With the March 3rd vote approaching, we have received numerous letters on the proposed Newport City charter rewrite and are publishing a selection here.
Mayor Rick Ufford-Chase and Newport resident Chris Vachon make the case for voting yes, arguing the charter brings clarity, modern structure, and stronger governance, while former Mayor Charlie Pronto and Newport City resident Jay Walsh urge a NO vote, citing concerns about oversight, debt authority, and a rushed process.
Newport City Residents have a chance to set a new path forward with a vote in favor of the proposed new Charter. Please do the following:
Trust yourself and your own judgment. Go to Newportvermont.org and read the old charter and the proposed charter and then you decide.
Trust your Council – Newport City Council spent many, many hours working on the proposed charter, and their deliberations were entirely in public. They listened to residents’ concerns, they discussed every single question that was raised, and they adopted many of the suggestions.
They voted unanimously in favor of recommending this charter and they shared their reasons for doing so. Believe in Newport’s future. Please join the thoughtful members of our City Council in voting yes on Article 7.
Let’s look forward, not backward.
Let’s reach for the best in one another and work together to build the Newport we all dream of.
Rick Ufford-Chase, Mayor, City of Newport
I’m voting YES on the proposed City Charter, and I wanted to share why.
One thing that’s easy to miss in conversations about this charter is that very little of the authority people are concerned about is actually new. Most of it already exists under Vermont state statute or has long existed in practice. What the charter does is bring that authority out of scattered statutes, old charter language, ordinances, and informal custom and put it into one clear, modern document that spells out who does what and why.
I also understand that concern around this charter, for some, comes from distrust rooted in past management or past councils. History does matter, and it’s fair to carry lessons forward from it., but good governance means learning from the past without getting stuck in it. This charter isn’t about recreating old dynamics or ignoring skepticism; it’s about setting clearer expectations and structures so future councils, managers, and residents all operate with continued growth in transparency and predictability than before. Strong feelings are understandable, but when criticism closes doors instead of opening them, it’s worth asking whether the motivation is caution or comfort with the status quo.
It’s also worth noting that City Council members are part-time, elected volunteers receiving a very modest stipend. They bring judgment, oversight, and policy direction, but it’s neither realistic nor fair to expect them to perform every operational role, every day, on top of their own jobs, families and other obligations or responsibilities. A clear council-manager structure isn’t about giving power away, it’s about making sure professional day-to-day administration is handled consistently, while elected officials focus on representation, policy, and accountability.
You can support this charter and still believe in transparency, checks and balances, and strong public oversight. In fact, I’d argue this charter strengthens those things by reducing ambiguity and making responsibilities clearer for everyone while removing antiquated materials.
Thoughtful change doesn’t have to be dramatic to be worthwhile. For me, this charter is about clarity, stability, and good governance, and that’s why I’ll be voting yes.
I respect that others may see this differently, and I appreciate thoughtful discussion around it.
Chris Vachon
I have expressed my concerns below to the City Council and Mayor several times.
I want to start by saying I believe the Charter needs clarity and updating to the times. I also believe the best way to do this is adopting a new charter.
Much of the new draft that was proposed is ok, however, there are a few things that alarm me and I feel should be changed. There are also a couple of things I believe are important that were omitted or are absent.
I believe this process has been rushed and that the charter has been condensed too much. Many times, the proposed Charter simply refers to a State Statute for clarity. And many times they omitted important stuff because” it is covered by State Statutes”. We should be able to read the Charter and see the definition of a particular item or the procedure to adhere to without having to google what the State Statute is. And there are instances that the city residents may prefer to be more or less strict than a State Statute. City Charters, by law, can be more or less restrictive than and overrule the State Statute. What we are being asked to vote for is unnecessarily condensed and it does not clarify many things. That is unacceptable.
Below are my thoughts:
1- Omitting the current Charter language about the City Councils ability to get the City into a long-term debt is scary to me. The Charter needs to include a clause that requires voter approval before any debt exceeding 1 year can be incurred by The City Council. They should NOT have the ability to spend tax dollars on long term debt without voter consent. It is true that the State Statutes address this but it is also true the State Statute 24 VSA allows a council to purchase tools, equipment, construction material for highway repairs and maintenance as long as the term is not more than 5 years. That means they could buy a million-dollars’ worth (or more) of equipment without voter approval. It would also allow them to buy a fire truck (like the one we recently purchased) without voter approval as long as they financed it for only 5 years. The Statute 24 VSA also allows the City Council to borrow to retire a deficit with “refunding bonds” for the amount of a deficit and replace it with a bond to be paid off over a number of years. This could be done without voter approval. Remember, we just went through this situation folks. But our current Charter required voter approval and the new one should as well. In the wrong hands or a poor council – this could ruin the city. The new Charter “must” include a clause that “Specific voter approval at an annual or specific City Meeting for any indebtedness over 1 year .
2- We all know that all council members and especially the Mayor are drastically undercompensated. No council wants to bring up the matter of pay and seem self-serving. So, this would be a good time to address this. Perhaps set a current base and include a clause saying this amount would increase annually by the current cost of living increase.
3- Sec 301 – I believe it should say “may” instead of “shall” appoint a City manager. The new wording gives no flexibility to change managerial operation if the times seem to dictate. For instance: a council may feel appointing a HR person and a financial manage (CFO) as a team to run the city. The wording here allows no flexibility.
4- Sec 302 & Sec 303 give way too much power to a City Manager. In the wrong hands this could be harmful to the City. We have had 2 recent people in that position who would have abused this power. I also believe strongly that the City Council and Mayor should not micromanage the day-to-day operation, but they should still maintain control.
5- Sec 303 . This entire section gives a manager too much power. This position in my opinion should be an “at will” position. In the real world – no manger is given this type of leeway. It could take you a year to terminate a mistake as was made in the past. This person is not a union employee – they are a performance-based employee. Keep in mind we have had 2 poor City Mangers in the past few years. It’s not unheard of that councils can make bad choice they regret. The Charter should have a clause allowing for immediate removal for “well documented and legally justified immediate removal of the city manager for illegal activity and/or insubordination.”
6- I believe the Charter must address the fact that the water/sewer budget is paid by user fees and not from the general fund. I don’t understand why this cannot be put in. I requested this addition several time. They have decided it isn’t necessary. Keep in mind the last manager/city council misused these funds.
Remember that ALL future councils are bound by whatever Charter we vote for. It should be clear and easy to follow. It should also protect the taxpayers and residents against poor management.
FOR THESE REASON I BELIEVE WE SHOULD VOTE ” NO” ON THIS VERSION OF THE CHARTER. WE CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER.
Charlie Pronto
Former Mayor of Newport City
Vote NO on #7, Proposed City Charter
On March 3rd, Newport City voters will face Ballot Item #7 City Charter: a complete rewrite of our Newport city charter. I urge you to vote NO.
The Newport charter represents 100 years of locally enacted laws, developed and voted on by residents to govern our community. This October, our city council—most members having served less than a year—announced plans for minor updates to the charter. Three weeks later, they unveiled a total rewrite discarding all 41 existing local laws.
This rushed process by the council fundamentally changes our form of government. It shifts authority from an elected mayor to an appointed city manager, removes our right to vote on selling city properties like Prouty Beach and Gardner Park, restricts public comment at meetings, and makes citizen petitions 400% more difficult than our current charter.
Other Vermont communities spend one to two years reviewing charter changes through by charter review committees of taxpayers and council members. Our council drafted this in weeks, rejected calls from citizens for a charter committee, and simply dismissed residents’ desires. They released their ill-conceived charter rewrite right during the Thanksgiving-to-New Year’s holidays—when fewest citizens would notice or were even in town.
Most troubling: state law (17 V.S.A. § 2645) requires charter amendments to appear as individual votes on the ballot. Instead, this council says no to citizens request for individual votes, allowing us ONE “take it or leave it” vote on dozens of fundamental changes. This isn’t governance nor democracy—it’s a power grab and a violation of current law.
If you value voting rights on maintaining your voice in local government, having a voice in the sale of city property, and maintaining our rights under the current Newport charter, vote NO on #7 City Charter on Tuesday, March 3rd. A defeat of the proposed charter allows us to address charter changes properly, through a democratic process with genuine public input.
Sincerely,
Jay Walsh Newport City Resident
