Should the signature requirement for filing a proposed amendment to the town budget be reduced?

Should Barrington Committee on Appropriations members have the power to file an amendment to their own recommended budget?

Should the FTR — financial town referendum — be pushed back into early June? Should it be held on a Saturday? Should the schools be closed to accommodate a larger venue for voting?

Members of the Barrington Town Council discussed all these questions during a June 30 meeting. The council calendar did not initially call for a meeting in late June, but the timing for including potential changes to the FTR on the November election ballot includes an early August deadline. 

The town council is expected to decide on the proposed FTR changes at the July 27 meeting. 

Barrington Town Council President Braxton Cloutier said there may be an absence at the July council meeting, meaning only three of the five seats may be filled. The fifth seat was vacated when Kate Berard resigned in early June. 

The signature requirement for the proposed budget amendments consumed much of the June 30 discussion. Finding consensus appeared challenging at times. The current FTR requirement for filing an amendment that exceeds $50,000 is 2,856 signatures from registered Barrington voters. Filing an amendment to impact the budget by less than $50,000 does not currently require any signatures. (In order to affect significant change in the budget, Barrington residents filed more than 30 proposed amendments during the recent FTR. Barrington voters approved about three-quarters of the amendments, reducing the budget increase by about $253,000.)

Early into the discussion, Cloutier suggested the 2,856 signature threshold be reduced to 250. 

“Three hundred may be a bit of a reach,” he said. 

Councilor Liana Cassar agreed that a reduction in required signatures was necessary. 

Members of the Barrington Board of Canvassers recommended dropping the signature requirement to 300 for larger amendments amounts and 75 for changes less than $50,000. 

Councilor Jordan Jancosek questioned where the 300 figure came from. She also said she supported that amount, as it was the Canvassers’ recommendation. 

Councilor Kerry O’Neill said it was difficult discussing the signature requirement without including other related issues. O’Neill said 300 sounded like a good number, but he was leaning towards a greater amount, partly because the FTR does not require an audible explanation of the proposal by the person who submitted it. 

The signature requirement proposals fluctuated between 250 and 300 and 600, and the discussion ranged to include whether those who propose amendments would be required to present them at a budget hearing. 

The discussion also included talk about whether the FTR ballot should include a “Reject” option for the overall budget. Cassar said it was unrealistic for residents to reject the budget. She questioned whether taking a hatchet to all the work done by town officials and members of the COA was in the best interest of the community. Cassar instead called for the ballot options to be “Accept” or “Amend.”

Councilors said rejecting the budget would put the town in an unsustainable position. The council also discussed the suggestion that COA members be given the ability to submit amendments to their own recommended budget. 

Different day?

The council also spoke about possibly moving the FTR to a different day. 

Jancosek asked if there was a better day than a Wednesday in late May. She said it felt rushed. The turnout at this year’s FTR exceeded that of recent financial town meetings. Nearly 1,700 voters cast ballots this year. Jancosek suggested the FTR be moved to the last Saturday in May or the Saturday after Memorial Day weekend. 

Cassar cautioned that moving it to a Saturday would require town employees work on the weekend. 

Jancosek cooled on the Saturday idea, but asked about opening a larger venue for the voting — possibly Barrington Middle School or Barrington High School. Some officials warned that using a school building for voting would require the district close that school or all schools for that day. Jancosek said the size of the town hall was a prohibiting factor for some people. 

Cassar asked if the town could use early voting for the FTR — the solicitor said that was not likely, adding that it was a budget vote and not a state or federal election. 

A few people offered public comments during the discussion: Dan O’Mahony, of the Barrington Board of Canvassers, explained some of the thoughts behind the Canvassers’ recommendations; Neile Hartman, who is running for town council, offered suggestions for the FTR changes (she opted for 200 signatures for amendments over $50,000 and 50 signatures for amendments $50,000 and less). She also suggested the town council and school committee could vote only on their own budgets; currently they can pitch changes to any budgets. 

Peter Clifford offered a list of possible changes, which included: Give the residents the authority to approve or reject the town budget at the FTR; require a town wide referendum on any effort to exceed the tax levy cap, and such a vote should be held in advance of the FTR to prevent delays and extra work; reduce the number of signatures required to include an amendment in the FTR — a quorum of 100 was all that was required for any action at the FTM, and that would be a reasonable number for amendment signatures; and provide for an emergency budget if a budget is not approved in the required time.