This month the Board of Selectmen (BOS) named members to the long-discussed and long-planned Charter Revision Commission, a body charged with recommending changes to the town’s charter, with its likely responsibilities and recommendations having evolved considerably since it was initially proposed around 18 months ago.

Madison is required by its charter to form a Charter Revision Commission at least once every decade. The last one completed its work in 2015, though proposed changes were rejected at referendum.

Former first selectman Tom Banisch approved a charge for a commission in September 2019, but no members were ever named to that body after Peggy Lyons won the first selectman job that November. Lyons re-imagined the charter review as a more in-depth, two-step procedure in which a government study committee would look at more fundamental or structural changes to the charter, and the revision commission would in some ways carry on the study committee’s work.

Formed almost exactly a year ago but interrupted by the pandemic, the Ad-hoc Government Study Committee didn’t deliver a final report until last fall, and did not offer any concrete recommendations or a consensus view on whether Madison needed larger changes to its government structure.

Now, the Charter Revision Commission is looking more like it will take its own deliberative, possibly more moderate path, with three of the seven members, including the chair, being former Madison selectmen. the members are Joseph MacDougald (chair), Liz Daly, Matthew Gordon, Noreen Kokoruda, Robert O’Connor, David Osterman, and Joan Walker.

Though the commission has only met twice so far, Noreen Kokoruda, who also served four terms as a state representative for District 101 along with multiple terms as a selectman, said she is anticipating a thorough process with people who will look at both the big picture and the smaller details, who aren’t coming into the room with an agenda.

“The process is so important. Part of the job of the charter revision is really just cleaning it up,” Kokoruda said. “We’ve done that stuff over the years...I think we have a great cross-section [on the commission], and I do feel in this day of Zoom we have an opportunity maybe to get more public input than we’ve had before.”

The Government Study Committee performed some public outreach and held a handful of public hearings but did not receive an overwhelming response. A somewhat informal survey drew varied responses from about 100 residents, with many unhappy with some of the decision making about town meetings, budgets, and overall communication.

Kokoruda said that while she didn’t think anyone was ruling out larger changes like altering the length of selectmen terms or even moving toward a different form of government, she believes a lot of people are happy with the basic structure and function of Madison.

“When people are opposed, are upset about something...they show up,” Kokoruda said. “The bigger issue is if they have the information whether or not to be happy about it.”

With the town meeting form of government, Madison’s legislative body is technically whoever shows up to town meetings. If there is not a quorum at a town meeting, which is required for many government functions such as land sales or transfers, the initiative put forth by the BOS passes by default.

The Government Study Committee found there had only been two quorums met at town meetings in the last decade, though Kokoruda said this lack of participation could very easily be interpreted as satisfaction rather than apathy, with people trusting their officials.

“If something’s broken in our town, we should fix it,” Kokoruda said. “But the question is, is it broken? In Hartford, people look at Madison as an example as a well-run town.”

As far as smaller changes, Kokoruda said it wouldn’t take more than clarifying language or erasing contradictions to fix other problems. She cited some ambiguity between the jurisdiction of the BOS and the Board of Finance, which has caused conflicts, specifically one issue several years where a land purchase near the senior center had both boards vying for control.

“That’s the kind of stuff where you really want to know whose responsibility it is. And then you start to see this little tug-of-war,” Kokoruda said. “And it has nothing to do with party. We had people from the same party on those two boards not agreeing with each other. So the charter should have helped them. The charter should have been their tool.”

According to state statute, the commission must hold a public hearing before doing any “substantive” work. The commission’s charge requires it to submit any revisions to the BOS before the end of the year.