The Barrington Town Council voted Monday, July 27, to send four proposed changes to the town's Financial Town Referendum rules forward for voter approval, according to the Barrington Town Council's published meeting recording. The council's resolution had to be finalized quickly: town officials said the language needed to reach the board of canvassers by August 5 to appear on a future ballot.
The Financial Town Referendum, or FTR, replaced Barrington's old town meeting format, letting residents vote by mail-ballot directly on the municipal and school budgets and propose their own budget amendments through petitions. The four questions approved Monday would change how those petitions work and how the referendum resolves competing budget proposals.
The most closely watched change would sharply lower how many signatures a resident needs to put a budget question on the ballot. Under the current charter, the threshold ranges from a single registered voter up to roughly 2,856 voters, depending on the size of the proposed budget change. The council had discussed replacing that sliding scale with a flat 250 signatures, but ultimately settled on 300, matching a recommendation from the town's Charter Review Commission, which had concluded that 300 signatures would deter frivolous petitions without making the process too burdensome.
Local sponsorWorld-class website design and custom software at a small business price.Company 50A second question would clarify how the referendum picks a winning budget: whichever version — the Committee on Appropriations' budget or an alternative proposed by petition, the council or the school committee — receives the most votes takes effect. If no alternative outpolls the Committee on Appropriations budget, that budget automatically takes effect, meaning there is no option to simply reject a budget outright. The Committee on Appropriations, known as the COA, is the town body that reviews and finalizes the municipal and school budgets before they go to voters.
A third question would limit any individual registered voter to submitting no more than one ballot question, though that single question could bundle multiple items together. A fourth would require that voter-submitted ballot questions address only the bottom-line total of the municipal or school budget, rather than proposing cuts or additions to specific line items — mirroring how the school budget is already handled under state law. After a Committee on Appropriations member asked whether that would limit the committee's own ability to review budgets line by line, the town solicitor said the restriction applies only to voter-proposed questions, and the council added that clarifying language to the resolution.
Public comment ran long and pointed. One resident who recently sought a council seat said collecting even the 50 signatures required for candidacy took days of effort, and argued that 250 or 300 signatures still sets a high bar that could discourage ordinary residents from participating; he suggested a sliding scale based on the size of the proposed change instead, and separately questioned how a single bundled ballot question could let voters weigh in if they support one part of a petition, such as a school cut, but oppose another, such as a police increase.
A resident who described running for lieutenant governor said the number of signatures actually needed is higher than the stated threshold once invalid or unregistered signers are excluded, calling the collection process "odious." He also warned that defaulting to the Committee on Appropriations budget when no alternative wins could be risky if the committee's makeup shifts toward political extremes, recalling a past year when he said members pushing for a zero percent school budget increase held out until pressured into compromise. A member of the Board of Canvassers raised a related concern: with a lower signature threshold, multiple competing budget alternatives could appear on the same ballot, meaning a budget could win with a plurality of votes rather than a majority.
The Committee on Appropriations chair and another committee member pushed back on suggestions that the panel had ignored public input on this year's budget, saying the committee had already cut more than $834,000 from the overall budget before the referendum amendments were factored in. Councilor Jancosek separately raised the idea of adding a public budget hearing where voters proposing amendments would present them directly to the Committee on Appropriations, though the council did not adopt that idea Monday and said it could be discussed with the committee separately, since it would not require a charter change.
After the town solicitor agreed to simplify the wording of the signature-threshold question for the ballot, the council approved the amended resolution by voice vote. The proposals still require voter approval before taking effect, and the council noted the questions could pass or fail independently of one another. Residents can follow the town clerk's office for the final ballot language ahead of the next Financial Town Referendum.