Updated as of 6/12//24–items in red are items tweaked or added after the public hearing on 2/23 based on feedback or our own subsequent conversations.
Process Note: The chart below is the result of a number of months of work from the Charter Review Committee soliciting feedback from the community and closely studying the language of the current charter. Our final report with recommendations goes to the City Council by the end of June for their consideration. While we didn’t rank or prioritize the recommendations for charter changes, when one looks at them as a whole, they generally reflect 5 themes:
- Efficiency– is there a quicker way to reach our goals as a government?
- Transparency- is there a more open way to reach our goals?
- Democracy- is there a more democratic process to use to reach our goals?
- Clarity- is there a more clear way to describe our processes in the charter language?
- Community Priorities- there are priorities in the community that need to be better addressed
This document is best used paired with a red lined copy of the specific language changes proposed in the Charter, which is also available online. Note that as one looks at the red-line version of the charter, there are several small grammar/word choice changes for clarity’s sake that are not on this chart, but need approval.
Lastly, note that at the end of this document is a chart of “non-binding recommendations”. Like the original charter report, we plan to make some recommendations for the Mayor, City Council, and perhaps the next Charter Review Committee for topics to explore.
Article I: Definitions
| What | Where in Article? | Why | |
| A | Clarified that non binding resolutions don’t need mayoral approval | Clarity–there was confusion noted by original City Solicitor |
Article II: Legislative Branch
| What | Where in Article? | Why | |
| A | Changed starting day of term to second business day, not january 1 | 2.1.b | To match change elsewhere moving Inauguration Day |
| B | Named specific council subcommittees alluded to elsewhere in charter rather than refer to subcommittees more generally | 2.2.c | To clarify that those are required standing committees per charter Note: Also changed “special” committees to “temporary” for clarity |
| C | Prevents City Council members from holding any other elected position (local or beyond) | 2.3.a | Create more opportunities for others, balance power |
| D | Added language to connect minutes requirements in the Charter to MGL/open meeting law | 2.6.d.v | Suggestion from City Solicitor |
| E | Created a process for employees hired by CIty Council to have a process to challenge suspensions/removals | 2.8.e | To mirror process for all other employees (those hired by Mayor) Note: Modeled off of Beverly Charter with minimal tweaks |
| F | Suggestion deleted | ||
| G | Add City Solicitor to list of positions needed Council approval | 2.10.a | This is an important position who works on behalf of the entire municipality, so deserves some Council role in initial hiring process |
| H | Clarifies that division heads need council approval for initial hires, but not for reappointments | 2.10.a | Clarified a question for boards and employee that has come up Note: Possible help with hiring and retention of employees in competitive market |
| I | Clarifies when appointments take effect–LOOK AT THIS! | 2.10.b2.10.c | Response to some confusion in the first administration as noted in Petrini memo |
| J | Changes the Councilor at large vacancy process – if there are 9 months or less before a special election, seat is empty until next election. If it is more than 9 months, there is a special elections. | 2.11.a | This language suggested by Collins center is much easier to understand than the current language. |
| K | Changes process for replacement of district councilor who resigns to require special election vs having the second place winner take the post Also changes trigger for action from 20 months to 15. | 2.11.b | Felt that special election was more democratic and sensible than going back to the second place results that could be a year old Note: This may incur special election costs, but we felt this would be rare and worth the small costs |
Article III: Executive Branch
| What | Where in article? | Why | |
| A | Changed starting day of term to second business day, not january 1 | 3.1.b | To match change elsewhere moving Inauguration Day |
| B | Clarified term limits to note that mayor cannot be elected more than 3 times in a row | 3.1.f | Felt the word “hold” was unclear in a case where a Mayor resigned or took a leave in term 3 and then wanted to run again for term 4. Note: Unlikely scenario but felt proper to tweak. |
| C | Deleted list of boards, committees, etc from charter and required them to be listed in ordinance | 3.3.b | Charters can’t be changed automatically, so lists currently in charter are inaccurate since some things have been added. |
| D | Add City Solicitor to list of positions needed Council approval | 3.3e | This is an important position who works on behalf of the entire municipality, so deserves some Council role in initial hiring process Note: Making consistent with Article 2.10.a |
| E | Added a new position required by Charter called “Chief Climate and Sustainability Officer” | 3.3.f | Climate/sustainability planning will be more and important in next decade and deserves more focus at the policy level as well as project level Note: Meant to be a position that can set policy across departments, look for cost savings opportunities etc |
| F | Clarified that suspension/removal info in this section apples to positions appointed by the mayor, not the council | 3.4.b | As noted above, process for council is handled in our proposed 2.8.e |
| G | Changed timing making report due by November 15 rather than 12 weeks after the start of the fiscal year. Added more details/requirement about content of the annual report about committee activity and charter compliance | 3.6.a 3.6.a | Pushed deadline a bit later to account for bills needing to be paid for a few months into the fiscal year and clarified that boards and committees need reports for transparency Note: Request for the date change based on discussion with PIO |
| H | Noted that Mayor need not sign non-binding resolutions, what to do if Mayor is absent exactly 10 days, and that delegation of power needs to be in writing | 3.73.83.9 | Clarity– 3.7 is about resolutions, 3.8 is about mayoral absences, and 3.9 is about delegation of authority. |
| H1 | Added clarity on veto process and timeline | 3.7 | Suggestion from City Solicitor |
| I | Expanded goal/focus language in master plan to include climate and community equity | 3.11.a | Important community goals–sends signal of what to keep in mind in terms Note: Master plans mostly about land use and are created by planning board per MGL |
| J | Reduce Master plan timing from once every 20 years to 10, in years ending in 5. | 3.11.a | Pace of change is fast and plans need to be connected to current situation |
| K | Changed name of strategic plan to “strategic blueprint” and added specific steps and outlines SIFOC role in blueprint process | 3.11.b | Strategic blueprint process is new and needed fleshing out Note: Most of this was based on suggestions from SIFOC with some adaptations from Collins center |
Article IV: School Committee and other Elected Officials
| What | Where in article? | Why | |
| A | Change term of office wording for school committee to match new inauguration day | 4.1.b | Need all parts of charter to be consistent |
| B | Notes the new process for filling vacancy in school committee (See 4.1.i) | 4.1.c | Create more opportunities for others, balance power |
| C | Prevents school committee members from also holding other elected office | 4.1.d | Create more opportunities for others, balance power. Consistent with council in 2.3.a |
| D | Noted School Committee role to do performance reviews of Supt. of Schools | 4.1.h | Clarity, consistency with state law |
| E | Changes special election process for School Committee seats that become vacant in first 15 months to a special election. Our current process has the council and school committee meeting to pick someone | 4.1.i | Felt that having school committee (and council) pick their new member was awkward and didn’t give the people in that district enough voice. Note: This was a school committee priority |
| F | Clarified that if person is elected to fill vacancy, the person elected can start immediately rather than wait until January | 4.1.j | Efficiency- no need for that person to wait to serve and for the district to have representation |
| G | Change term of office wording for library trustees to match new inauguration day | 4.2.a | Need all parts of charter to be consistent |
| H | Prevents library trustees from also holding other elected office | 4.2.d | Create more opportunities for others, balance power. Consistent with council and school committee language above |
| I | Noted library trustee role to do periodic performance review of library director to be given to Mayor for consideration in Mayor’s evaluation of Library director. | 4.2.f.iv | Clarity for role of Library trustees in giving feedback to the mayor about the library director’s performance for the performance review |
| J | Change term of office wording for cemetery trustees to match new inauguration day | 4.3.b | Need all parts of charter to be consistent |
| K | Prevents cemetery trustees from also holding other elected office | 4.3.d | Create more opportunities for others, balance power. Consistent with council and school committee language above |
Article V: Administrative Organization
| What | Where in article? | Why | |
| A | Made several small changes to reorganization plan process: -Requires an up to date organization chart to be posted online and updated to maintain its accuracy -While council holds hearing, required mayor attend to explain rationale -Notes that school committee also have power of approval for reorganizations that involve school departments/functions | 5.1 | Adding the Organization chart requirement adds transparency about city structure and helps the public understand city functions School Committee reference is for clarity and consistency with MGL |
| B | Removed the language requiring technology services and media services to be in admin and finance division | 5.3a | In the original charter, this was a very specific placement for departments without a clear rationale why. Removing it gives the Mayor flexibility for organizing these staff without triggering formal, time-consuming reorg plan. |
| C | Allows the License Commission to pick their own chair. Vice-chair, clerk rather than Mayor. | 5.5 | It is typical practice for multi-member bodies to pick their chairs. We also recommended this change for SIFOC, so this is consistent. |
| D | Adds one more at-large community member to Traffic Commission | 5.6.a | Request of board with Mayor’s support to create odd numbered board (going from 8 to 9), having community voice slightly larger than staff voice (5-4 vs 4-4 now), and to have the added community member be at large to allow for flexibility in choice. |
| E | Noted that traffic commission has purview in bike lanes and pedestrian ways, not just car-based traffic | 5.6.b | Clarity-Important to note as we have more bike lanes/paths, etc. |
| F | Clarified “petition” process for traffic regulation by putting that in a new, different subsection. | 5.6.c | Clarity issue. |
Article VI: FInance and Fiscal Procedures
| What | Where | Why | |
| A | Added Preamble with process goals for budget information | Start of 6 | Felt it was important to stress need for transparency, collaboration and timely information especially with fiscal matters |
| B | Created a new requirement for a “pre budget” meeting 180 days before end of the fiscal year (Early January) with mayor and other key boards specifically geared to public input | 6.1 | Wanted to make sure public had time to influence budget thinking before budget was created Note: Language notes role of soliciting public input |
| C | Added emergency language into budget submission timing | 6.2.b | There was a lack of clarity during covid about whether timelines could be changed. |
| D | Added requirement for Mayor to have a budget hearing prior to its formal submission to the council | 6.3.a | Again, wanted a chance for public to weigh in to the initial proposal and not have to wait until later in the process. |
| E | Moved date for Mayor to give Council the budget from 60 days before end of fiscal year to 120 days. (Roughly from May 1 to March 1) | 6.3.b | Wanted to give Council more time to study budget and take action. If the budget is voted earlier, that would also benefit FPS hiring. Note: We kept the requirement that SC pass their budget 21 days earlier than that. |
| F | Strengthen language in the budget message to require information about how this budget aligns with the strategic blueprint. | 6.4.a | |
| F1 | Added a requirement that classification plans and pay schedule by posted as part of the budget process | 6.4b | transparency |
| G | Shifted the budget’s public hearing requirement from finance subcommittee to whole council Gave the Finance subcommittee an additional week to review materials (current charter gives them 21 days, we propose 28) | 6.5.a 6.5.b | Budget decisions are one of the most important things Council does–important for whole Council to hear thoughts and for that to be at amore visible/expected time for the public |
| H | Requires the whole budget proposal to be placed online immediately and remain online in an easily accessible way. Requires that the approved budget be posted online in an easily accessible way. | 6.5.e | More transparency and ability of public to find key fiscal information |
| H1 | Noted that if there is a supplemental budget request the hearing required should be before the full council | 6.6 | For clarity in case there was a process question–the full council plays an important role in regular budget process and should play a big role in supplemental requests too. |
| I | Deleted section on Allotments process | 6.7 (deleted) | Collins Center consultants and the city’s former CFO both noted that this feature is rarely found in Charters and can be cumbersome without great benefit. |
| J | Note the school committee role/responsibility in capital budget process | 6.8.a | Clarity |
| K | Changed the Capital Budget process so that the capital improvement plan be approved by February 1 rather than within the operating budget in June | 6.8.f | Both municipal and school dept suggest that this would help with locking in costs and starting work sooner, especially on school side with major work limited to summer |
| L | Noted the School Committee role in approval of contracts in their realm | 6.10 | Clarity |
| M | Added detail to SIFOC’s role for capital projects, added their ability to name their own chair, and noted that they could be ad-hoc members of other committees | 6.11 | Much of this related to their suggestions. We wanted to further develop their role in government based on their suggestions as a new entity in Charter. |
| M1 | Added a SIFOC meeting at least 1x per year with Mayor, Council, and SchoolCommittee | 6.12 | This allows SIFOC to report out on any work/analysis they’ve done, and also allows the mayor, council, or school committee to ask them to examine specific long term issues that need more investigation. |
Article VII: Elections and Election Related Matters
No changes
Article VIII: Citizenship Participation Measures
| What | Where in article? | Why | |
| A | Increased timed allow for signature gathering of initiative measures from 60 to 90 days | 8.2.c | This process is meant to be a last resort, so it should be difficult, but did want to make it somewhat more possible if residents feel their voice is not being heard any other way. |
| B | Changed process so that if the council or school committee does not act on initiative in 60 days, it is considered accepted, not rejected. | 8.2.d | Changing from “accepted” to “rejected” matches the process for appointments and it forces boards to react one way or the other to resident demands. Otherwise, a board to let an issue die simply by taking no action. However, we gave the council 60 days to take action rather than 30 per a request from the rules subcommittee of the Council for added time. |
Article IX:
| What | Where | Why | |
| A | Notes that council can change Charter through defined MGL process | 9.1 | For clarity–this was a common confusion of the public and our committee during this process. |
| B | Changed Charter Review Process. Clarifications to timing, who leads the first meeting, who can serve on it and more based on our experience. | 9.5 | Our hope is this allows the next Charter Review Committee to start their work and proceed from there smoothly We also broadened who could serve on this committee in order to encourage more voices to participate in the process. |
| C | Added a list of transparency and accessibility language for Multi-Member bodies as well as Council and School Committee | 9.7.e | Focus on public having an easier time finding info by having it one place, along with langage accessibility |
| D | Made the oath of office second business day in January | 9.11 | Based on a wide range of feedback about the challenges of Inauguration day on January 1. |
| E | |||
| F | Noted the limit on holding 2 elected offices at once | 9.13 | Matches references in other parts of the Charter in Articles II and IV, with language from the City Solicitor that this doesn’t immediately impact anyone, but would go into effect in the next election if passed. |
| G | Requires an analysis of parts of the charter that are not being followed | 9.14 | Matches reference in Article III |
| H | Clarifies SC role in naming school property, requires a public hearing before doing it. | 9.19 | This is current SC policy, but deserves enshrinement here. |
Article X: Transition Provisions
Based on advice from our consultants, we made several changes:
- Kept sections 1-6b in this section just in case they need to be easily referred to in the future
- Updated in Article X, section 6c which precincts are connected to each district based on our current 27 precinct map
- Deleted items beyond that we know already happened as part of the transition.
- Kept the 2017 list of non-binding recommendations in Article X, section 8 and added new non-binding recommendations of our own. A more full rationale for each of our proposal appears at the end of our report.
Important Note: Items now labeled as Article X, section 6d- 6g are not new. They come from the 2017 Charter. We kept these in this version because we were not 100% sure they are completed, and did not have time to fully confirm. Once someone confirms all these actions have been taken, these could likely be removed by a future Charter Review committee.
We suggest you take these changes in Article X up all at once for efficiency’s sake.
Grammar and Wording Edits: The following chart lists small grammar and wording edit, many of which were suggested by previous consultants such as General Code during the ordinance recodification process . None change the meaning/content of the Charter and we recommend you consider approving them all at once if desired
Note that we did our best to list all of these types of changes here, but may have missed a few.
| Article II, sections 2c, 2d, 8bArticle III, sections 3a, 3b,4b, 7Article IV, sections 1c, 1g ii, 2f ii, 2f iii, 3cArticle V, section 6bArticle VIII, sections 2a, 2d,eArticle IX, sections 7 and 19 |
Non Binding Recommendations:
The following is a chart of non-binding recommendation topics for inclusion in our final report. The exact wording of the recommendations will change, but we wanted the public to have an easy way to see and comment on these before the public hearing if they desired.
| Recommendation | Aimed towards | Notes |
| Reexamine the non-binding recommendations of the original charter review committee and report on which have been accomplished and which might still make sense to explore currently | City Council | |
| Examine election results to ensure that each region of the city has equitable representation and consider changes to the City Council structure if needed | Next Charter Review Committee | This relates to the poll we had about different council set ups, with ideas for how it might be structured to make sure it is geographically representative and that there aren’t huge barriers to running for office. |
| Analyze election participation and look for possible ways to increase turnout, number of candidates , and information about candidates easily available to the public. Specific focus should be paid to participation and representation in areas of the community with lower historical participation rates. | Mayor/Administration and Council | This might include structures like preliminary elections thresholds and signature requirements, but could also look at things like Ranked Choice voting. |
| Consider the feasibility as well as possible advantages and challenges of creating of a separate Traffic department | Mayor/Administration | This was a request of Police Chief that we didn’t feel expert enough to strongly recommend but may be worth exploring more closely. |
| Write a simplified “Charter for Dummies” to explain different parts and rules for the government to the public. | Mayor/Administration | Part of the feedback from the public was that it is hard for an average person to know how government works. This is one way to help address this. There could also be brief “video explainers” in different languages. |
| Investigate the possibility and potential advantage of creating a “participatory budgeting process” for a set of funds. Participatory Budgeting is defined as, “a democratic process that empowers community members to decide how to spend part of a public budget” | Mayor/Administration City Council | This is an idea that has gained some traction in bigger cities recently to give residents much more direct power in choosing projects of importance to fund. Cambridge has the most experience with this. One can see information about their most recent version of the process here. |
| The city should push aggressively to ensure that a much fiscal information is online and in as easy a manner for the public to access as possible This could happen several ways, including but not limited to: Creating an online transparency portal maintained on the city’s website that has s information updated at least quarterly such as: payroll by employee including annual salary, regular and overtime payments year to datevendor payments, and vendor contracts awardedTax credits awarded by recipient retirement payments by retiree And these items updated at least yearly: the balance of unfunded liabilities, including pensions, and other post employment benefits Collective bargaining and host community agreements City Council could revisit and strengthen any existing ordinances that deal with fiscal reporting online. Lastly, the Mayor and Council could consider forming a new “transparency committee” with this explicit charge, or putting this responsibility of SIFOC if that seemed best. The committee does note that while this work is complementary to the work of the Finance Subcommittee, we believe that they already have a great deal of work to do, and that any such committee should have representatives appointed by the municipal and school sides of Framinghm | Mayor/Administration | This is an area the city is already working towards with their efforts to use “open checkbook” or similar software to get information online. Nevertheless, we wish to stress its importance formally This is all important information for the community to have about how tax dollars are being spent as well as future issues facing Framingham that need attention/planning. |
Dear Council,
We would like to express our gratitude to you, the Mayor, and the School Committee for entrusting to us this important role. We would also like to thank you all, as well as members of the public for your valuable support and input. Our journey to this final report would be incomplete without everyone’s involvement.
Themes of Our Recommendations:
- A more inclusive operating budget process: Enables the community to give feedback during the development of the budget, as well as timing changes to make the process more efficient. It also includes changes to make the final budget and supporting materials more transparent.
- A more efficient capital budget process: Approve the capital budget plan by February 1 rather than be included with the operating. This may allow work on projects to start sooner, something both school and municipal departments saw as an advantage.
- Added access to information/transparency measures: New rules that require that all meetings to be recorded by audio/video, that meeting information be placed in one centralized location that is easier to find, and there be more focus on reducing langage and accessibility issues so that meetings and materials are truly open to all.
- More clarity in the strategic planning process: The original charter required a strategic planning process that goes beyond State requirements. The committee is recommending more specific language in terms of timing and process to help make this important work flow well.
- A new position to coordinate Framigham’s climate resilience efforts: This would be a position that can work across departments to make sure that Framingham is planning for climate impacts doing work in a coordinated manner.
- Small tweaks to elections rules and process for vacancies Recommended a new rule that bars someone from holding two elected positions at once; it is also recommending that vacancies for school committee and district council be filled by special elections rather than our existing processes to make sure that district residents have more voice in these decisions.
- Moves the next Charter Review to 2030 instead of 2033: Framingham is still a young city, and the committee wanted a future committee to get a chance to revisit issues that come up just a bit sooner.
Content of Our Work:
You are receiving two distinct outputs from our work. The first output is a set of recommendations for changes to the Charter. These will be organized by article and section and will contain the language and rationale for each change. You will also receive a copy of the Charter with recommended language for the changes.
The second is a list of non-binding recommendations that could occur outside of the Charter. As part of our process, we delved into possible changes to our government that ultimately did not rise to the level of a change to the Charter. However, we felt it our duty to offer you and other groups in our government these recommendations to consider.
It is our understanding based on feedback from the City Solicitor that once the Council has the report, it can discuss and accept or reject each of the individual suggestions we’ve made. Each suggestion you approve will eventually need to be voted on by the residents of Framingham. However, the City Solicitor’s read of the Charter and related law suggests that you may not amend our suggestions.
Our Process:
Our journey has lasted ten months and as part of the process, we have held 22 formal meetings including a public hearing, five community meetings around the city, and two surveys. We received suggestions from several departments and committees as well as organizations outside of Framingham’s government. We received feedback at our open meetings and through email from the public and various agencies. We created a Communications Subcommittee that held three meetings to recommend a strategy to gather feedback from the public. Finally, we had the advantage of assistance from the Collins Center to help us understand what other communities have done, and to offer external and experienced viewpoints.
We organized our work into three phases: collect data, decide recommendations, and create the reports.
The data collection phase lasted about four months. During this phase, we held public outreach meetings, attended meetings of other agencies and organizations, and conducted surveys. We collected feedback from individuals and agencies in and outside of Framingham’s government. Finally, we studied the Charter article by article and created a list of our recommended changes. At the end of this phase, we had a list of almost 300 possible recommendations. We also had memos from various agencies and organizations containing over an additional 100 possible recommendations.
The recommendation decision phase lasted about five months. During this phase, we reviewed and discussed each possible recommendation. At the end of each discussion, we made a decision as to whether change should be included in the Charter, be made as a recommendation outside of the Charter, or not be acted on. During this phase, we also worked on what the language each recommendation would look like in the Charter.
The reporting phase lasted about four weeks and overlapped with the second phase. In this phase, we created this report as well as the other outputs you are receiving from this committee.
As a result of our work, we have gained a number of important perspectives. We have, of course, a strong understanding of the contents of the Charter itself. Importantly, however, we have also gained a deep understanding of the kinds of changes that the public, the employees, and volunteers in our government want. The Charter changes we are recommending to you are based on these perspectives as well as hours of research and discussion. We firmly believe that all of the recommendations we are making are vital steps to improving the efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness of Framingham’s government. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Framingham Charter Review Committee
Adam Blumer (Chair)
Susan Craighead (Vice Chair)
David Miles (Clerk)
Mary Zarrilli Connaughton
David Magnani
Antonio Gutierrez
Steve Schneider
Laura Grome
Christopher Brown
Jonna K. Rubin
Andy Limeri