TIVERTON — The tortuous deliberations of the Charter Review Commission during the last year have exposed a deep divide in the people’s willingness to finance town government — or to let go of the time-honored principle of direct democracy in the process.

The split in opinion is such that even the chairman of the Charter Review Commission says he doesn’t believe voters will approve any change to the annual Financial Town Meeting, despite the clear signal they sent at the polls two years ago that they wanted an alternative.

Two commission members, Frank Marshall and Richard Joslin, have bemoaned the lack of consensus on the nine-member panel, elected last July by just a few hundred voters in town.

The Town Council will at least move forward with a public hearing next Monday on a Charter Review Commission recommendation that an all-day referendum replace the annual Financial Town Meeting.

Another alternative, proposed by Town Council member Brian Medeiros, would delegate the Town Council with budget-setting authority.

A third plan, put forward by council member Joanne Arruda, would simply move the Financial Town Meeting from a Wednesday evening to a Saturday.

The Charter Review Commission would limit the authority of the Budget Committee in that it could not add money to fiscal proposals once they are approved by the Town Council or the School Committee.

And it would put pressure on operating revenues by requiring that the town’s unrestricted general fund be increased from 3 to 5 percent of the annual budget over the next eight years.

The fund would not be permitted to dip below 3 percent of annual operating costs at any time except in a state of emergency, and then only if three quarters of the electorate approves.

In other recommendations, the commission would limit the power of the Town Council in two ways.

Voter approval would be required of any decision to sell town-owned land, apart from property in the town Industrial Park.

And the commission would vest the appointed town administrator with the sole authority to hire and Fire Department heads.

If such a provision had been in effect last year, the council could not have reversed the decision of former town administrator W. Glenn Steckman III to fire Police Chief Thomas Blakey.

THE DIVISION in the community over alternatives to the Financial Town Meeting mirrors the tug between elected officials and so-called “anti-tax” voters, who in May tried to cut nearly $2 million from the Budget Committee’s recommendation for the fiscal year that began July 1.

The Town Council, the School Committee, and the chairman of the Budget Committee warned that the reductions would cripple the town financially, not allowing it to meet its legal obligations.

After a week’s recess in the meeting, the position of the elected officials won enough support to restore all but $100,000 to the original sum.

Since then, the Charter Review Commission has completed yearlong deliberations, putting forth its version of an all-day referendum.

In the event voters reject the Budget Committee’s recommendation, the town could raise the tax levy by no more than 4 percent, or the consumer price index at the time, whichever is less, according to the proposal.

There would be no exceptions to that rule, not even to make up for unexpected losses in outside revenues or to meet debt, as the Budget Committee had recommended in May.

The Charter Review Commission’s proposal received such a chilly reception that the commission amended the final language to allow for a special referendum in case voters initially reject the Budget Committee’s recommendations.

But Town Council president Louise Durfee says the final language is flawed because it does not provide for any finality to the budget process, allowing an “endless override.”

Two members of the Charter Review Commission, Laura Epke and Deborah Pallasch, had proposed a charter amendment that would move the town beyond direct democracy by granting the Town Council the authority to set the budget.

While the majority of the commission did not endorse that proposal, council member Brian Medeiros plucked that idea, tweaked it, and has offered it as an alternative to the all-day referendum.

Medeiros’ proposal would allow a minimum of 5 percent of the electorate to petition for a referendum to override the council vote.

The petition must clearly state the alternatives to the council’s figures, according to the proposal, the same as one approved handily by voters in neighboring Portsmouth last November.

In that town, there was backlash against a divisive special Town Meeting in 2006 in which the taxpayer group Portsmouth Concerned Citizens engineered a cut of about $1.7 million to the school and municipal budget then in effect.

HERE, THE CHARTER Commission first came up with the idea of a Grand Committee of elected officials representing the Town Council, School Committee and Budget Committee to decide the budget.

But Leonard, the chairman, said the idea was discarded because of reluctance to let go of direct democracy.

In the last seven or eight years, he said, voters have rejected two proposals to turn over the budget-making authority to the Town Council, Leonard said.

Because there was no widespread support on the commission for any one alternative, commission member Frank Marshall suggested that the panel forego making any recommendation. But that idea never even came to a vote.

Leonard said that the commission was bound to fulfill the charge of voters, who clearly said in 2006 that they wanted to see an alternative to the Financial Town Meeting.

Not that the members of the commission were elected by a broad mandate.

In a town of about 10,000 voters, 229 cast ballots. Of the nine commission members, six ran for office and three were write-in candidates.

Town Council members have indicated that, while they generally favor having a public hearing on the commission’s recommended alternative to the Financial Town Meeting, they are not enthusiastic about placing the question on the ballot.

Leonard, who says he doesn’t believe voters will go for a change, nevertheless is making an issue of the council’s authority to decide what questions will be on the ballot — or not.

He said the voters who called for a Charter Review Commission should decide whether to accept or reject the results of the deliberation.

Town Solicitor Andrew M. Teitz, however, said the council’s authority to set the language on the ballot flows from the Rhode Island Constitution.

The Constitution is not crystal clear, he said, but it has been the practice for many years for town councils in Rhode Island to decide what questions will appear on the ballot.

gmacris@projo.com