Representative Town Meeting (RTM) in March of 2026, provided that the charter could be amended by any of four mechanisms:
A. According to statute (17 V.S.A. Section 2645, "Charters; adoption, repeal, or amendment; procedure"); or
B. By the Selectboard, "pursuant to a vote by the voters of the town by Australian ballot."
C. By resolution of the Representative Town Meeting.
D. By recommendation of the charter revision commission. "Any recommendations approved by the charter revision commission shall be voted upon at a special representative town meeting, with votes subject to the rights of referendum set forth herein."
Subsections C and D were eliminated by the 2025 vote to abolish Representative Town Meeting (RTM). According to repeated assertions by town counsel, when the town voted to discontinue RTM, town governance immediately, automatically defaulted to open Town Meeting (OTM) as defined in statute without requiring legislative approval.
Therefore, these specific provisions about charter change through RTM, which do not exist in 17 V.S.A. Section 2645 or anywhere else in law aside from the Brattleboro charter, are no longer valid. These powers cannot be transferred to OTM without a vote of the town and legislative approval.
* * *
3. In the absence of the above specific provisions relating to RTM, the only mechanisms available are those in 17 V.S.A. Section 2645.
Section (a)(1) states "A proposal to adopt, repeal, or amend a municipal charter [charter proposal] may be made by the legislative body of the municipality or by petition of five percent of the voters of the municipality."
The Selectboard, not the Charter Revision Commission, is the "legislative body of the municipality."
While the Selectboard could choose to defer to the charter revision commission, there is no statutory authority for requiring it to do so.
* * *
4. Town counsel stated that putting the CRC proposal to a vote as presented "is a non-discretionary function similar to if this was made by petition of 5% of the voters."
There is no language in the charter or statute for treating the recommendations of CRC, a body made up of six individuals appointed by the Selectboard, as equivalent to a petition of 5% of the voters of the town.
* * *
In summary, the Selectboard has the authority and opportunity to exercise a wide range of options. It can choose to put the CRC's proposal to a vote of the town, decline to put it to vote as presented, or ask the commission to redraft some of its provisions. Under 17 V.S.A. Section 2645, it can even put forward its own proposal to voters.
What it should not do is to abdicate any of the responsibilities for which it was elected due to a mistaken interpretation of the law.
At the very least, since the plain language of the charter and statutes do not support the opinion offered by counsel on Oct. 6, the Selectboard should direct town counsel to provide a written opinion containing citations to specific sections in law and the rationale for their interpretation.
Finally, please note that statute requires the legislative body of the municipality to "hold at least two public hearings prior to vote on the proposal." From the record of the meeting it appeared that the Selectboard was contemplating holding only one public hearing on the charter changes before the vote.
Thank you for your consideration.
This Voices Open Letter was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.