CLAREMONT — In defiance of state law, the City Council rejected a motion this week to put a citizen-proposed charter amendment before voters, despite the city clerk informing the council that the law requires it to do so.

If approved by voters, the amendment would give citizens the power to propose an ordinance and — after collecting the required number of signatures — present it to the City Council. If the council did not adopt it, the ordinance would go to a voter referendum.

It was drafted by residents Mike Tetu and Sam Killay and signed by 247 residents. Both the offices of the Secretary of State and Attorney General signed off on the amendment. According to state law, budget adoption and land use regulations are excluded from ordinances proposed by citizens.

Councilors who spoke before the vote made it clear they opposed giving residents the power to draft ordinances.

“I don’t like it,” Wayne Hemingway, who voted against the motion to place the charter amendment on the ballot, said at Wednesday’s meeting. “I think it sets us up for some problems.”

Also voting no were councilors Nick Koloski, Joel Tremblay, William Limoges, Spencer Batchelder and Andrew O’Hearne.

Assistant Mayor Deb Matteau, Mayor Dale Girard and Councilor Jonathan Hayden voted yes.

O’Hearne voted for reconsideration.

The councilors’ opinion of the change should not have factored into the vote on Wednesday, City Clerk Gwen Melcher said.

“Your job tonight is to put it on the ballot,” she said.

Melcher read a letter from the city’s attorney quoting the relevant state law that states the council “shall” put the amendment to a vote: “Within 7 days after the public hearing, the municipal officers shall file with the municipal clerk a report containing the proposed petitioned amendment and shall order the proposed amendment to be placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election.”

A reconsideration of the failed motion lost 5-4.

Matteau also did not like the amendment. She said the current system of elected councilors to conduct city business works and if residents do not like council decisions, they can have someone else run.

Still, Matteau acknowledged the law requires the council to move the amendment to the ballot.

“We don’t have a choice,” she said. “The law says it goes to a ballot vote.”

Girard said he proposed the reconsideration because he thought most of the council would understand they have to follow the law.

“At the end of the day we have to give them the opportunity to vote on this,” Girard said Thursday.

Tetu, the only person to speak during the public hearing Wednesday, said it took a lot of work to collect the signatures and have the ordinance language approved by the state.

He dismissed concerns of “frivolous” ordinance proposals.

“Serious, well-thought-out efforts will come from this,” Tetu said.

Koloski said he feared proposed ordinances could become costly “unfunded mandates” and would go on the ballot with just 200 signatures.

Under the charter change, a proposed ordinance would need to be signed by 10% of the registered voters who voted in the most recent municipal election.

Koloski warned that people could present an ordinance to make the community center free or change Pleasant Street back to two-way traffic with no way to pay for those changes.

“I feel this could be detrimental,” Koloski said.

Hayden said the amendment would give residents a voice.

“This is for our citizens to put something on the ballot,” Hayden said.

Though just 200 people could sign a proposed ordinance, Hayden noted, the entire community still would vote on whether to pass it.

Though told several times the council must place the charter amendment on the ballot, Koloski and other councilors refused to comply with state law — which they swore to uphold when taking their oath of office — until they heard directly from legal counsel.

Melcher explained that the council could hold workshops and public hearings on the charter amendment prior to the vote so the public understands its implication, but the vote to put the proposal on the ballot needs to be approved.

“Legal counsel is not here because the language is very specific,” City Manager Yoshi Manale said. “It says the council must (put it on the ballot).”

After the vote, Melcher said she would have to contact the city’s attorney about whether council approval is still needed before the amendment goes to voters in the next municipal election in November 2025.

In an email late Thursday afternoon, the New Hampshire Department of Justice said it was aware that the City Council did not follow the law.

“Although the City Council did not do so, the Election Law Unit’s understanding is that the City will work to correct this matter prior to the next City election in November of 2025. If the City does not do so, the Election Law Unit may consider seeking judicial review under RSA 49-B:10,” the email from Michael S. Garrity, a spokesman for the DOJ, stated.

The email also said the proper procedure was followed by supporters of the charter amendment and the City Council was “required to submit the proposed charter amendment to the voters at the next regular municipal election or at a special municipal election.”

Outside council chambers after the vote on Wednesday, Killay expressed disbelief and said the council’s vote to ignore the wishes of voters confirmed to him that the amendment he has been working on since 2022 needs to pass.

“The absolute arrogance,” Killay said of the council’s refusal to put the matter to voters.

Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.