Barrington residents will be asked to decide on four possible changes to the Financial Town Referendum when they head into the polls this November. 

This year was the first-ever FTR in town — Barrington had previously used a Financial Town Meeting format. The new FTR process drew more than 30 proposed budget amendments (including 25 that were approved). It also drew nearly 1,700 voters into the town hall to cast ballots, a significant increase in participation from the FTM.

Shortly after the FTR voting was finalized, members of the council began discussing making changes to the process. That effort continued on Monday night, July 27, when members of the Barrington Town Council voted 3-0 on the four potential FTR changes. 

The four questions will be included on the November ballot.

Question 1

The first question would impact any proposed budget amendments submitted by Barrington residents — if approved, a resident would need to collect 300 signatures from registered Barrington voters to be eligible to submit an amendment. 

Currently, residents do not need to collect any signatures to submit an amendment that would impact the budget by $50,000 or less. Any amendments greater than $50,000 require signatures from 2,856 voters.

The initial suggestion was to set the signature threshold at 250, but Barrington Town Council President Braxton Cloutier called for 300. Councilors Kerry O’Neill and Jordan Jancosek approved the move to 300 signatures. 

Later in the discussion, three residents pushed back on the signature requirement. 

Neile Hartman, a current candidate for the town council, said it was very difficult to collect signatures. Hartman said she is required to collect 50 signatures to run for town council, and she aimed to get 100. She said 250 signatures would be a lot. 

“I question why we would do that?” Hartman said. “Why do we want to make it harder?”

Hartman said the town should aim to make it easier for people to get involved in the process — not harder. She asked for town officials to give residents the benefit of the doubt, that people have good intentions when they propose an amendment to the budget. 

Hartman suggested the town follow the recommendations of the Board of Canvassers, which called for a scaled approach to required signatures: more needed for larger amendments, less for smaller. 

Barrington resident and former Committee on Appropriations member Joel Hellmann also pushed back on the 300 threshold. He pointed out that none of the councilors were required to collect that many signatures when they ran for office. He said that making it harder for the public to get involved in the budget process gives more power to the Committee on Appropriations by default. Hellmann warned that an extremist-led COA could have a major impact on the town budget, when taxpayers have a reduced role. 

“You’re creating a wall,” Hellmann said. “It’s a hard burden. I wish you well with it.”

Janine Wolf submitted the majority of amendments for this year’s FTR. She told councilors that a 300-signature threshold would require a team of people to achieve. She said it will be nearly impossible for a resident to clear that bar. 

Question 2

The second possible change to the FTR would allow for an alternative budget to the town-recommended figures. Likewise, if no-one submits an alternative budget or files a proposed amendment, taxpayers would only have the COA-approved budget to vote on. 

Barrington Assistant Solicitor asked Jancosek if she was OK with that. Jancosek said she was. 

Question 3

Another possible change to the FTR would limit taxpayers to a single proposed amendment each year. 

Cloutier said he was fine with that, and Jancosek also supported the question. O’Neill reminded his colleagues that while residents would be limited to a single question, they could propose an amendment with multiple layers — reductions for some line items and increases for others. 

Hartman shared concerns about Question 3. She said it discourages engagement by the public. She said she opposed that approach. 

Hartman also said that a multi-layered proposed amendment could present a challenge to voters — they may agree with one part of an amendment, but not another. 

“That seems like an absolute disaster in the making,” Hartman said.

Question 4

The final question proposes the municipal budget be changed from a line item budget to a bottom line budget, similar to the school department budget. 

Jancosek also spoke about adding another budget hearing to the process. 

Wolf said she opposed the idea of adding more COA meetings. She said she attended four or five this year and asked Jancosek to go back and watch them — she said the public had zero impact on the COA’s recommended budget. 

“We didn’t get heard,” Wolf said. “That’s why we had to use the amendment process…”

COA members David Lauria and Cynthia Rosengard pushed back on that comment. They both said the COA listened to all the comments shared during the process — Lauria added that the COA reduced the proposed budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

Wolf later clarified that she was referring to the municipal budget, not the school department budget, which was recommended for reduction by the COA.

Dan O’Mahoney, a member of the Barrington Board of Canvassers, called for some changes to the actual language of the questions — he said the sentences were too long. 

Joy Hearn, who sat on the Charter Review Commission, applauded the council for its work identifying areas for possible changes. 

At the end of the discussion, Cloutier made a motion to include the four questions on the November ballot. O’Neill seconded the motion, which passed 3-0. Councilor Liana Cassar was not at the July 27 meeting. The fifth council seat is vacant, following Kate Berard’s early resignation from the council.