Charter Revision Commission weighs referendum rules, 2% cap and hybrid budget options

The Charter Revision Commission on Monday reviewed research into how several neighboring towns adopt municipal budgets and debated whether East Windsor’s charter provisions — notably the three‑referendum rule and a fixed 2% automatic increase — should be revised.

The discussion centered on practical consequences of different systems. Committee members described Southfield’s annual town‑meeting approval process and Canton's rule that a recommended budget is automatically approved unless at least 10% of electors vote and a majority of those voting reject it. Several members said that turnout thresholds can produce outcomes where many residents who favor the budget do not vote, effectively letting a motivated minority decide outcomes.

Why it matters: charter language shapes whether budgets reset to prior levels, go to repeated referendums or default to the board of finance. That in turn affects town services and employee retention, commissioners said.

Members summarized a range of practices: Ellington and Summers take budgets to referendum and, if a vote fails, may operate under a temporary budget based on the prior year; Windsor Locks frequently used multiple referendums; Coventry’s charter allows town meetings to reduce but not increase council‑recommended appropriations, meaning successive returns to voters must lower costs rather than raise them.

Commissioners raised specific concerns about East Windsor’s current fixed 2% automatic increase. Several members said the fixed percentage is outdated in years of significant grand‑list fluctuation or rapid inflation and suggested tying increases to a revenue measure or an inflation index with a statutory cap. "You can't continue with 2% from year to year" was a recurring comment as members cited recent grand‑list decreases and the risk of losing staff if revenues fall.

Participants also discussed procedural alternatives. One member proposed that, after three failed referendums, the board of finance that prepared the budget should set the budget — required to account for the issues raised in previous referendums and cost drivers such as collective bargaining and energy prices. Others warned that placing final authority with the board could erode voter trust if not coupled with safeguards.

A number of members asked staff for follow‑up: updated active voter counts (the 2020 Secretary of State report listed about 4,725 active voters), a historical list of charter amendments, and current cost estimates for holding referendums (members reported ballpark figures between $4,000 and $7,000). The commission asked legal staff to review home‑rule limits and whether town‑meeting rules could be written to restrict an automatic adjournment to referendum.

The commission did not make any charter changes at the meeting. It approved the April 27 meeting minutes as amended (one recorded opposition), agreed to table substantive action on revisions pending legal review and additional data, and set a next meeting date. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.

Next steps: staff were asked to provide updated voter roll and turnout data, a history of prior charter changes, and a legal opinion on the permissibility and drafting of hybrid town‑meeting/referendum language. The item will return to a future agenda for further deliberation.