Charter Revision or Charter Amendment?
(from Maine Townsman, "Legal Notes," May 1982)
By William Livengood, MMA’s Director of Legal Services

This Maine Municipal Association publication is presented for "Classroom Use Only."  Its intended use is to stimulate and aid in discussion and role playing within a classroom setting.

Please Note: Despite this article’s original publication date, it remains a valid resource on the relevant subject matter. Recent cases and statutory changes are footnoted to reflect current law. (8/98)

Question: What is the difference between a charter revision and a charter amendment?

Answer: The provisions of Title 30 MRSA Sections 1911-1920 (Home Rule)[Now found at 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2101-2109.], provide two separate and distinct procedures for change of a municipal charter. Section 1912[Now Section 2102.] relating to "charter revisions" requires the establishment of a charter commission, while Section 1914[Now Section 2104.] relating to "charter amendments" does not. Unfortunately, no distinction is made in the statute itself between these two concepts, nor are there any reported Maine cases which define these two terms. For these reasons, one must resort to the generally accepted meanings of these two terms and presumed legislative intent in order to determine which procedure is applicable to any given situation.

Obviously, both "revision" and amendment" connote change; any distinction between the two must be based upon the degree of change contemplated. In the case of Kelly v. Laing, 242 N. W. 891 259 Mich 212, the Supreme Court of Michigan made the following comparison of the two terms:

"Revision" and "amendment" have the common characteristics of working changes in the charter, and are sometimes used in exactly the same sense but there is an essential difference between them.

"Revision" implies a reexamination of the whole law and a redraft without obligation to maintain the form, scheme, or structure of the old. As applied to fundamental law, such as a constitution or charter, it suggests a convention to examine the whole subject and to prepare and submit a new instrument whether the desired changes from the old are few or many. Amendment implies continuance of the general plan and purpose of the law, with corrections to better accomplish its purpose. Basically, revision suggests fundamental change, while amendment is a correction of detail.

Although there is some authority which indicates that a change in a city's form of government may be accomplished by a process of "amendment," the cases which so hold seem to involve statutes which only distinguish between amendment and totally new charters. State v. Orange [Tex. x. Civ. App.] 300 SW 2d 705, People v. Perkins 137 P. 55. However, as in Maine law, where the statute authorizing the changes distinguishes between "charter amendment" and "charter revision," it has been held that "(a) change in the form of government of a home rule city may be made only by revision of the city charter not by its amendment." City of Midland v Arbury 38 Mich App. 771, 197 N.W. 2d 134.

City of Midland v. Arbury involved a situation in which the change sought consisted of the addition of the appointed city manager to the list of officers subject to removal by popular vote. When reviewing the vote which accepted this change as an "amendment" the court reasoned that:

. . . if the proposed change only amends, alters, or improves within the lines of the original charter, it is an amendment and the passage by the city electorate was valid. But, if the proposed change totally disrupts, cancels, abrogates, or makes inoperable the original charter, it is a revision and the amendment procedure and vote is subject to reversal.

Because the effect of the proposed "amendment" in the Arbury case was to change the fundamental professional administrator concept of the Commissioner-City Manager form of government, the court held that "revision" procedures should have been followed, and declared the vote void.

In summary, it would seem that any major change in governmental form and scheme would probably be interpreted as a charter revision and should be achieved through the more thorough process of deliberation afforded by establishment of a charter commission under 30 MRSA § 1912[30-A M.R.S.A. § 2102].

Since the process chosen (revision or amendment) may effect the legality of a charter change, the 110th Legislature recently enacted P.L. 1982 c. 687 to provide that persons petitioning for a charter "amendment" under 30 MRSA § 1914[30-A M.R.S.A. § 2104], may include language in the petition which requires that the petition be treated as a request for a charter commission if the municipal officers. . . " determine, with the advice of an attorney, that the proposed amendment would constitute a revision of the charter." The intent of this statute is to avoid the frustration which petitioners might experience if their requested change proves to be more fundamental than they had envisioned.