A public groundswell asking for more choice in electing local officials resulted in formation of Stonington’s most recent Charter Revision Commission. On Nov. 3, voters have the opportunity to strengthen their voice by accepting the commission’s recommendations.

A petition drive largely fueled by residents disgusted with their lack of choice in electing members to the powerful Board of Finance, led to the charter commission’s formation. That commission diligently listened to residents, recommending several charter changes largely in line with what the public requested.

Voters must give thumbs up or down to the entire slate of recommendations in a single vote. It would have been preferable to see the items broken into separate questions. Yet we advocate a “yes” vote because most of the recommendations are good.

Not on that good list, however, is the recommendation for term limits for Board of Finance and Board of Education members. The Day does not support term limits.

Overshadowing this trepidation, however, is the recognition that first and foremost, Stonington must end the political party fiefdom called the Board of Finance. Under the current system, two finance board members are on the town ballot every other year, but no matter how many votes the candidates garner, they essentially are ensured election except in the extremely rare instance there is a petitioning candidate providing some competition. This gives too much power to the town’s Democratic and Republican town committees, groups that regularly struggle for membership and seldom represent the full spectrum of the town’s demographics in terms of age, gender, race and ethnicity.

The commission recommends expansion of the finance board from six to seven members to eliminate the possible need for a tie-breaking vote by the town clerk. In addition, the charter proposals reduce the finance board term from six to four years and provide that every other year voters choose three or four board members. This provides the ability for each party to nominate a full slate of candidates for every municipal election, giving voters the promise of expanded ballot choices. Staggered terms also assure some continuity on the finance board.

Charter changes cannot fix everything. Recall that the parties were given the ability to run full slates of school board candidates nearly two decades ago in Stonington, but a lack of willing volunteers and political party reluctance to foster intra-party competition among candidates, still frequently limits voter choice.

Another common sense charter proposal gives the remaining school or finance board members the ability to fill mid-term board vacancies. The authority currently falls only to the remaining board members of the same political party as the person creating the vacancy. This system too often causes unwarranted political struggles as party leaders seek to exert authority to fill vacancies.

As for term limits, the charter proposals require three-term board members to leave their posts for at least a term before being eligible to again seek election. While it’s a rare board member that serves more than three terms, we think the power to retain or dismiss board members rightfully belongs to the voters, not the charter.

Despite this one wrinkle, the preponderance of proposed charter changes are sensible and, in at least some cases, long overdue. Because the positives far outweigh the negatives, we recommend a yes vote on the charter changes on Nov. 3.