Charter committee headed toward November wrap-up

May 4—The committee reviewing possible changes to Frederick's charter is expected to make recommendations to the mayor and aldermen by Thanksgiving, although details still need to be worked out.

The ad hoc charter review committee began discussions on the timing of its preliminary and final recommendations, as well as allowing time for public discussion and feedback on the preliminary recommendations, at a meeting Thursday afternoon.

The committee, which meets on the first and third Thursdays of each month at City Hall, is expected to take the next few months to hear information on a variety of topics gathered by members of various subcommittees.

Its members could start to form the group's preliminary recommendations in early August, then refine recommendations and issue a draft report by Sept. 21, according to discussions Thursday.

A final report would be issued on Oct. 19, with at least one meeting to present the report and discuss its findings with the mayor and aldermen in early November.

But that timeline could get pushed further back into November if the committee decides to give the public more time to react to the proposals in its draft report.

Committee member Ashley Waters expressed concern Thursday that the proposed schedule doesn't include enough time for public comment and engagement.

Chairman Tom Lynch said he would like to keep the more ambitious schedule to keep the committee's work, which began in January, from dragging on too long.

The committee can do what it can to educate the public, but the mayor and aldermen will decide the course of action, he said.

The committee is expected to further discuss the timeline for its recommendations at a later meeting.

The committee also heard from several members Thursday on the issue of partisan versus nonpartisan elections and potential structures for primary elections.

"These two issues really are intertwined with each other," committee member Jim Racheff told his colleagues.

Frederick holds partisan primaries, with candidates' party affiliation listed on the ballot, while many municipalities have moved to primaries that don't list a candidate's affiliation, Racheff said.

Currently, the two major parties use closed primaries to nominate candidates, in which only registered party members can vote, a process that dates to the 1960s in the city, he said.

The city could also choose to hold semi-open primaries — in which voters can choose which party's ballot they would like to use — or open primaries, in which voters can vote for any primary candidate.

The committee discussed whether nonpartisan primaries would increase voter turnout, or draw fewer voters by removing partisan motivations.

For new candidates, having to appeal to an entire electorate in a primary, rather than just one party's, could make campaigns much more expensive, said John Funderburk.

He said he doesn't agree that nonpartisan elections will increase turnout, since many people naturally align themselves with party labels.

Ron Peppe said he thinks party labels tend to obfuscate candidates' positions on issues, associating them more with their party's beliefs than their own.

The question is whether nonpartisan elections make voters feel more energized and that their voices are being heard, said Andrea Mayer.

Some people may feel more involved in the process, but there's a lot of information that shows that unaffiliated voters show up less at the polls, she said.

Open or nonpartisan primaries may have appeal because of voters' lack of satisfaction with the status quo, she said.

Follow Ryan Marshall on Twitter:

@RMarshallFNP